Sanders’ Free Higher Education Would Hinder the Economy
by Emma Tanner
Last week when I was walking to my car on campus I noticed a political sign in someone’s window that said something along the lines of “Free College Tuition, Vote Bernie Sanders.” Obviously he is a very popular presidential candidate, especially among young people seeking college degrees as a ticket to a well-paying job. But while free higher education seems nice on the face of it, especially to those of us who may be young, itching to save the world while living on ramen and instant rice, it isn’t an ideal solution to positively and practically affect the economic and social issues our nation faces today.
Socialism (which Sanders is an admitted proponent of) is an interesting economic system with a history of vast initial popularity but failed outcomes. In a truly socialist society, the federal government owns the means of production and distribution and private property and economic profit don’t exist. The incentive to work and produce comes from the government’s guarantee that every person will be in a state of socioeconomic equality and get their fair share of what is produced. As Karl Marx said, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” There is no freedom in the market, and it tends to be highly inefficient because the government dictator of production cannot adequately determine what to produce based on consumer demand the way a self-regulating market-based capitalist system can. And while everyone may theoretically be equal under this system, their standards of living invariably suffer as well.
But Sanders isn’t a pure socialist. He is a democratic socialist, meaning he intends to implement higher tax rates generally, on Wall Street financial transactions in particular. He would redistribute that money elsewhere in society, including the public education system, in order to come away with free public college and university tuition, so that every single American can receive a top-notch education and a high-paying job after graduation.
The problem with Sanders’ appealing campaign is that ensuring everyone in a nation holds a college degree doesn’t ensure everyone will find a good job that requires a degree and won’t do much for the economy itself. Under Sanders we will merely end up with an abundance of degreed workers. But even now there aren’t enough good jobs for college graduates. And we still need good people working jobs that don’t require a degree. It would be a lie to guarantee everyone a degree and a good job. It’s easy to create more people with degrees but much harder to create jobs that require them — that’s what we really need.
Additionally, to pay for this grand plan, Sanders has suggested we tax Wall Street transactions. But that would just wipe away some of the grease that oils the wheels of our economy. Sure, Wall Street isn’t perfect, but increasing taxes on a main component of our economy and a source of our potential growth is counterproductive. Our financial headquarters creates liquidity, helps make markets, facilitates capital accumulation and more. If we tax these activities we’re going to dramatically reduce economic activity and stay mired in the sluggish two percent growth we have had for several years and not get back to the three percent growth rates that really lead to more good jobs and a dynamic economy that needs more college-educated workers. The difference between two and three percent growth in the economy is huge — much more than numbers alone suggest. We have to stop settling for this “new normal” growth rate pattern that is being pushed on us. We can’t become Western Europe, the land of the real social democrats, with chronically high unemployment and very low growth, if any.
The bottom line is that while Sanders’ campaign rhetoric sounds heroic, it will ultimately do us no good overall and would probably reduce our economic activity, good jobs and national welfare. If the government taxes an industry, like Wall Street, then that industry will have less money available to create and grow jobs. If you want less of something, then tax it. If you want more of it, reduce the taxes associated with it, or subsidize it.
Sanders Will Reclaim the Democratic System
by Jonathan Park
Bernie Sanders swept the New Hampshire caucuses last week, successfully courting nearly every demographic of N.H. voters, only losing — somewhat ironically — among people 65 years and older and — unsurprisingly — among those with an annual income of $200,000 or more. Sanders’ victory in liberal-leaning N.H. shouldn’t come as a shock. The real question is whether his message will resonate in states inhabited by Americans with more moderate or conservative inclinations. Even more important than the question of whether average Americans will embrace Sanders’ agenda is whether or not we should. The answer is, assuredly, yes.
The ambiguous associations attached to the word “socialist” might be the biggest barrier to galvanizing widespread support for Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist. However, despite the fear and loathing so many of us harbor toward the idea of socialist-styled governance, the actual practice is deeply embedded in the history of the United States. As Martin Luther King Jr. once noted, “This country has socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor.” But it wasn’t always so.
Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, similar in many ways to what Sanders is proposing, represented a sweeping set of policies condemned as being communistic by the elites of that era. Yet the economic policies introduced — including a 79 percent tax on the ridiculously rich, strict regulations on the banking industry, limits on the hourly work week and a new minimum wage — lifted our nation from the depths of the Great Depression. The New Deal also gave rise to job-creating, poverty-remediating social programs, such as the Social Security system. Under the spirit of the so-called “socialistic” New Deal, Americans prospered in solidarity.
But a new era of economic policy was ushered in under Reagan — one premised on the bankrupt theory of “trickle-down economics.” Reaganomics catalyzed decades of record-breaking profits for Wall Street and stagnating wages for an increasingly hard-pressed middle class. Under the auspices of promoting economic growth, government spending shifted away from social programs for average Americans toward gargantuan tax-breaks, benefits and subsidies for the “job-creating” corporate class. Incarceration rates skyrocketed, wealth inequality grew exponentially, social support programs shrank, poverty ramped up, and the U.S.’s academic ranking on the world stage plummeted as education spending was slashed. Reagan’s campaign slogan was “Let’s Make America Great Again.” Sound familiar?
Figureheads of the modern establishment attempt to convince us that we, the richest nation in the history of the world, simply can’t afford the programs Sanders is promising — such as free healthcare, free college tuition, living wages and a sustainable energy infrastructure. The ruling class doesn’t want us to want these advantages — which our government can easily afford despite a widespread dissemination of misinformation to the contrary — because they know it will come at the expense of their opulent tax breaks and lucrative government subsidies.
As an example of how government spending policies are tilted in favor of a few at the expense of the majority, last year American taxpayers were made to spend over $24 billion, nearly double the amount we spent on social programs, imprisoning non-violent criminals while private prisons raked in windfall profits. Talk about scary socialism. What’s more, the U.S. currently spends more money building new prisons than on building universities. That smacks of a self-fulfilling prophecy, one I certainly don’t want to come to fruition. Neither does Sanders, which is why he plans to reduce excessive subsidies to sectors such as the pernicious industrial prison complex and channel them towards positive social programs.
You know the popular critique that free higher education would kill economic growth? Making college tuition free for all Americans would only cost about $75 billion a year. Our government currently loses roughly $100 billion in annual revenue to corporate tax evasion alone. That’s a huge, socialistic subsidy that honest taxpayers are dishing out to the uber-rich, one we could trade in for free college tuition at a massive profit. You think Hillary is willing to make that swap? She took $13 million from the banking industry over a recent two-year period. When Trump paid her, she went to his wedding. What’s she gonna do for her big bank benefactors if she gets into the White House? If you’re ready to find out, then I guess you’re ready for Hillary.
If you’re ready to reclaim the democratic system that rightfully belongs to all Americans and wield it to improve the standard of living for average folks, however, then you’re ready for Sanders. If you think your vote should count as much as a millionaire’s, then cast it for Sanders. If you believe that higher education is not a privilege that should be reserved for the rich, but rather a right endowed on all Americans for the benefit of the nation, Sanders is your man. If you’re ready to see our government’s socialistic policies, which currently work on behalf of the rich, be employed democratically for the benefit of all citizens, then please proceed to Feel the Bern.