Obama to make 2 years of community college education free ?

The (non-partisan) Tax Foundation disagrees with some of your claims. For example, the TF says that CA only ranks #8 for state/local sales tax rates, and only #10 for state corporate income tax rates. And perhaps there's a reason why you didn't mention California's property taxes -- because they're surprisingly low, right ?

Look, it's true that California is a relatively high-tax state, but it's not the highest either. According to the TF, Tax Freedom Day comes on April 30 in California. This is the day that state residents have worked long enough to pay all tax obligations at the federal, state, and local levels. And that is pretty late by US standards, ranking CA as the 4th-highest state for tax burden. But it still has a lower tax burden (i.e. an earlier tax freedom day) than NY, CT, or NJ.

The major commercial bond rating agencies, like Moody's and S&P, apparently see it differently:

 

Thank you for raising that issue. Let's explore it. California's taxpayers revolted against California's high property taxes with the voters' unanimous passage of proposition 13 in 1978. It capped California's government of the ability to raise property taxes beyond a certain rate. You can thank California's government for the extraordinarily high property taxes to begin with, and you can thank California's property owners for rebelling against it with the passage of property 13.

Obama's proposal to give everybody a free community college degree is ludicrous because nothing in life is free. It would harm the American taxpayers who will have to pay for it. Obama's free healthcare is turning out to be expensive. Giving away free college degrees would be equally expensive.

"Free" is a lie.

 

Obama's proposal is nothing more than that -- a proposal. And it probably won't go anywhere. In contrast, the "Tennessee Promise" plan to provide zero-tuition community college has actually been enacted. So you would argue that Tennessee has made a huge, expensive, and "ludicrous" mistake, right ?

Why would Tennessee -- a conservative, Republican state -- make such a "ludicrous" move ? Well, it apparently reflects what the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry (not generally regarded as a "liberal" group) told the state government last year:

OK, so the TN business/industrial community has a "strong concern" about the lack of skilled workers in the state, and wants the government to take steps towards a more educated workforce. How should the TN government respond to this concern? Seems like it might make sense to improve the accessibility and affordability of vocational education and training. And if so, then reducing community college tuition seems like a reasonable way to accomplish that.

Alternatively, the TN government could privatize the community college system and eliminate taxpayer subsidies. This would lower the burden on taxpayers. On the other hand, it would greatly increase the cost of community college, and decrease its accessibility. Would this be a better way to address the business community's concerns about the "lack of a qualified and skilled workforce" ?

 

You’re surely not placing a lot of surety in [any] of the Big Three Rating Agencies (Moody’s, S&P, and/or Fitch) are you? The very same rating agencies that are paid by the very same entities they’re rating (re buying a rating /conflicting alignment of interest?); along with their highly remunerative consultative work—again, consultants to the very same entities they’re rating. Gosh, the very same rating agencies who were major enablers of the financial meltdown (2007-2008). Does the insolvent financial firms, such as, Lehman Bros. and AIG along with their favorable pre-crisis ratings ring a bell (e.g., Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch Ratings all booked no less than A ratings on AIG and Lehman Brothers up into September of 2008, with Lehman Bros filing bankruptcy that very same month)?

Rating agencies—what a ringing endorsement to California’s financial soundness…or anyone else's for that matter.

 

Like it or not, the free market has clearly identified Moody's, S&P, and Fitch as the "go-to" guys for financial ratings. For example, Moody's alone was paid $3 billion for its services in 2013.

We appreciate getting your opinions for free, but I suspect that Moody's opinions have the higher market value. And I'm going with the market pick here.

 

Well other services have certifications which can lead to some college credit depending on specialty. We have the Community College of the Air Force Associate of Applied Science degree in our career fields that is a helpful first step for a lot of people, but most enlisted members don't go beyond what is required of them. Here are some statistics from the Air Force Personnel Center:

62.7% completed some college
23.2% have associate's degrees
7.7% have bachelor's degrees
1.5% have master's degree
0.017% have professional degrees
In my squadron of 190 people, I'm the only NCO with a master's degree. But I know about five peers who are working on a graduate degree or higher.

 

I for one am happy with the way things are. We can't pay for everything and this proposal of Obama is no more than a mere distraction from the real issues that are confronting our country.

He wants to give everything away for "free" but there's eventually somewhere it has to be paid down the road. I like the way the present system is set up and in fact I think community colleges need to raise their tuitions more as they still are the best bang for your money.

 

Playing devil's advocate here because low-income people can already attend community colleges for FREE, how much more do you think the federal and state governments can collect in tax dollars once more people become trained and land higher-paying jobs?

 

I believe my previous reply incorporated more than my own opinion; nonetheless, that’s cool Cal Dog, simply follow the crowd (free market) —that’s the reaction the raters are /were looking for. It’s precisely what the investors did by turning over so much of their own risk analysis by placing excessive confidence in the Big Three Rating Agencies who clearly were not independent concerning their rating measures, e.g., again, re the 2007-2008 financial meltdowns. In fact, Moody’s, S&P and Fitch were so very, very distant from it, e.g., inappropriate alignment of interest!

Note: The $3 billion paid out to Moody’s as you reference with the URL link: Moody’s gets paid by issuers to rate securities whose financial interest is in their rating. Once again, can’t you see the conflict of interest or at least, the likely potential for in this scenario?

Note: There are a very few rating agencies outside the virtually monopolistic Big Three rating agencies that does not get paid by issuers to rate securities, instead, they are paid by investors vs. securities issuers (i.e., the privately-owned Egan-Jones Rating Egan-Jones Ratings Company).

Disclosure: I am not affiliated with Egan-Jones whatsoever. The firm was simply used as an example

 

OK, let's see if I have this straight.

You clearly don't trust the state government -- i.e. the public sector -- to evaluate its own budgets. Right?

And you clearly don't trust outside ratings firms -- i.e. the private sector -- to evaluate those budgets either. Right?

So when it comes to state budgets, you don't trust either the public sector or the private sector. Who does that leave that you will listen to ?

If the answer is "nobody", that's fine. But if you had mentioned that up front, I wouldn't have bothered replying.

 

No you don’t remotely have it straight CalDog. I simply provided actual information in re to the Big Three rating agencies (Moody's, S&P, and Fitch) and: 1) their culpability in the economic meltdown, along with, 2) their clientele revenue base which both contributed to and prejudiced their ratings measures /governance, via various conflicts of interest (COI), e.g., consulting gigs, buying a rating, etc., which subsequently led to substantial defective ratings (re Lehman Bros. and AGI), and which 4) ultimately enabled the financial markets chaos /meltdown of 2007-2008, along with, 5) caution as to their then /now ratings reliability, and, 6) the intermixing of accrual / cash basis accounting and the error it can generate. That’s all. Please don’t add-in all your presumption and extended uproar, as to what I wrote and/or who or what entities, be they private /public sector, state budgets /state governments, etc. in which I may or may not have confidence in.

As well CalDog, I’ve participated in this subject matter all I’m going to with you. There’s just no benefit to continue.

Cheers :smoker:

 

I dislike the idea but I dislike for reasons that I expressed earlier in other threads, namely that we keep expecting higher education to solve the problems in K-12 education. I think that's wrong. If TN doesn't have a skilled workforce that's a problem with HS. Whatever happened to shop, welding, automotive studies? In days past these were all things done in high school.

I'm sorry but in my view this is going to be one more reason for HS teachers to say, "well Johnny can't read let the CC handle it. Not our problem." We shouldn't be so eager to abandon K-12.

 

That's a good point, though there is also a lot of potential for synergy here. If CC were free to attend, high schools would be under less pressure to prepare students for employment and be able to focus more on providing a solid broad-based core education - something that is desperately needed.

 

Nothing is free. Someone is paying for it. In this case, it comes from the federal government for about 70% and state goverments for 30%.

Governments don't have money. They get money from taxpayers.

Hence, I am paying for this through my federal and state taxes. Both will have to increase unless we are cutting programs somewhere else.

 

As others have noted, this is not free as taxpayers will foot the bill. In my view, this would just cause a CC education to become years 13 and 14 of high school.

Once upon a time, a HS diploma was good enough to secure good employment - we all know that is no longer the case. Under this proposal, the two-year degree will become the new minimum that eventually will not be good enough either.

I still believe the key to making higher education more affordable is to get the federal government out of the student loan subsidy business.

 

It is interesting how the definition of free is being redefined in this discussion. I am no Liberal, well I think I am not, however, I am very supportive of this endeavor. My hope is that graduates will become productive contributors to the economy, increasing the tax base for governments, increasing private spending because of higher disposal income, increase spending because of lower debt levels, increasing American productivity and competitiveness thus increasing jobs and even higher standard of living.
The US government already provides many "free" programs and services that many of naysayers here on DI have already taken advantages. It is amazing how the discussion is always about I am entitled to my entitlements but if an entitlement does not benefits me personally then it must be bad.

 

It is amazing to me that any time a new entitlement is discussed those for it automatically assume those against it are hypocrites. Apparently, someone needs to break it to you - there is no such thing as a free government program.

 

There are no free corporate programs either - "no free lunches". Therefore, I am not sure what is your point. However, there is also no need to redefined the definition of free. For many years we had discussions on DI about free education in many countries like Ireland, Sweden etc and free meant exactly what it meant. We even had discussion about free education for government employees - even free education for employees at the private sector.
However, I will hope in the USA, the ROI to taxpayers will be greater than the cost of of this new program. There are many people in poverty where an education can make a different. The USA government has many great programs paid by taxpayers this could be another one or maybe not.

 

The federal government has done a great job with the funding they have thrown at K-12, would you not expect the same results here as well?