The Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription required) recently published an essay written with my former Graduate Assistant. Hey–if you’re going to dream, might as well dream big….Anyway, here’s our original draft, appropriate for a Sunday Sermon.
______________________________
Americans are increasingly concerned about two seemingly unrelated issues: a distressing lack of civic literacy and informed civic engagement among the general public, and the escalating burden of student loan debt.
We could make significant progress on both of these issues with a new G.I. Bill.
In the wake of World War II, Congress passed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the G.I. Bill. It provided a wide range of benefits for returning veterans, including subsidies that allowed G.I.’s to obtain low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans that could be used to start a business, cash payments of tuition and living expenses to attend a university or vocational training program. All soldiers who had been on active duty during the war for at least one hundred twenty days and had not been dishonorably discharged were eligible. By 1956, estimates were that roughly 2.2 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits in order to attend college, and an additional 5.6 million had used them to obtain job training of some sort.
The G.I. Bill was expensive, but by all accounts it was a major political, humanitarian and economic success. It contributed significantly to the creation of a skilled workforce, moved thousands of people into the middle class, and was a spur to long-term economic growth.
The G.I. Bill was originally an effort to reward those who had manifested a willingness to risk their lives for their country, but it has had a number of other salutary consequences: it raised the skill level of the American workforce and provided an avenue for social mobility.
Defending the United States is an important goal, but military service is only one aspect of that defense. It is equally important that citizens understand just what it is that our military is protecting. Citizenship is more than residence; patriotism requires informed engagement by people who have earned the right to be considered citizens. Survival of America qua America is not the same thing as physical survival.
To put it bluntly, there is more than one way to lose one’s country.
If we are to provide that second kind of defense—defense of the American system of law and government—we require a civically educated populace, and it is increasingly obvious that current patchwork efforts to boost civic literacy are not producing that populace.
Our proposal builds on the laudable efforts of others—including, recently, General Stanley McChrystal– who have called for a renewal of national service. It’s important to challenge the notion that military service is the only way to serve one’s country. While military service has been shown to significantly increase voting rates and other forms of civic engagement, fewer Americans serve in the military than in past generations, and we need to consider what sorts of national programmatic efforts might begin to change the civic culture.
We propose a National Service program for high school graduates who would be paid minimum wage during a one year “tour of duty.” At the end of that year, assuming satisfaction of the requirements, participants would receive stipends sufficient to pay tuition, room and board for two years at a public college or trade school. The public service requirement would be satisfied through employment with a government agency or not-for-profit organization focused upon civic improvement.
In addition, students would be required to attend and pass a civics course to be developed by the U.S. Department of Education in cooperation with the Campaign for the Civic Mission of the Schools.
What sorts of outcomes might we expect from such a program? Since the program is likely to be most attractive to those struggling to afford higher education, we could expect broader civic participation from populations whose voices are largely missing from today’s civic conversation. A better-educated population should engage in better, more nuanced policy debates, leading (hopefully) to more thoughtful policy choices. We might even see more meaningful and issue-oriented political campaigns, with fewer of the “dog whistles” and less of the intemperate rhetoric that characterizes messages crafted to appeal to uninformed voters.
A program of this sort would also have an enormous and positive impact on the level of student debt.
According to a 2014 report by the New York Times, total student loans outstanding have risen to $1.1 trillion, compared with $300 billion just a decade before. The average total debt for student borrowers was around $30,000 in 2013.
Student debt has thus become a significant impediment to America’s economic growth.
Studies show that the burden of student debt constrains individual decision-making in a number of ways, and affects the entire economy. People with student loans, for example, are less likely to start businesses. Considering that 60 percent of jobs are created by small business, diminishing the ability to create new businesses does considerable harm to the economy.
Debt loads also affect overall consumer consumption. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, fewer 30-year-olds in general have bought homes since the recession, but the decline has been steeper for people with a history of student loan debt and has continued even as the housing market has recovered.
In an economy that depends upon the ability and willingness of consumers to purchase homes, furniture, automobiles and other goods, a debt load that effectively precludes such purchases poses a real problem. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, three-quarters of the overall shortfall in household formation can be attributed to younger adults ages 18 to 34. In 2011, 2 million more Americans in this age group lived with their parents than in 2007.
According to a recent report from Zillow, the relatively few millennials who are thriving economically are the ones whose parents are able to subsidize college tuition or a down payment on a home. Help with education and buying a home were the two primary ways in which the original G.I. Bill created upward social mobility. Estimates are that each new household formed leads to $145,000 of economic impact. If student debt is keeping just a third of those 2 million young Americans from living on their own, that adds up to a $100 billion loss or delay in economic activity.
The G.I. Bill was a social contract that said if you invest in your country’s future, your country will invest in yours.
A national public service program of the sort contemplated here would significantly reduce student loan debt, increase civic competence, and provide local communities with additional human capital— resources they can deploy to improve the quality of local life. (Kalamazoo, Michigan, where a local program has been providing subsidies for college tuition to high school graduates since 2005, the city has seen a 4.7 dollar return for every dollar invested, according to a recent Upjohn Institute Study.)
In addition to the economic benefits, a national program encouraging increased civic knowledge and engagement would also move the culture, since an informed citizenry with experience in civic life can be expected to vote, volunteer and engage at substantially higher levels.
The real question is: do we Americans still have the ability to think big?
When I returned back to the USA from my tour of duty in Vietnam in 1971, I went to a Junior College in Illinois, and later to a four year college for my degree. Illinois had an extensive state wide Junior College system, something Indiana still does not have. Illinois had “free tuition” if you went to a state school. The Federal Government paid me a monthly stipend.
Bernie Sanders has proposed the following: Making tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout America. Everyone in this country who studies hard should be able to go to college regardless of income.
I like Bernie’s plan a G.I. Bill in essence for all without the strings and bureaucracy of “minimum wage, public service jobs” as an entry point.
What bill will help my granddaughter with her $55,000 student loan debt; all her own debt for 2 years college education at Indiana University then 3 years at Indiana University School of Nursing? All debts are her own because family could not afford to help, she struggles to pay them. After Bush so generously gave billions to banks to assure money was available for student loans, when she applied for her 3rd loan, a co-signer was needed for the first time, again family could not help. This kept thousands of students from continuing their college educations. She began in high school working, learning basic nursing skills and saving for her education. Throughout her college years she worked as a CNA in nursing homes on many weekends and during all school breaks.
My granddaughter is 27 years old, an RN at Riley Hospital for Children (hired within 3 weeks of graduation), one of the 6 member pediatric heart surgery team. She is also the one to schedule all arrangements for these surgeries and has participated in pediatric heart transplant. Last year she had the honor of being chosen as one of a ten-member team of RNs and surgeons to go to Kenya; they worked two weeks in the Uganda Heart Institute performing pediatric surgeries and training staff to better serve their patients.
She attained her life-long dream of education and becoming a nurse by her own sweat and, at times, tears. Her GPA has been 3.9 throughout her education years except one semester when it dropped to 3.6. She came to me in tears over this fact. At that time her mother had lay near death for two weeks in Methodist Hospital after a misdiagnosis by VA Medical Center here. Her mother remained hospitalized for 26 days, lost her car, almost lost her home and fell behind in bills being unable to work in her job as an LPN. Her 17 year old brother was living alone in the family home in Shelbyville; she was responsible for medical decisions for her mother, care of her brother, aided paying what bills she could and traveling between I.U. in Bloomington, two hospitals in Indianapolis and Shelbyville to do it all. There is no help for her but she struggles on to keep her student loan debt paid and continues saving lives working 12 hour shifts at Riley Hospital for Children.
“What if” there could be help for the few like her who deserve help? Isn’t that part of civics? Her bother is 24, also worked as a CNA in nursing homes and saw the need for male nurses, is now a paramedic in the U.S. Navy. He plans to continue his medical education and career when his stint is up. Will there be help for him? I don’t know what civics education they received in Shelbyville school system but I do know they are doing their civic duty to this state and this country; they have full knowledge and understanding of that part of civics. What is civics doing for them or the younger generation like them who live to serve others?
JoAnn, I agree with you. It seems like we could be doing something to alleviate the high debt that so many college graduates may never be able to pay off on their own. They are slaves to this debt and it keeps them from moving forward in life.
I am guessing that your granddaughter is able to pay only the minimum payments on her loans. That works out very well for the lenders. The interest they keep building will make it so difficult, if not impossible to ever pay off. This is a national tragedy!
This is one of your most powerful observations: “three-quarters of the overall shortfall in household formation can be attributed to younger adults ages 18 to 34. In 2011, 2 million more Americans in this age group lived with their parents than in 2007”.
Permitting the 1% to soak up most of the nation’s wealth at the expense of the 99% is terribly dangerous to our economy and the nation and ultimately self-defeating.
My niece who is 35, married with two children cannot qualify for a home loan because of her and her husband outstanding student loan debt which they pay every month, forever and ever. He makes good money and she’s a stay at home Mom. That is what Congress did to college graduates when they changed the law not allowing student loan debt to be added to bankruptcy proceedings or allowing former students to get interest rates that the bank gets. Elizabeth Warren fought for this and was unsuccessful last session.
At least one thing not to like about student debt is that it seems impossible at this time to re-finance it. The lenders must be laughing on their way to the banks while voting straight GOP.
Conversely there must be millions of people re-financing home mortgage contracts originally entered into at higher rates.
Okay, “conservatives” what are you and your GOP lawmakers such as Dan Coats and what is Donald Trump (presumably an expert on commercial real estate mortgages) doing about this disparity? Too busy ranting about the Iran “deal”?
What are student loans anyway but another way to subsidize higher education at the expense of the students?
Many believe education is a benefit to society that should be supported by all through taxation as was the GI Bill.
I found Bernie Sanders’ suggestions interesting. Fed pays more for grants and administration than it would cost to pay 100% of state school costs. I don’t think it is healthy to create another entitlement. There should be some formula of community service to earn tuition credits
Nancy Papas! How do you suggest that “we” prevent the wealthy 1% from earning what they earn?
The wealthy have more tax breaks than the middle class Mr. Glass. We liberals don’t expect not to pay taxes, we just want a fair system, good grief.
To Ken Glass who doesn’t “think it’s healthy to create another entitlement” unless, of course, it’s for Israel where the word “entitlement” is not used.
Our budget “entitlements” are scrutinized and are attacked with proposals by the GOP to cut them. Our annual grant to Israel is off budget so, citizens, forget about it while Israelis get care from cradle to grave and American Social Security and Medicare are constantly under the GOP budget slashing microscope, never a GOP poor mouthing proposal to increase revenue.
OMG is starting to sound like a Gopper from the left.
Sheila’s essay says it all. And from the experience of transcribing WWII oral histories (9 years) for the Indiana Historical Society, listening to veterans’ stories, I’m convinced the G.I. Bill had the greatest impact for good of any federal civic expenditure ever.
One major obstacle to eliminating student debt now – the lending industry that profits from it.
Aging Girl! I have yet to hear a figure that would constitute “fair share” for the rich (it’s even hard to get a concise definition as to how much constitutes “rich”) to pay. Would you be able to define fair share for me?
I am a firm believe in “There is no free lunch!” President Obama’s plan to make tuition only free at community colleges and paying for it by returning the tax rate on wealthy to what it was before Bush lowered it along with closing tax loopholes to big business is an excellent one. Students would not be getting “free” education as there is more to pay for than tuition as all students and teachers know. I don’t believe students in colleges and universities around this country expect “free” education; it is the UNCONSCIONABLE AMOUNTS OF TUITION THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Add to that the amount of interest on student loans plus all other expenses and we are headed for a nation of uneducated citizens. This means not only drop-out burger flippers but business leaders and elected officials will gradually become less educated; only the wealthy will afford it and only the wealthy (like the 1% who owns the GOP) will be elected to or controlling government at all levels. We are currently experiencing what effect that has on the other 99% in this country; and we are supporting that 1% with our labor and tax dollars. With low and middle-income numbers increasing, more will be unable to avail themselves of higher education and there will become fewer “laborers worthy of their hire”. The cost of staff, overhead and maintenance for college sports venues has reached ridiculous levels; just as pro sports venues have become recipients of too many of our tax dollars, the same is true in college sports…only the college players do not benefit financially. What is wrong with this picture?
OMG! Hard to know where to begin. I object to another freebie from the Fed in the form of loan forgiveness and/or free tuition and somehow you assume I favor foreign aid to Israel.
As for raising revenue, this is the biggest inconvenient truth for those of you who don’t understand the difference between tax rate cuts and tax cuts. Since WWI, there have been four times when tax rates were reduced; in the twenties (I think Coolidge administration), in the Kennedy administration, in the Reagan administration, and in the Bush43 administration. In each case two things happened: 1) rate of revenue growth increased, and 2) the percent of total revenue paid by the top 20% increased. History also tells us that increasing capital gains taxes reduces revenue and slows recoveries. POTUS told Charles Gibson he didn’t care about revenue, he wanted “fairness” which he conveniently did not define. (Apparently, it is against the rules to actually define “fairness” because no one will tell me)
JoAnn! You better check the roster, because a substantial portion of the 1% are liberal democrats who are the recipients of the last 6+ years of crony capitalism.
Of course many other countries have figured out how to do what we are apparently not smart enough to.
One is Switzerland. State funded higher education for those who can earn it by demonstrating superior performance on tests. If you want to be a Dr or lawyer or engineer you have to demonstrate adequate capability at key points in the higher education process.
From that magic they’ve built the highest performing economy in the world.
Ken, nothing wrong with being wealthy. The problem is oligarchy. The leading religion of conservatives.
Ken; I don’t care what their party is, raise the taxes on the 1%. Democrats such as President Obama and write Stephen King have stated several times that they do NOT pay enough taxes and want to pay their fair share. Doubtful that other Democrats feel this way; if they did overpay it would be returned, as required by law, in the form of a tax refund. What are they to do?
Ken. The government only sets tax rates. The economy determines the taxes collected by those rates.
It’s unique to the conservative mind that the economy is grown by tax cuts.
Here’s one of many references on the topic.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2010/02/tax_fraud.html
The truth is that economic growth (or shrinkage) is caused by innumerable factors. If one were to try to pick the most significant factor I would bet on innovation. Something much more influenced by the capitalist part of our economy than the socialist. Innovation is in turned driven by competition and that more than anything is the big factor in choosing capitalism or socialism market by market.
So Ken’s wish that small government would drive higher economic performance is the worm on the hook of oligarchy. Swallow that and they’ve got you.
“Nancy Papas! How do you suggest that “we” prevent the wealthy 1% from earning what they earn?”
We don’t. We use progressive taxation to correct capitalism’s inherent wealth redistribution from labor, who create wealth, to management, who don’t.
Ken, “fairness” is a hard to define quality.
One approach for economics is to return to the labor that creates products and services the value they add. And to treat investor income from the use of the means the same as labor income. And to pay management compensation what management is worth to labor.
So Pete! What part of more federal revenue with a greater portion paid by the wealthy does not fit what you want?
Interesting Pete! You prefer a system where college is free but only for up to 20% of 5th or 6th grade students who qualify. The other 80% only get 3 more years of schooling.
Switzerland also has 10 years of mandatory reserve military service and no intervene rational welfare
That was supposed to be “no intergenerational welfare”
Ken, the measure of how effectively regressive taxes balance progressive capitalism is the relative equality of wealth distribution. We are now at an extreme historically and globally. Time to go back to normal. There are numerous studies that show how toxic to society extreme wealth distribution is.
I don’t even understand your comments about Switzerland. I doubt if you’ve spent much time there.
University education is paid by the state for anyone who qualifies through continuous testing. Those who don’t qualify can pay for themselves if they are willing to take on the risk of paying for something that they are marginally qualified to take on.
High school is a joint state/industry venture that combines schooling with actual work experience. Those that don’t test well for university can leave after high school fully qualified for employment.
They do have mandatory reserve military service for males. As it’s been centuries since they’ve actually been to war that service is also preparation for adulthood just as Sheila proposes in her blog today.
I don’t know what inter generational welfare is.
Here’s a good reference about their approach to welfare. Not that many need it in such a robust economy.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/6142898/swiss-welfare-runs-like-clockwork/
From the Federal Reserve Bank of New York…Staff Report Number 733, July 2015.
“Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition: Evidence from the Expansion in Federal Student Aid Programs”, authored by David O. Lucca, Taylor Nadauld, and Karen Shen.
http://newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr733.html
Okay, Ken Glass, you brought up the subject of “entitlements”. Would it be wrong to say Israel used to get a direct grant off budget of $5-Billion every year from the U.S. Treasury (don’t know what the amount is now – maybe nobody knows)? If wrong, please instruct.
Do you approve the Republican proposals that Social Security and Medicare be slashed? What do you call them, “entitlements” or “unfunded mandates”? What do you think about taking them off budget so they are not scrutinized by budget slashing Republicans?
What do you call the Israel grant? Is it an “entitlement”?
I don’t object to the entitlement to Israel, I refer to it for comparison; I object to the threats to the insufficient American safety net to scare the poor, don’t you?
One of the bits of common knowledge that oligarchs have stolen through the brand marketing of giving them unlimited power is that the the economy is the product of business not government. About the only influence the government has is to borrow to support people during the bad times and make it up during the good.
But oligarchs need us to think that we need to be in their good graces for job creation and that all government employees are idiots who only get in their way.
That fantasy has been advertised from places like Fox News 24//7/365 for decades. And slower Americans have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. Now it’s resulted in a complete blowhard, Donald Trump, thinking that he’s smart enough to be Ptesident. God help us because many are unable to help themselves shake off such preposterousness.
BSH, many decades ago dental insurance was unknown of. We paid $X per year to take care of the families teeth. Kodak, where I worked then, was a pioneer in dental benefits as part of worker compensation. As that ramped up never did our cost go below $X per year.
Same principle as you post about loan availability and college tuition.
Pete! You are back on the wealth distribution. I look in depth at a Happiness study a few years ago that said America was not high on the happy index. They picked a dozen or so data points that they decided measured happiness. They conveniently excluded data that didn’t fit their thesis. I am skeptical when you cite numerous studies. Liberals refuse to acknowledge that higher income tax and capital gains tax rates depress the economy and reduce revenue. The saddest part is that if you get your high tax rates you will get re depressed economy and reduced revenue and you will have no effect on the people you want to punish. The ultra rich are successful by owning a diversified high risk portfolio that contains winners and losers in any given moment. So when they need money, they sell assets with losses that match the assets they are selling with gains so regardless of the rate, you still collect no additional taxes.
“Liberals refuse to acknowledge that higher income tax and capital gains tax rates depress the economy and reduce revenue. ”
The government spends money that is part of our economy to provide the kind of infrastructure and society that is conducive to good lives and business. They collect what’s spent through the collection of taxes or by borrowing it or both.
Labor is combined with raw material and energy and transportation and means of production to produce goods and services for us to divvy up somehow amongst us.
Money is used to facilitate the exchange of what we all want and need for our labor.
What you’ve been taught by your TV set is that goods and services produced by the capitalist markets in our economy are inherently more valuable than those societal and infrastructure benefits produced by our socialistic markets. Therefore we are better off with more stuff and less infrastructure and a more dysfunctional society.
That makes no sense to me at all.
Also, what do you offer as evidence that extreme wealth inequity benefits society?
I think Ken has helped everyone understand an old observation. Liberals and conservatives want the same things; liberals for everyone.
I’m only going to engage Mr Glass with this because I live in Europe and cannot watch fox spews here to figure out his point of view because they don’t allow entertainment “news” in this country. When we lived in the states, that station was blocked so that I didn’t even have to surf by it. That point of view is ridiculed over here and considered a propaganda station for the far right.
Fair is fair and middle class families shouldn’t have to pay higher tax rate (%) than the multi-millionaires like Romney and Bushes.
#FeeltheBern
Well Sheila, for a while people were willing to have a dialogue with me, but, without disputing any fact I posted, they decided in their own koolaid drinking induced stupor, that I was drinking Fox News koolaid and therefore too stupid to even bother with. I believe that the “you’re stupid and evil” view of both liberals and conservatives plays into the hands of the oligarchs and crony capitalists. I believe that both Trump and Clinton are only interested in themselves and power. I believe that both are horrible candidates and yet both are leading their respective packs. As long as liberals and conservative do nothing more than throw insults back and forth or talk amongst themselves about how wrong their opponents are (like in this discussion) horrible people like Trump and Clinton win.
JoAnn, note that we do already have some programs in place for income-based repayment and public service loan forgiveness — a nurse willing to work in an underprivileged area would likely qualify for the latter. The programs are not perfect, and when I personally ran the numbers for my own profession, the hit to my income for working in public health was way more than the reduction in payments, so I stuck with the straight IBR, but it’s still a much better deal than the regular repayment system.
Ken, I personally believe that everyone here wants dialog but like all good debates various positions need to be defended with pervasive argument and compelling facts. When the dialog starts between liberals and conservatives here it typically ends up like science on one side and religion on the other. Evidence vs faith. What is vs what some people wish for so assume to be true.
The Fox thing merely adds to the evidence that conservatism is fath based and therefore indefensible by evidence.
Science vs faith does not support dialog.
Exactly Pete.
Pete,
You’re absolutely right the answers are not in dialog. It’s too late for that. The problems have to be described. The answers, if any, are in visual description.
The diagnosis of the problem has to be explained visually. That can only be done by a DEEP political MRI on the body politic starting from the beginning.
You can’t deny reality if the MRI reveals “cancer” whether you’re on the Science side or the Faith side.
Okay, Pete! Respond to one fact I offered. Tax rate reductions have occurred in four administrations since WWI and each cut was followed by an increase in the rate of revenue growth and an increase in the percent of total revenue paid by the top quintile. I am not claiming that there is causation, but each time (with the exception of Clinton’s tax hikes) the rates are increased, revenue growth rates stall and the top quintile share shrinks.
We now have a boxing match: Ken, in the Red trunks and Pete, in the Blue. Let’s place our bets.
However, before doing that I would recommend a look at: http://www.Praxis.co.il. It’s the best site on how to deal with fundamental change. No doubt, America is undergoing a fundamental change. That is why I’m placing my bet on Pete and the Blue.
Ken’s economic history is probably not wrong. But, the world is changing rapidly. And continued “gouging” by the oligarchy will only bring socio-political and economic chaos.
On the Praxis website I would recommend clicking :”Resources” then “White Papers” and finally “Fundamental Surprises.” The white paper is in English and not in Hebrew. Despite everything, you have to admit it’s hard to beat the Israeli intelligence apparatus.
And, I think this is one way we can make good use of our enormous investment. Don’t you agree?
Ken Glass!!! Are you by chance a farmer? Because you excel at constructing straw men.
“I am not claiming that there is causation”
Then why discuss it further? It’s irrelevant.
There’s sort of a just similarity between the discussion of tax cuts affecting the economy and climate change affecting the weather.
The economy and the weather are inherently noisy systems. What that means is that their variability is the products of so many causes that they seem chaotic and random.
Science and engineering have had to figure out how to get causation information (signal) from the noise. Complex math but doable.
Ultimately we can understand the contribution of energy imbalance to weather at least to a useful degree. Same with economics.
That reality revealed tells us that tax cuts for the wealthy impact the economy of the 1% but not the 99%. (Who’s surprised?)
Tax cuts in general merely drive the need to borrow to pay for the goods services that government provides to create infrastructure and stable society in which we all exist.
When anyone borrows it’s a temporary expedient that can be beneficial only if it enhances the ability to pay back.
What conservatives really want is less government spending because they erroneously believe, because they’ve been told by oligarchs to believe, that we don’t need to pay for as much infrastructure and societal stability.
They are wrong. In fact we have now to catch up on what they have forced us to fall behind on.