The question is who should pay for important services and if someone can’t afford something, where should the person look for help? What I am going to say is in the context of education, but the same can be said of everything else.
Decades ago, my cousin got into Yale University, and his father could not afford the full cost. My father and another brother kicked in some money to help. For those who don’t have a “rich uncle” there are scores of other options. Every service group and ethnic organization has scholarships or grants. There are all sorts of community groups that provide aid.
Now, if my father knows that my cousin will automatically get full tuition paid for by the feds, why should he offer to help at all?
Likewise, there are already scores and scores of scholarships. Every big school has an endowments just for scholarships, where alumni have donated money to help students who have financial needs. Why should grads donate money if they know the government will pay? Suddenly, there are no “needy” students, so why give to them?
Personally, I think it is better to rely on yourself, family, local groups, and scholarships. first, and then go to the government when all else fails. But if the government guarantees the full cost, the other groups become redundant.
Finally, students can work part time, as many of my friend did. Is it so bad for someone to get a part-time job? Of all the people I knew who worked, none of them had to drop out.
Or they can borrow. Is it so bad that Michelle Obama “had” to pay for her education when she started making money? At one point, she was making over $300,000 per year. If she lived frugally for one year, on a mere $100,000, not counting Barak’s income, she could pay off her education in that one year alone and then live off the fruits of that education for the rest of her life.
Also, she did not have to go to the most expensive schools in the country. She could have gotten a fantastic education at a state University for a fraction of what she paid, and if she took a loan she could have borrowed much less.
She wanted a Rolls Royce of an education, and just wants someone else to pay for it.
In short, under Obama’s plan everyone will first look to the federal government. If someone knows they can get money there, every parent will declare his child “emancipated” at 18 years old. There is no legal obligation to pay for college. If the kid is accepted at Harvard, the father who has money says, “You are on your own.” And the kid can go pick up a check from the feds because he “can’t” afford it.
Ultimately, this will make it more expensive. When parents have to pay, when people have to borrow, when students have to work for it, when organizations raise money, when alum donate, they will want to get their money worth. They will economize. They will be upset when the school wastes money that raises cost. If it is all free, what does it matter how much money is spent?
If someone in D.C. is footing the bill, no one will ever say, “Is this worth it, or can I get something for less?” (
All of this can be said for housing, health care of any other thing Obama wants to pay for. Indeed, the same applies to developing "green technology." In short, everyone I know, liberal and conservative, supports education, health care, housing, etc. The question is who do you turn to FIRST for the cost?
Conservative say the fed should be the last resort. Liberals would have it get involved much earlier, to the point where it will eventually be the only source.
