Republican candidate Ron Paul spoke out this weekend on phasing out government's role in student loans. He stated that the federal government's role in student loans is a failed policy and should be phased out over a period of time. Paul compared the student loan program with that of federal assistance with housing. Paul is in favor of eliminating the entire Department of Education and now has included federal loan assistance as a program he would eliminate.
This should come as no surprise to anyone who follows candidate Paul's message of reducing government spending and involvement in the day to day life of the American people. Paul's libertarian philosophy is that government just needs to get out of the way and let us live our own lives. Paul indicated that anyone really wanting to go to college would be able to do so even if government supported student loans were eliminated. Paul said that the high cost of a college education is largely due to the failed student loan program.
Those of us who were fortunate enough to be able to graduate from college indeed know the high cost of getting a good education. Those of us who have children in college or have children who recently graduated from college clearly know the high costs of getting a degree. I find it interesting how he thinks that eliminating student loans and the government's support of the program will allow anyone wanting to earn a degree to be able to afford one. Most parents know that it isn't all that easy to walk into your local bank and receive a loan.
Even those of us who saved money to help their children go to college have found our savings deficient in meeting the high costs. Can't say that I feel that the government is necessarily at fault for that. How does a family with two or three children making a modest income afford to be able to send their kids to college without assistance. How does all that equate in wanting your kids to have a better education than the one you received or a better life because of the education they received. I just don't get it.
I recognize that Paul's position is positive with some Americans but clearly his limited role of government is unsustainable for the vast majority of middle and lower income Americans. The other thing that doesn't necessarily make sense to me is that they are student loans. Loans that are backed and propped up by government support. Today, student loans must be paid back. Just like taxes. It's true that years ago, some graduates were walking away and defaulting on their student loans but this was fixed and no longer an option even for those who choose to file bankruptcy.
I acknowledge and understand that we must find ways and means to reduce our national debt and curb our out-of-control spending. I just beg to differ that we do not need to penalize our young people and our nation by making a college education an even more difficult proposition. We already have given up our leading position as a nation out front on education. If we have fewer young people going to college and earning their degrees, we will face an even greater deficiency in the global economy. It seems to me that we need to be placing as much emphasis on education as possible and making it easier for our young people to get educated.
I believe Ron Paul's philosophy of little to no government involvement in our lives is unrealistic and not particularly practical when it comes to student loans.
No comments:
Post a Comment