HOUSE BILL: The HELIOS Act (At Final Vote)

[NeverAgain]

Rather than a GPA scale, why not make it like current Pell Grants and support a EFC (Expected Family Contribution), along with a work schedule requirement?

Debt-Free Proposals, like that of Democratic Primary Hillary Clinton's, hinged on a contingent on a 10-week student work schedule and a family contribution. I worry that in the pursuit of solidifying education as a right (which I believe it to be), we make it so that it is taken for granted.

Adding these requirements lower the cost of the proposal to about $300B (about $25B in FY 2018-2019). Note: this sum ALSO includes a graduated refinancing of all student loans to a 0.5% interest rate. This is not only a much more manageable sum, but means we can lower the tax burden required to pay for this proposal. As our student debt crisis is a major problem, so is our national debt and weak economic growth. Let us not rob Peter to pay Paul, and instead find solutions that work to solve both crises. I would strongly urge this body to take this under consideration.

Thank you.

[NeverAgain]

Yeah, CBO says a VAT does about 18B for .5%.

Funnily enough, a .1% FTT would bring in about 18-19B according to EPI/Progressive Budget.

The problem with CBO is that about 1/4 of the revenue would not be seen in FY 2018 (for us, in Atlasia, is Jan. to Dec., I believe) whereas for the US, it's October to September. Along with administrative timing shifts, of which we don't have to face here, puts the likely actual total to $24B (which corresponds to the later developments in new revenue.

[NeverAgain]

Has the GM office released cost estimates on this? I would find it preferable to know how much money needs to be raised before implementing a funding mechanism.

The analysis is here, but I guess I am a bit confused on what it means. Was Thumb saying that INCLUDING the revenue measures, this bill will cost $10B, or without them. I would assume the former - but would love Thumb to clarify my ignorance.

[NeverAgain]

Maybe I am just looking at this wrongheadedly, but Sestak, isn't the eligibility already defined in Section II, Subsection 1? Maybe I don't understand the purpose of the amendment.

But, even so, while I agree this should be targeted at the students who most need it and who are academically responsible (although I prefer no tuition free, and just make a more subsidized version of Pell Grants, still with an EFC, and a 10-week student work schedule so that the cost imposed on the students and families is manageable without them having to take out loans, or at least no where near the extent to which they are taken out now), the use of Standardized Tests worries me.

I can give you 100 reasons on why standardized tests are no measure of academic responsibility, intelligence, nor readiness for the college and university level (nor do they value creativity, diversity, the socio-economic issues), but I'll give you an anecdote from my school. One of my good friends, who is not as let's say academically "focused" as I am, has a GPA of 2.3 or 2.4, does none of his homework, and shows up to class late every day. He just took the SATs and got a near-perfect 1550. Now compare that to the hundreds of thousands of kids who do the reverse, are focused academically, etc. and get a 1200 or 1300. The point is, if we are to limit eligibility based on an academic measure, make it GPA, along with extracurricular achievement, and then commitment to a 10 hour a week work schedule. To me that shows more about that individual than a one-day standardized test ever could.

In summary, I just want to clarify if this is changing the current eligibility that is currently in Sec. 2 Subsec. 1 at $120,000 to $40,000, and then adding a GPA + SAT/ACT requirement as well.

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gotcha, so its just setting additional standards for those $40,000 - $120,000. Apologies, I am slow boi.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that may be an issue, but my worry is that messing up on a test one time will determine the possibility of thousands of dollars in grants for their future education, which could mean the education itself. Many students whose parents are making over the $40,000 limit, may not have access to the SAT/ACT prep, nor the time to drive kids to and from there. I see no reason why this should be the determinant for whether or not a student is able to obtain funding for their education. The disparities caused by these tests are the reason many have moved away from it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what? If they are doing a service for themselves or others, what does it matter if that's done for personal benefit or resumé-building? I do things because I want to do them, but it also is nice to add them to the list of what I have already done. The issue of helicopter parenting is separate to extracurriculars (or resumé-building), whereas these are not interests of the student, they are forced on them by parents. That's not going to change whether or not you have extracurriculars as a focus, which I think adds depth to character, rather than just academic or psuedo-academic achievement.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this is only perpetuated with the inclusion of standardized tests into how we fund high education tuition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly my worry - that's why standardized testing shouldn't be included with how we judge eligibility for grants.

For this matter, I think GPA requirements are also at issue, as you mentioned with GPA hacking. The goal should be supporting where the kids are going and what they will do, not just what they have done (and may not have been successful with). And that's why I support the Expected Family Contribution aspect of Pell Grants, combine that with a 10 hour work requirement, I think that those would really allow the kinds of students that are deserving of this program to gain the education they deserve as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not sure what "the keys to federal funding" means? We already give out many Federal grants, so there is tremendous precedent, if that's what you are discussing.

[NeverAgain]

Okay, so Sestak and I have been tirelessly working to draft up new legislation. I will not personally have the time to write it up until tomorrow evening (college tours, finals, HW, etc.). But here is the outline we are working with.

FOR REGULAR STUDENTS (2ND GENERATION STUDENT OR BEYOND) -

FOR 1ST GENERATION COLLEGE STUDENTS -

Also we should add that in order to qualify, states would need to increase investment in higher education over time, and universities would have to prove that the funds were going towards instruction rather than secondary aims like athletics.

Just to summarize the plan:
 - $65 billion to provide two years of tuition-free community college
 - $180 billion to provide grants to regions and public universities for tuition free and
 subsidized tuition programs
 - $20 billion to support for private institutions that help underserved students, such as
 minorities,
 - $30 billion to allow existing student loans to be refinanced at lower rates (0.5%
 interest rate for all who took student loans before May 2018)
 - $40 billion to grow the AmeriCorps and PeaceCorps program and expand the education
 benefits for participating, along with first generation to go to college persons (tuition free, with expanded subsidy as seen with Figure 2)
 - $.3 billion towards expanding teacher grants and programs
TOTAL: $335.3B over ten years

We still have a few disagreements over work or volunteering requirements.

Sestak has proposed expanding the subsidy based on if the student is willing to work, meanwhile I have been pretty adamant about achieving some sort of per-month hourly work or volunteer requiem, with an opt-out option (after being reviewed) that such a requirement will be an undue hardship to the student. I would love to hear everyone's thoughts here before we put it into law.

I will note that the previous incarnation would cost upwards of 550-600B. Our reforms cut that in almost half, while preserving the progressivity of the program, expanding subsidies to needy students, increase the membership of socially beneficial roles like Americorps and teaching, decrease student loan interest rates for those who don't currently benefit from this program, and help out universities and educational organizations serving historically disadvantaged individuals and groups.

Now the piecemeal system currently proposed to pay for this legislation will be gone, as I see it.

My plan, as I have discussed with Madigan and Transit, along with Lumine is to enact a 0.02% FTT (raising 404.9 billion 2018-2027, with $36.4B being raised in FY 2018) of which will pay for this bill, the High Speed Rail Bill (which is 36B over ten years), along with the school safety bill (which I have analyzed from my own non-analytical background guesstimated to be around $.75-$1B in 2018 so like around $9-12B).

Any thoughts or suggestions would be great before I start writing tomorrow and Friday. Exciting stuff, y'all!

[NeverAgain]

Time has gotten away from me, my apologies everyone! Will have this bill, along with my responses to other bills up tomorrow. I apologize for any inconvinience!

[NeverAgain]

Time has gotten away from me, my apologies everyone! Will have this bill, along with my responses to other bills up tomorrow. I apologize for any inconvinience!

I have not forgotten! Sestak and I are finishing a discussion about this, and once he gets back with me I will finish writing it. Tuesday night is College for All Night!

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I propose this as an amendment.

[NeverAgain]

I realize Rep. NeverAgain has ran his own numbers on funding, but I'd like to request a review of this by Thumb, just to be sure that it's fully funded.

I would be more than happy to share my sources for the funding. I get about 400B (2018-2027) and then this bill will be a bit underbudget - I budgeted to be almost exactly $300B over 10 years, instead of $340B I had said earlier. So there will be an additional $100B (over ten years) in the CAF12 of which should be able to pay for the School Safety Act and the High Speed Rail, and still have at least $40B (over 10 years) for Deficit Reduction.

[NeverAgain]

The Deputy Speaker's question is a critical one, can we have some clarification as to the honorable members intent regarding the amendment, specifically.

Not sure if this is intended at me, as Sestak's question was to DFW, but I can surely answer. The goals were to: 1. Find a more sustainable and progressive formula for the subsidy. 2. Increase funding for HBCUs and other educational places which help disadvantaged groups 3. Expand benefits to those paying student debt (lowering the interest rate) 4. FULLY FUND THE BILL (and others). 5. Ensure transparency in tuition subsidies 6. Encourage real-world experiences through volunteering or gainful employment.

[NeverAgain]

Does anyone have any questions before we move to a final vote?

[NeverAgain]

Does anyone have any questions before we move to a final vote?

I just wanted to ask how Student Loan Refinancing would work/be changed under this bill, that's the one aspect I have a question on. (Even though I'm not in the house I still want to ask this now rather than later )

Basically if you have taken two or more Federal Student Loans, they will be consolidated into one Federal Direct Consolidation Loan, which shall have an interest rate no greater than 3%.

[NeverAgain]

Strong Aye! With the reforms Sestak and I made I think we have made a great bill for the Atlasian People.