The Corner

Education

‘Free’ College Is a Terrible Idea. Here’s a Better One.

(File photo: Charles Mostoller/Reuters)

The Washington Post reported over the weekend that President Trump is “demanding aides present a plan to tackle student debt and the rising cost of a college education, worried that he has no response to expansive plans from Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats he may face on the ballot next year.” They cited unnamed “administration officials,” so take it with a grain of salt. The story claims that that, inside the White House, the president’s anxieties are boiling over, for fear that Warren may have a populist upper hand on him, with her promise to forgive federal loans for graduates earning under $100,000 per year, with phased-out forgiveness for those earning between $100,000 and $250,000.

Perhaps the bigger populist promise of a would-be president Warren is the commitment to make all public college “free.” I don’t know if the president really is sweating over his need to compete with this proposal, but I do know that it would not be easy to compete on a populist terrain with someone who was promising “free” college and the complete absolution of debt one freely took on.

But if the Post’s reports are true, the president does have a point that it could be politically dangerous to offer no solution at all in the realm of higher-education costs. Does POTUS have an opportunity here to counter a catastrophic policy proposal with a substantive counterproposal that truly moves the needle in unexpected ways? Indeed, rather than trying to play catch-up with a leftist in giving away money, a complete reframing of the conversation is the need (and opportunity) of the hour.

In my new book on Elizabeth Warren’s policy portfolio, I dedicate an entire chapter to the idea of forgiving debt for college graduates. It is a highly regressive idea that, if put into effect, would reward those of statistically higher income-generation potential more than those whose life circumstances may prohibit college entirely. Offering “free” college in the form of a federal subsidy to states would invite a frightening statist intervention into higher education. This would be a true example of something that theoretically can’t get worse that actually gets worse. Warren’s ideas are unaffordable (why let that bother anyone now?), unfair, immoral, impractical, and counterproductive.

But if you can’t beat something with nothing, and Warren has something, then President Trump may not win on this issue by saying nothing. The fundamental reason for the explosive amount of student debt over the past ten years is — wait for it — the explosive costs of college education. And the explosive costs of college education are a direct by-product of — wait for it — the access to unlimited federal loans. In other words, the easiest way to deal with “explosive student debt” is — follow me here – to stop giving it out.

I will lose far too many of you if I end there, as the instinctive response of “well, that then cuts off the entire next generation from accessing college!” is fair enough. But of course, the determination that the federal government will no longer serve as enabler-in-chief to university administrators who have absolutely no decency or sense in controlling costs would not end people’s access to college. The president has the opportunity to present two ideas that would shock the nation in their obvious sensibility.

1) Removing the unquestioned and unlimited supply of federal funding devoid of underwriting would set off the most dramatic price competition in history, as universities would be forced to define value, secure customers, differentiate, and compete. Breaking down the wall of indiscriminate funding would create price discovery and encourage students to reflect on what they expect out of college, why they are going, and what they want to accomplish. We would see a real cost-benefit analysis (like the kind grown-ups perform all the time). Schools would reply by competing over price, let alone value, something the infinite pool of federal loan dollars has made wholly unnecessary.

2) A policy proposal centered around dis-intermediating the $21-trillion-indebted federal government from being college lender-in-chief would, actually, open the floodgates for creative and competitive college-funding solutions. An entire marketplace for income-share agreements is currently jarred up, waiting to burst out and innovate not only the way costs (which will decline) are met for college but also the income productivity of college graduates. Employer-paid tuition assistance for graduate students would also see entirely new life, as competition for talent would intensify.

The entire subject certainly warrants more exhaustive treatment than I’m offering here. But if Trump feels pressured to offer something better on higher-ed costs than the populist progressive playbook of Warren and Sanders, he could shock the country with the boldest policy transformation of his presidency.

If one is earnestly concerned about the crisis of responsibility that is our current college-debt fiasco, nothing would move the needle more than tackling runaway cost escalations. And nothing would move the needle more than incentivizing innovation in college funding. This movement toward better decision-making, greater productivity, and less burdensome debt financing would be a potent populist counterpunch and a legacy even the president’s critics would admire.

 

David L. Bahnsen is the managing partner of a wealth-management firm, a trustee of the National Review Institute, and author of the book, Crisis of Responsibility: Our Cultural Addiction to Blame and How You Can Cure It.

Most Popular

Law & the Courts

The March for Life Is a March for Truth

Pro-lifers are marching today, as they do every year, to commemorate a great evil that was done in January 1973 and to express solidarity with its innocent victims. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade eliminated legal protections for unborn children in all 50 states, and did so without any ... Read More
Law & the Courts

The March for Life Is a March for Truth

Pro-lifers are marching today, as they do every year, to commemorate a great evil that was done in January 1973 and to express solidarity with its innocent victims. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade eliminated legal protections for unborn children in all 50 states, and did so without any ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Clarence Thomas Speaks

Those who know Justice Clarence Thomas say that any perception of him as dour or phlegmatic couldn't be more off-base. He's a charming, gracious, jovial man, full of bonhomie and easy with a laugh, or so I'm told by people who know him well. On summer breaks he likes to roam around the country in an RV and stay ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Clarence Thomas Speaks

Those who know Justice Clarence Thomas say that any perception of him as dour or phlegmatic couldn't be more off-base. He's a charming, gracious, jovial man, full of bonhomie and easy with a laugh, or so I'm told by people who know him well. On summer breaks he likes to roam around the country in an RV and stay ... Read More
White House

On the Bidens, Schiff Opened the Door

You opened the door. Trial lawyers live in fear of that phrase. When a trial starts, both sides know what the allegations are. Both have had enough discovery to know what the adversary will try to prove. Just as significantly, both know what their own vulnerabilities are. A litigator spends his pretrial ... Read More
White House

On the Bidens, Schiff Opened the Door

You opened the door. Trial lawyers live in fear of that phrase. When a trial starts, both sides know what the allegations are. Both have had enough discovery to know what the adversary will try to prove. Just as significantly, both know what their own vulnerabilities are. A litigator spends his pretrial ... Read More
U.S.

Nadler’s Folly

Jerry Nadler must have missed the day in law school where they teach you about persuasion. The House Democrat made a critical error early in the trial of President Trump. He didn’t just say that Republican senators, who voted to begin the proceedings without calling witnesses, were part of a cover-up. He said ... Read More
U.S.

Nadler’s Folly

Jerry Nadler must have missed the day in law school where they teach you about persuasion. The House Democrat made a critical error early in the trial of President Trump. He didn’t just say that Republican senators, who voted to begin the proceedings without calling witnesses, were part of a cover-up. He said ... Read More
Science & Tech

The Latest Pandemic Threat

I’m worried about the new coronavirus that has broken out in China and spread, albeit as of now in isolated cases, to other countries. Fortunately, the CDC has assessed that the risk of a major outbreak in the United States is low. I hope the risk is indeed low, because the stakes are very high, particularly ... Read More
Science & Tech

The Latest Pandemic Threat

I’m worried about the new coronavirus that has broken out in China and spread, albeit as of now in isolated cases, to other countries. Fortunately, the CDC has assessed that the risk of a major outbreak in the United States is low. I hope the risk is indeed low, because the stakes are very high, particularly ... Read More