Pete Buttigieg has a talking point he returns to often, in explaining his opposition to proposals that college should be free: He thinks millionaires and billionaires, who can afford tuition, should have to pay for it. He thus supports only means-tested tuition support programs, which are complicated and prone to error–see, for instance, the calamitous failure that is the current student loan forgiveness program for nonprofit workers.
There’s a principle here that I think most of us can get behind: It feels wrong to give something free to millionaires and billionaires. But let’s look at the reality to see whether that principle is worth undermining a free tuition program that would benefit millions of individuals, and be a net positive for the country as a whole. Remember, public education is a common good. To paraphrase John Green, the whole nation benefits when we’re not surrounded by stupid people.
How much of a benefit is free college to billionaires, really? The most expensive college in the country, Harvey Mudd, currently costs $75,000 a year. For a four-year undergraduate degree, that’s $300,000. Holy crap, that’s a lot of money–more than three times the US average net worth of $97,300, just for a bachelor’s degree!
…except for a billionaire. For a billionaire, relative to the median American, that $300,000 is the equivalent of $29.19. The price of a single steak at a moderately upscale restaurant. For that small benefit, we’re going to blow up a program that would change the lives of millions of poor and middle-class students?
And that’s not even taking into account college philanthropy. I don’t have figures on this, nor do I care to spend the time to look it up at the moment, but it’s a safe assumption that a large percentage of billionaires and multi-millionaires are making large donations to the universities where their children would like to be accepted–many times larger than the cost of tuition and room and board. Nobody on the Democratic Primary stage is promising every student admission to the college of their choice, which means the rich would go right on making those donations, and a federal free tuition program would not actually benefit them in any meaningful way.
So it seems to me short-sighted, even if the principle is sound, to complicate and outright risk a program with massive public benefit, just to avoid billionaires dodging a tuition bill they’d barely notice anyway.
Oh, and of course bear in mind that millionaires and billionaires already get free K-12 education through public schools, like the rest of the country, and no one complains about that–but that’s because we’ve all grown up accepting that K-12 education is a public good that should not be inaccessible to anyone, while college is treated like a privilege for the elite.
That’s the true core question at the heart of this tuition debate, I think: Should college be available to everyone? Or only to those rich enough to pay tuition, or fortunate enough to secure scholarships?
Last night’s Democratic Debate was, I thought, the best so far. I almost didn’t watch, because I’m tired of hearing the same questions and answers ad nauseum, but Corky pointed out that impeachment might make for some interesting new questions.
It didn’t–I think there was only one question about impeachment–but as it turned out, the moderators from Politico and PBS did a great job coming up with thoughtful, relevant questions on a broad list of topics.
The usual format, especially from godawful NBC news, is to try and come up with “gotcha” questions and encourage the candidates to fight one another. These questions addressed subjects that are often neglected (environment! disabilities! violence against trans women!) and got the candidates arguing naturally and organically, not through cajoling.
As a result, I thought most of the candidates came away looking good. Almost every candidate had a strong showing, I think, and for once I didn’t feel like I’d have to suck it up to vote for whoever wins the nomination. Kobuchar’s jokes were obviously rehearsed, and Bernie got caught unprepared to talk about trans safety and made a clumsy pivot to Medicare For All, his panacea this campaign cycle (not to be outdone, Yang argued that his Freedom Dividend would protect trans health…. somehow.) Biden ALMOST got through without a gaffe, although his forced stutter (intended to illustrate how children with stutters look to Joe, who himself has a stuttering problem, for inspiration and guidance) mostly confused people, and left some without knowledge of Joe’s own history thinking he mocked childhood disability.
As always, I really don’t want Andrew Yang to be the candidate, but I really like a lot of what he says.
And as always, I’m disappointed that the first openly gay candidate to have a viable shot at the Presidency isn’t… better. Pete’s not the worst person in the world, by a longshot, but he’s such a model of the “white gay” stereotype, simultaneously talking about the importance of civil rights to his marriage while defending the status quo and minimizing the plight of other marginalized groups… it’s frustrating.
Warren remains my favorite on that stage (Cory is my #1, but he just can’t seem to get traction in the polls) but Bernie has climbed into my #2 spot, despite the mountain of resentment toward him that I carried into this cycle. After them, I guess it’s Amy Klobuchar, because I outright disqualify Yang and Steyer and really don’t like Biden or Pete.
My mother has always been a massive fan of The Wizard of Oz, and while I was home a couple of weeks ago asked me why I’d never done a cartoon mashing that with Donald Trump. I then got to brainstorm ideas with my parents, which resulted in this cartoon.
I’ve been trying to challenge myself artistically, and experiment with some approaches–line widths and colors, for instance–so I tried to make this one a bit more ornate than in the past. There are some bits I really like, and some bits I’m less happy about, but overall I thought this came out well.