Most People Don't Think College Is Affordable

The charts above are from the Morning Consult Poll -- done on August 27th and 28th of a nationwide sample of 4,420 adults, with a 1 point margin of error. 

Public Says College Is Important But Not Affordable

The charts above are from the Gallup Poll -- done between October 19th and November 22nd of a national sample of 11,227 adults, with a sampling error of 2 points or less for all groups. 

It shows that 44% think a college education is more important today than in the past, but only 30% have access to a quality and affordable college.

Hillary Clinton's 8-Point Plan To Help The Middle Class

(This photo Of Hillary Clinton is by Amanda Robinson at hillaryclinton.com.)

Thanks to the Republican "trickle-down" policy and austerity they have imposed, the middle class in the United States is shrinking -- and as a percentage of workers, grows smaller with each passing year. It is obvious to anyone that cares about people that something must be done.

Hillary Clinton has a plan to help the middle class. It's not a pie-in-the-sky dream, but a real plan that would help American workers and stop middle class shrinkage. Here is what she proposes to do:

1. Cut middle-class taxes.

Hillary is proposing middle-class tax breaks to help families cope with the rising cost of everyday expenses, like child care and education- and she’s announced new tax credits to help families caring for an ill or aging family member. She’ll pay for them by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans and closing loopholes in our tax code.

2. Make college affordable.

We can lift American incomes by making quality education attainable for everyone. Under Hillary’s college plan, students won’t have to take out loans for tuition or books at in-state public colleges and universities, and Americans with student loan debt will be able to refinance their loans at a lower rate.

3. Raise the minimum wage.

At $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum wage isn’t nearly enough to make ends meet. Americans who work 40 hours per week at the minimum wage earn just $15,080 a year—below the poverty threshold for a family of two or more. That’s why Hillary wants to raise the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour—and why she supports city and state efforts to raise their own minimum wage even higher.

4. Support unions.

Hillary believes unions are critical to a strong economy—and key to a strong middle class. That’s why she is fighting to protect collective bargaining rights and strengthen America’s labor movement.

5. Rebuild our infrastructure.

Hillary’s $275 billion plan will not only repair America’s roads and bridges, build world-class airports, and expand internet access—it will also create good-paying, middle-class jobs in the construction, building, and transportation industries.

6. Boost manufacturing jobs.

Manufacturing is a vital source of good-paying jobs in our economy. Hillary’s plan will spur reinvestment in communities that have lost manufacturing jobs and give more support to small manufacturers and start-ups.

7. Invest in clean energy.

Renewable energy one of America’s fastest growing industries. Hillary launched two bold national goals to make the United States the world’s clean energy superpower and create new jobs in areas like wind and solar.

8. Lower child care costs.

In many states, child care is more expensive than college tuition, putting families in an impossible position. Along with guaranteeing paid family leave, Hillary wants to make it so that no family has to spend more than 10 percent of its income on child care.

Hillary Clinton's Plan To Lower College Cost For Students

(Photo of Hillary Clinton is by Kat Kane at hillaryclinton.com.)

From hillaryclinton.com:

“We need to make a quality education affordable and available to everyone willing to work for it, without saddling them with decades of debt.”

HILLARY, AUGUST 10, 2015

Here’s what every student and family should expect under Hillary’s plan: 

Costs won't be a barrier.

• Students should never have to borrow to pay for tuition, books, and fees to attend a four-year public college in their state under the New College Compact. Pell Grants are not included in the calculation of no-debt-tuition, so Pell recipients will be able to use their grants fully for living expenses. Students at community college will receive free tuition. 
• Students will do their part by contributing their earnings from working 10 hours a week.
• Families will do their part by making an affordable and realistic family contribution.
• The federal government will make a major investment in the New College Compact by providing grants to states that commit to these goals, and by cutting interest rates on loans.
• States will have to step up and meet their obligation to invest in higher education by maintaining current levels of higher education funding and reinvesting over time.
• Colleges and universities will be accountable for improving outcomes and controlling costs to ensure that tuition is affordable and that students who invest in college leave with a degree.
• We will encourage innovators who design imaginative new ways of providing a valuable college education to students—while cracking down on abusive practices that burden students with debt without value.
• A $25 billion fund will support HBCUs, HSIs, and other MSIs serving a high percentage of Pell Grant recipients to help lower the cost of attendance and improve student outcomes at low-cost, modest-endowment nonprofit private schools.

College Football Drives Up The Cost Of A College Education

When colleges first started playing football, it was just one of many extracurricular activities -- and it was played by true student athletes. And perhaps most important, the football programs did not drain college budgets and take from the main purpose of a college -- to educate students.

That is no longer true. College football is now a big business, and it takes an enormous amount of money to maintain a viable football program -- especially in the major college programs in the NCAA.

The common argument to justify the huge expenditure to maintain a college football program is that the programs make money -- money that can be used to help the college in other areas. That is simply not true. Only a few programs actually make money, while the huge majority lose money. And this loss is paid for too many times by cuts in other programs (including academic programs).

We live in a time when the cost of a college education is high, and that cost is preventing many students from having access to a college education -- and that hurts the overall health of our nation and its economy. It is a valid question now to ask -- has college football priced itself to high to continue? Can we justify continuing this program that sucks money from colleges, and causes them to raise their prices for all students?

Consider this excellent article written by Lindsay Gibbs for Think Progress:

Drexel University has 18 Division I varsity sports teams, but football isn’t one of them. And university president John A. Fry thinks other schools should follow suit.

“At Drexel we recognize the benefits of sports but are not burdened by the distractions that come with maintaining a football program,” Fry wrote in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal on Sunday. “Drexel hasn’t fielded a team since 1973 when administrators realized its budget burden.”

Fry cites statistics from a Huffington Post report in November that highlights how much money universities are pouring into athletics, often at the expense of students. The study found that in the last five years, public universities have pumped more than $10.3 billion in mandatory student fees and other subsidies into athletics, with nearly 130 athletic departments relying on subsidies for over half of their revenue.

“Many universities are demanding that their students pay more to support sports at the same time they are raising tuition, forcing many students to take out bigger loans to pay the bill,” Fry said. He specifically cited the College of William & Mary, where students were charged an athletic fee of $1,500 for the 2014-15 school year.

Fry also spoke out against the exorbitant salaries that are now standard for big-time college football coaches — the Huffington Post study found that between 2006-2012, the median pay for NCAA Division I football coaches rose 93 percent, while the median pay for professors rose only 4 percent. And, despite perception, those salaries aren’t turning directly into revenue for the university.

In many states the highest-paid state employee is the head coach of the state university football or basketball team. University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban made $7.2 million last year, about 50 times more than the average pay of a full-time professor. But at least his team returned some revenue to the university.

That is unusual: A NCAA study last year found that only 20 of the nearly 130 university athletic programs in the top-flight Football Bowl Subdivision enjoyed a positive operating margin. The average loss was $17.6 million. These athletic programs wouldn’t survive in the private economy and only function by “taxing” the rest of the university.

Football programs on all levels have been under the microscope lately, particularly due to concern over injuries. This fall, as numerous deaths were reported on high-school football fields across the country, the football program at Camden Hills Regional High School shut down after four students were injured in one game. There have also been calls for youth football programs to be shut downas more information comes out about the connection between football and chronic brain damage.

But in his editorial, Fry is more concerned about the excessive spending and the corruption surrounding college football than the on-the-field issues. A recent USA Today report found that in 2014, the schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision of the NCAA spent $3.1 million on facility graphics data work and visual accessories work just to enhance the look of their stadiums. This number is up from an average of $500,000 per year from 2007 to 2010. And a Washington Postreport from last week revealed that the non-coaching payrolls at the top athletic departments in the country have risen 69 percent in the last decade. Fry writes that the millions being sunk into athletics increases the pressure for success and causes schools to “compromise academic integrity.”

Of course, as these millions are being spent on support staffs and visuals, the players remain unpaid amateurs. Fry doesn’t think that ending amateurism will fix college football, however — he thinks a free market for college athletics would lead to an “Armageddon” and “exacerbate the financial pressure on universities.” 

“Not having a football program turns out to be a major strategic advantage for Drexel,” Fry concluded. “Our student athletes in other sports win conference championships; many of our teams are nationally ranked. Our Division I athletic programs create a strong sense of pride on campus. But we focus entirely and exclusively on our mission: delivering a high-quality education for all students. More universities should feel welcome to join us.”

----------------------------------------------------------------

Here, from the Business Insider, is what the top 25 college football coaches are paid -- far more than any professor or teacher in the academic area:

1. Nick Saban (Alabama) - $7.09 million

2. Jim Harbaugh (Michigan) - $7 million

3. Urban Meyer (Ohio State) - $5.86 million

4. Bob Stoops (Oklahoma) - $5.4 million

5. Jimbo Fisher (Florida State) - $5.15 million

6. Charlie Strong (Texas) - $5.1 million

7. Kevin Sumlin (Texas A&M) - $5 million

8. James Franklin (Penn State) - $4.4 million

9. Les Miles (Louisiana State) - $4.39 million

10. Hugh Freeze (Mississippi) - $4.31 million

11. Dan Mullen (Mississippi State) - $4.28 million

12. Art Briles (Baylor) - $4.24 million

13. Mark Richt (Georgia) - $4.12 million

14. Gus Malzahn (Auburn) - $4.1 million

15. Kirk Ferentz (Iowa) - $4.08 million

16. Gary Pinkel (Missouri) - $4.02 million

17. Jim McElwain (Florida) - $3.98 million

18. Bret Bielema (Arkansas) - $3.96 million

19. Gary Patterson (TCU) - $3.94 million

20. Mark Dantonio (Michigan State) - $3.67 million

21. Mike Gundy (Oklahoma State) - $3.65 million

22. Butch Jones (Tennessee) - $3.63 million

23. Chris Peterson (Washington) - $3.4 million

24. Jim Mora (UCLA) - $3.35 million

25. Dabs Swinney (Clemson) - $3.31 million

The Real Solutions For Our Economic Woes

(Image was found at weknowmemes.com.)

Americans like to believe they live in the greatest country in the world. That may or may not be true, but this country does have many problems -- both economic and social. Those problems are solvable, but sadly, too many of our politicians don't see (or don't want to see) the solutions. They are too invested in keeping things as they are, and protecting the rich and corporations -- and that just insures that the problems continue to grow worse.

Here are a few things that I think need to be done to solve the economic problems:

* We must raise the minimum wage. No one who has to work for a minimum wage can lead a decent life, because the current minimum wage is a poverty wage. And this is a problem that is growing worse. Not only do these workers fall further behind with each passing day, but by 2020 a full quarter of the jobs will be low wage jobs. That is insanity. We cannot have a quarter of all workers living in poverty. Anyone willing to work hard should make a livable wage.

I personally believe the minimum wage should be raised to $15.00 an hour, but under no circumstance should it be less than $10.00 and hour (and it should be tied to the rate of inflation, so it doesn't instantly start losing buying power again).

* We must strengthen our labor unions, and make it easier for workers to create unions and join them. And we must make a higher education more accessible. The two things that created the large middle class in this country are unions and colleges. Now unions are being attacked (through both law and right-wing propaganda) and membership is dropping as a percentage of workers -- and college is being priced out of reach for far too many people. This is causing the middle class to shrink.

We must change this. No capitalist country can survive without a large and prosperous middle class. And it can only be saved by providing an easy and affordable access to higher education, and giving unions the power they need to make sure workers get their fair share in rising productivity.

* We must fix our tax system. Americans decided long ago that a progressive tax system was the fair way to go -- that those who make the most should pay the most. But that is no longer true. Today, the richest people effectively pay a smaller share of their income than many in the middle class pay, and many very profitable corporations pay no taxes at all. We must eliminate the loopholes, subsidies, and other shenanigans that the rich and corporations use to evade paying their fair share of taxes.

* We need to fix Social Security. It is not going broke, and will be around when young people today retire in the future, but it does have a funding problem. Fortunately that is a problem that can easily be fixed -- and can be fixed without cutting benefits or raising the retirement age. All that needs to be done is to raise the cap on payroll (FICA) taxes. The cap should be raised significantly, or even eliminated. This would not affect most workers at all (who already pay the full percentage), but would make the rich pay the same percentage as the working pass pays. That is imminently fair, and would fully fund Social Security far into the future.

It would also provide the funding to raise Social Security benefits. Before Social Security was created, about 50% of the senior population lived in poverty. Social Security reduced that to around 10%. But now more seniors are sliding into poverty because Social Security benefits aren't keeping up with the cost of living. For instance, this year there was no benefit raise. That was because the cost of gasoline fell sharply. Unfortunately, seniors don't use gas as much as before they retired, and their real costs (food, medicine, housing, clothes, etc.) have all risen.

* We need to eliminate the tax that rewards corporations for shipping good American jobs to low-wage foreign countries. We may not be able to completely stop corporations from stealing American jobs and giving them to people they can economically abuse in other countries, but it is insane to reward them with tax breaks for doing it. And while we're at it, we should put a fat excise tax on the products of corporations who move to other countries to avoid our taxes.

* We need to institute a tighter rein on Wall Street and the giant banks. They should not be allowed to gamble with the money of consumers, and they should not be allowed to peddle worthless financial products -- and if they do, those that run those corporations should be jailed. And those who make their money playing the stock market should be taxed at the same rate as working Americans -- by eliminating the special capital gains tax, and taxing all income as earned income.

* We should lower the federal deficit and national debt -- and do that without cutting federal programs that help our least fortunate citizens. We could do that by passing a tiny tax on all stocks traded (something like 0.5%). That would bring in an incredible amount to our federal treasury without hurting anyone.

You may notice that I did not say anything about creating new jobs. That's because if all of the above was done, there would be a huge boost to the economy and all the jobs we need would automatically be created.

Let me add one more thing. We must elect a Democratic president and Democratic Congress this year. None of the above can be done as long as the Republicans remain in power -- because they oppose all of those measures.

Most Americans Want College Made Affordable For Students

A college education used to be affordable in this country, especially at public colleges and universities. That's because states kept tuition low by providing a lot of the funding to those institutions -- and the federal government provided grants and low interest loans for students needing it.

That is no longer true. In many states, the Republicans removed the caps on tuition and cut the funding for colleges and universities. This forced colleges to raise tuition to cover those cuts, and that tuition has kept rising. They also freed banks to charge high interest rates for college loans, and made sure the grants (like Pell Grants) did not keep up with the rising costs.

This has had a very negative result on the affordability of a college education. It has gotten so bad that only two groups can easily afford college -- the children of upper middle class parents, and the children of rich parents. All others now have a very difficult (if not impossible) time trying to afford to go to college -- and many students now finish college with a huge amount of debt (that forces them to put off staring a family, buying a home, etc.).

This is not only bad for those students, but it is also bad for our economy -- because they are able to buy things to boost the economy or pay higher taxes thanks to their education, because they must spend a lot of their income trying to pay back the exorbitant loans.

Other countries are smarter than our government when it comes to helping students get a college education. They provide free tuition to students. They know that is cost-effective, because when those students graduate they will make higher wages and pay higher taxes -- and the government will get back more in higher taxes than it spent to help educate those students. The American government is not smart enough to see that. They want to make going to college a business where profits are made -- and that makes college unaffordable to many students (and puts others in deep debt).

Both of the leading Democratic presidential candidates understand this -- and both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have plans to help reduce the cost of a college education. And it looks like the American people might also be finally understanding that college is costing too much, and that hurts the country. Note the charts above.

Those charts were made from a recent YouGov Poll -- done on August 11th and 12th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, and has a 4.1 point margin of error. It shows that most people don't think students (or their families) should have to borrow to pay college tuition. They also don't think either the state or the federal government does enough to help make college affordable. And perhaps most important, they think tuition at public colleges and universities should be free.

The Democrats are on the right side of this issue.

Hillary Releases Plan To Help Students With College Cost

(This photo of Hillary Clinton is from cnn.com.)

Hillary Clinton has announced a plan to help students afford to go to college. It's a good plan, and would definitely help. Here is how NBC News describes her plan:

By closing undisclosed tax loopholes on the wealthy, Clinton plans to raise $350 billion over 10 years to invest in higher education. Of that, more than half would be used for grants to states, public universities, and non-profit colleges that keep costs low for students and meet several other requirements.

Another third of the money would go towards debt relief for students. Clinton’s plan would allow every American who owes money to the government to refinance their loans at today’s historically low interest rate. And she’d cut future borrowing costs by preventing the government from making a profit on loans to students.

The remainder of the money would fund innovative education models.

Clinton would also expand and streamline income-based repayment options, so borrowers would never have to pay more than 10% of their income. After 20 years, their remaining debt would be automatically forgiven if they kept up with payments. Pell Grants would help pay for living expenses beyond tuition.

Student borrowers would be expected to work at least 10 hours a week to contribute, while their families would continue contributing under the current income-based model. Clinton’s plan would also expand a tax credit from $1,000 to $2,500 for families paying for college.

And to protect borrowers, her campaign says she would create a Borrower Bill of Rights and task the Elizabeth Warren-created Consumer Finance Protection Bureau with monitoring loans.

Clinton’s plan also cracks down on for-profit colleges in a number of ways, including by eliminating the so-called 90-10 loophole, which leads many for-profit college to prey on veterans. . .

Her campaign says she will create a dedicated fund for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and will expand AmeriCorps from 75,000 to 250,000 members.

Higher Education Is Available To All (That Can Afford It)

The United States has one of the best higher education systems in the world, and combined with programs like the G.I. Bill and National Defense Student Loan, it (along with strong unions) helped to produce a vibrant and growing middle class in this country. It is also the reason why students from all over the world come to this country to get a college education.

But the Republicans are changing that. By deregulating college tuition (and other costs), and by creating a high interest loan program (instead of free tuition programs) to cover the rising college costs they caused, they are making college unaffordable for far too many students -- and that (along with a serious weakening of unions) is contributing to a shrinking middle class in this country.

The Gallup Poll recently did a survey of Americans on the higher education system in this country. That survey was done in November and December of 2014 of a random national sample of 1,533 adults, and had a margin of error of 3.3 points. That survey contained both good and bad news.

The good news (top chart) is that Americans believe higher education is available to all students who need it. But that is tempered by the bad news (bottom chart). While most Americans (61%) believe that college is available to everyone, an even larger percentage (79%) say college is no longer affordable to a large and growing segment of students who need it.

The really sad part of this is that paying for a student's college education by the government is a cost-effective exercise (something the Republicans claim to believe in). It is just a fact that those students who get a college education will pay far more in increased taxes on their increased incomes over their working lives than the cost of providing them a free education. That is why other developed countries do this -- and it is why the United States should be doing it.

Unfortunately, current Republicans don't have the capacity to think in the long rage. They just want to make money off providing loans to students at an inflated rate. This not only brings in less money for the government in the long term, but it also keeps many students from being able to go to college (because they can no longer afford it) -- and that hurts our society, both now and in the future.

President Obama has proposed free tuition for students in community colleges. That's a good step, but it doesn't go far enough. The government should provide free tuition in all public colleges and universities.

Public Likes Obama's Free Community College Proposal

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama proposed making tuition free for two years of community college. John Boehner has already declared the idea dead, without even discussing it in Congress. It's just more of the GOP's automatic opposition to anything the president proposes. They will try to claim the country can't afford it, but that is just an excuse. They government will get much more back in taxes off the increased income of the graduates than it would spend giving the free tuition.

But there is another aspect the Republicans would do well to consider. They are once again taking a position in opposition to what the American public wants. Nearly half of all Americans (46%) know someone who is capable of doing college work and has the desire to go to college, but cannot do so because they can't afford it. And a whopping 68% of Americans like the president's proposal, and want to see it implemented. They know it would improve the country overall, and would help people to climb the ladder to success.

The Republicans are already on the opposite side of the fence of the American public on raising the minimum wage, protecting Social Security and Medicare, repealing Obamacare, raising taxes for the rich, making corporations pay their share of taxes, letting the rich buy elections, lowering the wealth/income gap, cleaning up the environment, providing funding for alternate energy development, and the exporting of good American jobs. They really don't need another issue to disagree with the public on -- but they can't seem to help themselves.

Another aspect of this that I find interesting is that the public, while they support the president's plan, don't think it goes far enough. About 55% would like the program to be applied not just to community colleges, but also to 4-year colleges. I agree.

These charts reflect the numbers in a recent YouGov Poll -- done between January 10th and 12th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults (with a margin of error of about 4 points).

Growth Of And Need For College Student Loans (20 Years)

The Pew Research Center has compiled information on student borrowing for college over the last twenty year. They got their information from the National Center for Education Statistics. As college has become more expensive, more students are graduating with student loan debt -- and that includes large segments of both genders and all income groups. The charts below show this growth.

It's Time To Offer A Free College Education To Qualified Students In The United States

Regular readers of this blog will know that I am in favor of the government providing free college tuition to students who qualify for college admission. Other countries do it because they know it benefits them -- providing a more educated workforce, giving people a way to better themselves, and providing more revenues for government (through the higher taxes educated people pay on their higher incomes). In other words, it is good for everyone -- students, society, and government.

Germany has just realized this, and recently passed a law providing free tuition for college students. But here in the United States, we do just the opposite. College costs go up every year, making college unaffordable for many poor and working class students (and even some from the lower middle class), and students who try to overcome this by borrowing to pay for their education find themselves deeply in debt upon graduation -- forcing them to spend years paying off that debt, instead of actually bettering themselves (getting married, buying homes, investing, establishing retirement accounts, etc.). Currently, Americans owe more than $1.2 trillion in student loan debt.

It is time the United States realized that providing free tuition for college students would be cost-effective for government (since we would easily recoup the cost their the higher taxes graduates would pay), and would help to reduce the growing economic inequality in this country (by providing an easy way for students to climb the economic ladder).

The Republicans tell us we can't afford to provide free tuition for college students. That is just not true. We would get far more back in increased tax revenues than we would spend providing the free tuition. And if money was needed to start the program, that could be provided by using part of a "Robin Hood" tax (a small tax on Wall Street stock market trades). We can afford it, and it would put this country back on a competitive footing with countries that already do it.

And one of Texas' leading progressives agrees with me. Here's what Jim Hightower has to say about this issue on his excellent blog:

Question: Is making higher education available to every American more important to our national interest than letting Wall Street profiteers make a few more billions-of-dollars each year?

Answer: Of course. Yet, our political leaders – pushed by Wall Street lobbyists – have been making the opposite choice for years. As a result, banksters have loaded students down with a mountain of high-interest loans, rising from just over $2 billion a decade ago to nearly a trillion last year. Worse, the financiers – either banks or government lenders – have become the gatekeepers of advanced education, shutting out thousands of young people wanting to get ahead, but not able to hurdle the formidable financial barrier.

This is enormously costly to America – and completely unnecessary. The smart choice – as we learned from the GI Bill after World War II – would be to make college and professional training free. Universal access to higher education – ie, free access – produces a very high return on the public's investment, while also producing widely-shared prosperity and a broadly educated citizenry.

Of course, an up-front investment in a smarter, more productive, more democratic civilization is pricey. So where do we get the money to do what America needs? Get it from where it went. Wall Street's superrich speculators are now making millions of super-fast, robotic financial transactions per second, generating trillions of dollars a year for them – but producing nothing of real value for us, while distorting and endangering markets.

Put a tiny tax on each of those automated gambles by speculators, and more than enough money will come into the public coffers to free-up higher-ed for all. For information, check out United States Students Association: www.usstudents.org.

Is Race A Factor In GOP Blocking Student Loan Relief ?

I would like to think that race is not a factor in loan debt relief for college students, but the GOP has made it clear that much of their party's policies, especially since the election of President Obama, is decided by the large racist element in their party (commonly called the "tea party"). These teabaggers like the idea that their party is primarily made up of Whites, and they have made sure their elected representatives don't vote for racial or ethnic parity.

It only makes sense then that these same racial views might be affecting the GOP's opposition to letting college students refinance their loans at a lower rate -- especially when you look at the charts above. Those charts show that, while a growing percentage of both Whites and Blacks are finding college unaffordable with loans, both historically and currently Blacks need those loans more than Whites (and usually need bigger loans than Whites).

Traditionally, education has been a great equalizer in the United States. Both poor people and minorities have been able to use education to climb the economic ladder to better themselves and their children. But that only works when those people can afford to get that education -- and get it without incurring an enormous debt. Unfortunately, that is no longer true for too many Americans -- and it affects Blacks more than it does Whites (and the poor and working class more than the rich or upper middle class).

We could partially solve this problem by lowering the interest rates on education loans, and letting those with those loans refinance them at the lower rate. But the Republicans have blocked that. They have done it to protect the exorbitant profits of Wall Street banks -- but after looking at these numbers, I have to wonder if there is not also a racial element to their action. Is this just one more way to preserve power for rich Whites?

The charts above were made from a recent Gallup Poll. That survey was done between February 4th and March 7th of a random sample of 29,560 adults with a Bachelor's degree or more. The survey has a 1 point margin of error because of the large sample.

Warren Blasts GOP For Blocking Student Loan Bill

We have known for a while now that the congressional GOP is in favor of passing only two kinds of bills -- bills that cuts taxes for the rich and corporations, and bills that funnel more money into the corporate pockets of the military-industrial complex. But something the GOP doesn't want to do is pass a bill that helps ordinary Americans, especially if that bill might take a bit of cash out of corporate hands (like the Wall Street banks).

The Republicans showed this once again last week, when they blocked a bill in the Senate that would have allowed college students to refinance their college loans at a smaller interest rate. This would have reduced the amount they had to pay back and reduced the time it would take them to pay off those loans -- allowing them to get on with their lives and begin to build up their own wealth much sooner (which would benefit the nation as a whole).

But it would also have cut some money from the exorbitant interest rates charged by the giant Wall Street banks -- and the Republicans couldn't have that. They have filibustered the bill, and last week upheld that filibuster to keep the bill from getting a vote on the Senate floor. In other words, they chose to protect the abnormally large bank profits over helping millions of students.

That has angered the bill's sponsor, Senator Elizabeth Warren (whose caricature above is by DonkeyHotey) -- and she is blasting the excuses those Republicans are giving the voters on why they blocked that bill. Sen. Warren says:

The excuses have started. Once again, the Republicans blocked a vote on our student loans bill – and now that they are about to head home to face voters, they are pouring out the excuses.

Excuse #1:  Some Republicans say that the benefit of letting people refinance their student loans is too small. Too small? Tell that to young people with 8%, 10%, even 12% interest rates (and higher on some of the private loans). They could save hundreds – or even thousands – of dollars on their excessive student loan payments each year.

But if the Republicans really think the benefit of the bill is too small, I'll call their bluff. I'm all for finding ways to give our students an even bigger break.

Excuse #2:  Some Republicans say that the $1.2 trillion in outstanding student loan debt just isn't a big deal – that we should be focused on the rising costs of college instead. Yes, the rising cost of college is a terrible problem – and we need to stop it – but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything for the millions of people who already went to school and are being crushed by debt.

But if the Republicans really want to do more, I'll call their bluff. Let's work together to do even more to help our students. I'm ready.

Excuse #3:  Some Republicans don't like that the bill is paid for by closing the tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires and making them pay their fair share.

But if the Republicans' only problem with the bill is how it's paid for, I'll call their bluff. If they have ideas on other ways to pay for it, we're eager to listen.

Excuse #4:  Some Republicans – including Mitch McConnell – went so far as to say that Democrats don't really want this bill to pass. Really? That's just plain ridiculous. Only in Washington can you vote against something, and then when it doesn't pass, blame the people who voted for it.

Excuses. Excuses. But they don't fool anyone. They don't fool each of you who signed our petitions, made phone calls, posted on Facebook and tweeted asking for a vote.

This isn't complicated. It's a choice – a choice that raises a fundamental question about who the United States Senate works for. Does it work for those who can hire armies of lawyers and lobbyists to protect tax loopholes for billionaires and profits for the big banks? Or does it work for those who work hard, play by the rules, and are trying to build a future for themselves and their families?

This fight isn't over. Millions of Americans are getting crushed in student loan debt, while the rich and powerful hang on tight to their tax loopholes. When the choice is between billionaires and students, I know which side I'm on, and I'm going to keep hitting back.

Government Could Afford To Give Free Tuition To Students

(The image above is of the West Texas A&M campus -- the closest public university to my own home in Amarillo.)

I have said many times on this blog that I think the government should pay the college tuition for students who want to go to college (and have shown they have the ability to do so). It would not only keep students from having to create a huge debt to get a college degree (this delaying by many years their ability to benefit from that degree), but it would also be cost-effective for the government (because the higher taxes paid on the higher incomes would far outstrip the money used to help  students get their degrees.

I think too many politicians aren't looking at the long-term benefits, and too many taxpayers have been deluded into believing the government could not afford to give students free tuition. But it could be done -- and should be done. And a recent post over at Think Progress by Bryce Covert shows how it could be done. Here is part of that post:

There’s a way for everyone to get a free college education, however. The government could take the $69 billion it already spends to subsidize the cost of a college education through grants, tax breaks, and work-study funding and simply cover the $63 billion tuition spent at public colleges. This would mean anyone could avail themselves of a free college degree and it would also likely incentivize private universities to lower their prices in order to compete.

College tuition is becoming a heavier and heavier financial burden: it rose by more than 8 percent in 2012 to hit a record of $5,000 on average a year. The total price of attending a four-year public college has risen 27 percent faster than inflation over the past five years and has gone up 24 percent at community colleges and 13 percent at private universities.

Many students take on loans to cover these costs, and total student loan debt hassurpassed $1 trillion. Those loans can end up being difficult to pay back: one in eightborrowers is in default. The debt can’t be discharged in bankruptcy and may be holding young graduates back from buying their own houses.

Of course, it would not truly be a "free" education. The student would still have to buy books, pay an activity fee, and if going to a college away from home, pay for room and board. But it would significantly reduce the cost of a college education, and make it once again affordable to nearly all who want it -- and that's a good thing (for the students and the country).

37% Of Young Households Now Have Student Debt

Young people who get a college education are normally an asset to their families and their country. That education helps to increase the family's income and standard of living -- and it helps the country by providing an educated workforce (and a workforce that pays more in taxes than they would without an education). It benefits a country to help young people get that education for those reasons, but unfortunately we are not doing it right in this country.

Note in the top chart that the percentage of young households (headed by someone under 40 years old) with a debt incurred from going to college has ballooned since 2001. In just the last 13 years, the percentage with student debt has grown from 22% to 37% (from slightly more than 2 out of 10 households to nearly four out of 10 households). And this debt (the amount of which has also grown) is not only holding these families back from accomplishing their financial goals, it is also delaying the increase in taxes they should be paying (because too much of their income must go to pay back the huge loans they had to take out to finish college).

There are two main reasons for this growing percentage of young people with student debt -- rising tuition & other college costs, and a stagnant national median wage. While college costs are rapidly growing (along with other living costs), wages are not growing. That is causing the middle class to shrink, and many parents who could have paid for their kid's college can no longer do so. Those middle class kids now join working class kids in having to borrow money (many times a lot of money) to get their college degree. Then they must spend many years trying to pay back that crushing debt.

Once again making employers share some of the rising productivity with their workers would help this situation for the future, but for now we need to lower (or eliminate) the interest rate of those college loans already burdening young households. That might not sound like good economics, but it actually is -- since the quicker those loans are paid back, the sooner those young people will be able to establish themselves and start earning more (and paying more in taxes). The truth is that helping these young people to reduce their debt (and others to graduate with less debt) would be cost-effective.

Trying to make interest money off of student loans is a silly and short-sighted economic policy. We should be offering free tuition to those who qualify for college -- not discouraging them from going to college because of high college costs and high interest rates on student loans. Education should be treated as a public good -- not a profit-making business (which it will never truly be).

Here are some other interesting charts (all charts are from information provided by the Pew Research Center) showing the problems created by the huge student debt problem.

A College Education Has Increased In Importance For Young People While Becoming More Difficult To Get

A college education has always offered the opportunity for an increased income in this country -- but that has never been as true as it is today. Note that the difference in median income for those in the Silent generation (when they were 25 to 32 years old) was only about $7,449. That was a significant sum, but not nearly as big a difference as Millennials experience today -- where the difference in medium income is $17,500. That means the difference a college education makes is worth more in a year than a minimum wage earner can earn for the whole year (about $15,000).

And considering that most jobs being created in this economy for workers that don't have a college education are at or near minimum wage (and by 2020 minimum wage jobs will make up one quarter of the available jobs), it is obvious that a college education is becoming very important for Millennials. In short, it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people in America to find a job that will support them at a decent level without a college education.

The problem faced by these Millennials though is that the cost of a college education is skyrocketing, and even many middle class students are finding it very hard to afford college. They are being put between a rock and a hard place. Either they don't go to college, or they graduate college with a crushing debt that it will take many years to pay off (which severely eats up the economic advantage of having that college education).

This doesn't have to be this way. Other countries realize the value of an educated workforce, and they invest heavily in helping college students to attend school and graduate (with free tuition and large grants). They know this is a cost-effective policy, since they will more than recover the money spent in the increased taxes those graduates will pay (due to their increased incomes). And since those students don't have huge college debts to pay off, they can spend more of their increased income buying goods and services (which stimulates the economy and benefits everyone by increasing profits and creating new jobs).

Unfortunately, U.S. politicians won't look at that long-term good. They are more interested in making interest off loans to college students -- which only decreases the amount of taxes they can pay, and decreases the amount of money they can spend in the economy (money that could have spurred increased profits and job creation as it circulates through the economy).

And the increase in income is not the only advantage to having a college education. As the charts below show, a college education makes it far less likely a person will be unemployed or will have to live in poverty.

The charts above were all made from information provided by the Pew Research Center.

Silent Generation -- born 1928 to 1945
Early Boomers -- born 1946 to 1954
Late Boomers -- born 1955 to 1964
Generation X -- born 1965 to 1980
Millennials -- born after 1980