Potential Democratic US presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday unveiled her response to the US$1.3 trillion student loan crisis with a plan to make university tuition affordable enough that young people might someday be able to attend it debt free.
Although Clinton’s college spending targets are not as far reaching as her Democratic presidential opponents, with one group calling them “bait” for liberal voters, her plan has already received endorsements from progressive activists that pushed the formerly fringe ambition of zero-debt higher education to the forefront of her mainstream campaign.
Her proposal, which is estimated to cost about US$350 billion over 10 years, would provide grants to US states that make their public four-year university and college courses affordable enough so that students do not have to take out loans to attend. The plan also includes refinancing options for students already saddled with massive debt.
Illustration: Mountain People
The so-called “college compact” also includes about US$175 billion in grants that would go to states that ensure students can afford public four-year university and college courses without taking out loans. States would have to stop divesting — during the recession many states reduced their spending on higher education — and increase spending on higher education.
Clinton is expected to formally introduce the plan during a campaign event in New Hampshire, where students paid an average of US$14,712 in tuition and fees — the highest in the US — to attend in-state universities there last year and this year, according to the US College Board.
The former secretary of state had been leading a campaign focused heavily on personal contact with potential voters, many of them students and families concerned with the high costs of education. In addition to hearing from US citizens who would be impacted directly, Clinton’s team has consulted widely on student debt, including the staff for the progressive US Senator Elizabeth Warren.
“There’s something wrong when students and their families have to go deeply into debt to be able to get the education and skills they need in order to make the best of their own lives,” Clinton told an audience at an Iowa community college in April.
However, in the months since, progressive outsiders have successfully pushed, or at least nudged, Clinton to the left.
Many groups had expressed hopes that Clinton would roll out a proposal for full-on debt-free college — not just tuition — such as the sweeping plans already proposed by US Senator Bernie Sanders and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley.
Clinton’s plan still expects families to cover part of their tuition costs through savings or loans. Under her plan, military veterans, lower-income students and 250,000 members of programs like AmeriCorps would attend college tuition-free.
Other parents would still have to cover part of the costs for their children’s schooling.
Even though it did not go as far as they hoped, leading debt-free groups lauded Clinton’s detailed proposal as a groundswell for an issue long ignored by the Washington mainstream.
“Hillary Clinton’s plan is very big and ambitious — leading to debt-free college and increased economic opportunity for millions of Americans,” Progressive Change Campaign Committee cofounder Adam Green said.
“The center of gravity on higher education has shifted from tinkering with interest rates to making college debt-free, and Clinton’s bold proposal is emblematic of the rising economic populist tide in American politics,” he said.
StrikeDebt, the Occupy movement’s offshoot that has forgiven millions in student debt, was less forgiving.
“Hillary Clinton’s plan on student debt is designed to win votes and never become law,” the group posted on Twitter after details of Clinton’s proposal leaked on Sunday.
“It’s bait and nothing more. Don’t take the bait,” it said.
In May, Sanders introduced a US Senate bill that would eliminate tuition at four-year public colleges and universities, which is estimated to cost US$70 billion per year. Two-thirds of the cost would be covered by the federal government and one-third would be covered by the states, according to the Sanders campaign.
O’Malley has come out in favor of striking down student debts and has told his supporters that “every student should be able to go to college debt free.”
His plan would help all people refinance their student loans, tie minimum payments to incomes, freeze public tuition rates, tie tuition rates to median incomes and help low and middle-income students cover non-tuition costs.
O’Malley’s campaign has yet to put a price tag on his plan and did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Clinton’s proposal, which puts most of the burden on colleges, would cost US$350 billion over a 10-year-period. Under her plan, colleges have to maintain costs, improve graduation rates and those colleges whose graduates cannot repay their loans would face penalties.
Weeks before the details of Clinton’s plan were announced, Green expressed the hope that Clinton would push for debt-free college.
“Bigger is better. Bigger is more popular,” Green told the Guardian in May. “Debt free at all public colleges is the game changer.”
One of the ways that Clinton plans to tackle costs other than tuition is by allowing students to use the total of their Pell Grants for living expenses.
Asked whether he thought Clinton’s proposal had gone far enough, Green told the Guardian on Monday that: “This is a proposal of debt-free college for millions of Americans. Very bold and ambitious.”
While Clinton’s plan might be more manageable than the Sanders agenda, it might still not turn into law. The Republican-held US Congress has made little progress on US President Barack Obama’s proposals for free community college, which costs US$60 billion.
On the right, former Florida governor Jeb Bush was quick to condemn Clinton’s plan as “irresponsible.”
“We don’t need more top-down Washington solutions that will raise the cost of college even further and shift the burden to hardworking taxpayers,” Bush said.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS