« I Guess It Depends On Whose Ox Is Being Pitchforked... | Main | Andrew Klavan Conducts a Guided Tour of MSM Objectivity »

Skool Daze

One aspect of the new ObamaCare bill that puzzled me at first was the inclusion of a measure that puts the entire student loan program into the hands of the government, and takes it away from the private banks. My first thought was that it was a way to get the government a nice, steady stream of income (student loans tend to be, generally, profitable) to help cover the astronomical costs of ObamaCare. But then a deeper, more sinister explanation started wiggling around in the back of my head.

Mind you, it's merely a theory. I don't even know if I believe it myself. But it does tend to hang together fairly well, so it's good as entertainment if nothing else.

America's colleges are, by and large,bastions of liberalism. They tend to turn out well-indoctrinated young liberals at a pretty consistent rate. they are the "breeding grounds" of future liberal leaders.

But over the past few decades, the cost of a college degree has been soaring -- outstripping the rate of inflation. So while more and more emphasis is given on the value of a college degree, the costs (for reasons I've never adequately seen explained) of said education pushes it farther and farther out of people's reach.

(Yes, there's one simple explanation: supply and demand. The costs keep going up because they can; the schools are finding that just charging "whatever the market will bear" is exceptionally profitable. But colleges are suppposed to be above such crass, flawed commercialism, so there has to be another explanation.)

So, forget about why college is getting more expensive. Let's instead look at how the problems it causes are being addressed.

Education, as we are all told, is a right. A right right up through high school. But the value of that "basic" education has been so devalued, that it's hard to imagine any decent person making a living on just a diploma. No, they need a degree if they don't want to end up among the proles.

So more and more families are doing whatever they can to get their kids into college. And they are piling up more and more debt in doing so, in hopes that the kids will get good-enough paying jobs to pay off that debt -- and then start saving up to send their kids through even more expensive colleges. It's a vicious generational cycle.

In the past few years, some politicians (especially Democrats) have pushed for programs to let college graduates retire that debt through alternate means -- usually public service. This is most common in the medical fields, but it's also quite popular for officers in the military -- we'll pay for your degree if you give us eight or so years of uniformed service afterward.

The talk now is of expanding that, to open more avenues of public service for college graduates to barter away their debt.

Under the existing system, this creates some hefty paperwork. When the graduates in question have loans from banks, the government has to "buy" those loans first, then retire them.

However, if the government is the issuing body for all student loans, then it's just a matter of a few clicks of the mouse. Johnny Smith's $80,000 he owes the Federal Student Loan Fund just gets deleted, and no money need change hands.

Now here's where it gets sinister.

People are used to thinking of stuff they get from the government as an entitlement. If the government gives me something, it's something I deserve. And if I grow dependent on that, then there will be hell to pay should it get cut off.

With all student loans being administered by the government, then -- slowly and subtly -- the notion that the loans are an entitlement. That everyone is entitled to a college education, with the government picking up the tab.

And if the government is willing to write off those debts for public service, then a public service job is a right, too. After all, how the hell else are these new college graduates supposed to handle five or six figures worth of debt?

So, with this one subtle move, the liberals have created a whole new "right" to spend four years in the hotbeds of liberal indoctrination, and then get a job on the public payroll, being good little government workers (probably union members, too).

And come election time, which way will they vote? I feel comfortable in predicting that most of these people who got their college education for free and their government jobs thanks to the Democrats will repay that with their votes.

But what on earth will we do with all these new government employees, you ask? Well, the IRS is gonna need over 16,000 new employees just to handle enforcing the mandatory health insurance requirement. And back during his campaign, President Obama said "(W)e've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military.That's gonna take a lot of warm bodies, too.

Like I said, just a theory. Just a notion. Just some thoughts that have no proof whatsoever, but explain the known facts.

But as a wise man once said, "it's never a question of if you're being paranoid. It's a question of if you're being paranoid enough."


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/38604.

Comments (13)

Barry can mandate away all ... (Below threshold)
914:

Barry can mandate away all day long if he wants but I sure as hell am not paying a damn dime into his sick health system. I may need healthcare very soon though cause Im sick to death of these liberals and thier intrusion into every aspect of our lives.

RE: "People are used to thi... (Below threshold)
kevino:

RE: "People are used to thinking of stuff they get from the government as an entitlement."

But government doesn't make anything. It gets the money to pay these entitlements by taking it from other people. And that's where the thousands of new IRS agents and the civilian paramilitary group comes in.

Jay:Absolutely bri... (Below threshold)
Patrick:

Jay:

Absolutely brilliant deductions on your part. Are you sure you don't have a copy of their playbook? I can just about guarantee that this is the reason they want the government to take over the student loan program. This gives the federal government an unbelievable amount of leverage over those who owe them money.

Before you know it, they'll... (Below threshold)
Cindermutha:

Before you know it, they'll be telling you what you can study in order to even receive these loans.

Underwritten - you mean lik... (Below threshold)
Clancy:

Underwritten - you mean like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwritten?

Please bryanD, limit your comments to stuff you understand.

Banks issue the loans. Banks make money on the interest of those loans. They are 'underwritten' by the government to the extent that the Gov't does not allow them to be easily discharged which limits most of the risk thereby making their relatively low margin possible.

The Gov't take-over for all loans to Direct was sold as a way for the Gov't to 'make' the same money the banks are making. Of course, to do this they have all but condemned the private loan market to death, eliminating god knows how many jobs, and anyone foolish enough to believe the gov't can make money doing anything has no working knowledge of the government (or is just plain delusional).

Jay, you want to know why t... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Jay, you want to know why tuition goes up so much in excess of the growth of the economy or the rate of inflation? I give you the state colleges and universities.

Ok, you probably want some explanation as well. Imagine you're on the BOD of some Ivy League School, and Larry Summers hasn't been playing "screw the indicators, I know I'm right" with your endowment investments. Your "product", and Ivy League diploma is highly valued. Much more highly valued than a state college diploma, and you probably have a number for that.

So whatever the state colleges cost, multiply by your number and that's the ballpark for your tuition. Note I said "ballpark" because that number will be adjusted to account for whatever add-on you feel are justified predicated on special circumstances.

So your starting point is those state colleges. Institutions run by states, whose legislatures use college/university tuition as part of the number that makes up the State's general fund. State legislatures like to throw all money into the general fund, they hate seeing money going into a specific fund where it can only be spent for certain particular projects.

What happens when states need to close budget shortfalls? Taxes go up, fees go up, and tuition at state schools go up. It's the rare state indeed when spending in actually reduced.

Yes, there are other drivers in the equation, but it all starts with the state schools.

The World According to Me, section 26. This is a free preview of the course. No credit attends to this preview.

If the central planners hol... (Below threshold)

If the central planners hold the purse strings, what's to keep them from saying to any individual, "No. We already have our quota in your specialty, but we can give you a loan to take up a different specialty of our choosing!"?

We really do need to raise ... (Below threshold)
Tsar Nicholas II:

We really do need to raise the minimum voting age.

Then again, the one saving grace is that most liberal college and grad students literally are too stupid to vote.

Bryan, I need to know where... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Bryan, I need to know where you live so I can protect you from dangerous conservatives when the revolution starts. I know there are plenty of people here who believe you should be subject to a post natal abortion.

In Kalifornia, part of the ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

In Kalifornia, part of the reason for higher costs is that 'you have to pay the best in order to get the brightest'.

But they don't mention the 'perks'. Like getting a $450,000 mortgage at 2%, thanks to the CSU system. Can't have those snappy professors living in a $250,000 house, or contend with other COMMON PEOPLE in trying to secure a lender. Just keep it all neat and tidy inside the system. Don't forget the full salary sabbaticals every few years either. Can't have that high-priced talent wear out too soon. Even thought 80-90% of their classes are taught by other student instructors. When I was going, one high paid "published" professor NEVER taught one class. The entire semester was with a student instructor.

Oh, forgot to mention. "Pr... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Oh, forgot to mention. "Profits" in this new government venture will be directed to MINORITY SCHOOLS. Go figure.

And I thought "profits" were EVIL.

Nice to know that if you go into 'government', your school debit will be canceled. How's that going to work? Four or six years of school, out working for 'the government for 10 years to qualify'. So does that mean you make no payments for those 10 years? No interest piles up during those 10 years? After you 'qualify' the government 'scrubs the debit'? ISN'T THAT THEN AN ACCOUNTING LOSS?

Jay, I think there... (Below threshold)

Jay,

I think there's something more insidious going on here. During the campaign Obama or one of his minions promised guaranteed college education for all in exchange for an unspecfied amount of public service.

When asked whether military service would count, the answer was yes but that several months of "civilian training" prior to the military would be required to qualify for the education subsidy.

It was a scary statement because it implied these could be indoctrination camps. The whole idea of a "civilian national security force" and the expansion of Americorps brings thoughts of brownshirts.

November can't come soon enough.

Corky Boyd, you are absolut... (Below threshold)
Kathy from Kansas:

Corky Boyd, you are absolutely right, and I am amazed that so few people seem to remember the connection between college funding and the "civilian national security force" that Obama made during the campaign.

Then again, part of the commies' whole strategy is to keep throwing stuff at us so fast and furiously that as we race to put out every new fire they start, inevitably some of the earlier ones slip out of our awareness.

As for your closing comment, we can only hope that between now and November there will not be a terrorist attack, economic collapse or any other crisis that could cause massive social chaos and provide an excuse for the imposition of martial law, which would preclude elections. I think Obama and his minions are itching for absolute power at the point of a gun. If we are lucky enough to actually have elections, I hope there is some chance that they won't be stolen via massive fraud.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy