In
response to the article titled, “Why Ron Paul is wrong for students” I would
like to thank the author for addressing her concerns; however, I would like to
provide an opposing argument.
Although
Ron Paul promotes limited federal government involvement, he understands that
many people are dependent on government programs. The Paul campaign released
this statement about federal student aid [1]:
“To recognize that we are bankrupt and we
must have drastic change in this country is not to say that certain programs
Americans have come to rely on will be gotten rid of overnight. Paul is
certainly saying no such thing. But the costs must be addressed—and not simply
what the government spends, but the massive debt incurred by those in
this country who just want a college education. To be sure, the countless
Americans who are now slaves to education-related debt can tell you there
are substantial problems with our current system. Ron Paul simply wants to fix
them.”
Therefore,
I would like to explain Ron Paul’s arguments about the problems with the
current system in place. First of all, inflation of college tuition (the rate
of the rising cost) on its own has “outpaced” other goods since the 1990s. This
means that college has become more expensive than other fundamental goods and
services expended, such as housing, energy, and health care [2]. Specifically,
College Board figures show that college tuition inflation is 2.67% higher than
general inflation [3]. Why is college tuition overinflated though? The author
acknowledges that federal aid contributes to the rise in tuition but does not
elaborate on the reason. Data suggests that schools increase prices based on
the amount of grants they receive in aid. For example, a school would raise
tuition $66 for every $100 they receive in student aid. More support was
demonstrated in a collaborative study conducted at both George Washington
University and Harvard, which found that for-profit schools that were eligible
for Title IV programs (grants, loans and work-study) charged tuition 75% higher
than for-profit schools that were not eligible for Title IV programs. In other
words, the for-profit schools receiving federal aid raised tuition at a much
higher rate than for-profit schools not receiving federal aid [4]. Therefore,
it appears that federal aid is taking away the incentive for schools to keep
tuition low and affordable for students.
In
a free market environment, competition would help reduce prices so students
would be able to afford tuition on their own. Prior to federal government
involvement in higher education, tuition was something students could carefully
consider before deciding on a certain college. Therefore, colleges had to make
sure they charged reasonable and affordable tuition rates in order to remain
competitive. It seems strange now, but students used to be able to afford their
tuition without help from parents or the government. How was this possible?
Well, one example is that they had the option of working a summer job to save
up for fall and spring tuition. College used to be that inexpensive before the
Higher Education Act of 1965!
Nowadays,
paying college tuition without student loans seems impossible. Aside from
needing government assistance, we do not have the option of going to college at
our own pace. For example, financial aid requires students to attend full time
in order to receive grants, loans or work-study benefits. Students are faced
with a busy, stressful schedule if they also work a full-time job. Financial
aid’s six-month grace period is another factor I find to be constraining. The
six-month grace period does not provide students the option of taking off more
than six months from school because they would be required to begin repaying
their loans. There are three exceptions when one cannot find a job after
graduation or if he/she takes a break from school: forbearance, deferment, or
going back to school. I understand the rules are in place for a reason (e.g.,
prevent people from taking advantage of the system) but I would like to point
out how these rules make college a bit more complicated than it should be.
Financial aid restricts our ability to decide the amount of hours we want to
take and our ability to take off more than a semester for whatever reason
(e.g., family emergency). I speak from experience. I had to push back my
undergraduate graduation date to make sure I did not have a six month gap (to
preserve my grace period) between undergraduate and graduate school. Therefore,
I took unnecessary classes to comply with full-time financial aid status and
incurred more student loan debt.
Moreover,
the author said she was thinking of the “here and now” but the truth is that
our present reality consists of hyperinflated college tuition, 1 trillion
dollars [$1,000,000,000,000] worth of student loan debt and no jobs. Student
loan debt is something U.S. taxpayers cannot sustain or afford to bail out.
Perhaps our generation will be called upon to make sacrifices. These sacrifices
will not be in vain though since they will lead us towards restoring economic
prosperity. If previous generations had taken future generations (our
generation) into consideration, we would probably not be in this mess. I
believe that accepting things for what they are is better than having colossal
student loan debt and a degree in a weak job market. By accepting the reality
of our situation we have the ability to restore our country for future
generations. Nelson Mandela said, “Sometimes it falls upon a generation to be
great. [We] can be that great generation." I strongly believe we can have
a positive impact on the direction of our country by bringing awareness to the
flaws in the higher education funding system.
If
you still believe it is not in our best interest to get rid of federal student
aid, I do not blame you. Our generation grew up in a time of government
assistance. Yet, I do feel it is our duty to investigate what caused the
problems we face today. Why are we in an economic crisis? Why are we fighting
unconstitutional wars? Why are we sending foreign aid to other countries during
a recession when the money could do so much at home? What role does the Federal
Reserve play in devaluing our currency and exacerbating inflation? What is the
inflation tax? These are but a few of the questions we should be investigating.
Ron Paul addresses these issues. He speaks the truth and the truth is not
always pretty or easy to hear.
The
author believes it is “obvious” Dr. Ron Paul has never been in our shoes. This
tells me she is comfortable with relying on her preconceived opinions. It is
actually no secret Ron Paul was born to a poor family during the Great
Depression. Dr. Paul also paid his own way through college and medical school. It
seems to me he is well aware of the challenges and difficulties that come with
seeking higher education.
Moreover,
I vehemently disagree with the author when she says that any student who votes
for Ron Paul is shooting themselves in the foot. I am a student and I have come
to support Ron Paul by reading his books and investigating his policies. Ron
Paul’s platform must be looked at holistically in order to appreciate its
fairness and practicality. I understand how a cursory inspection of the single
issue of federal student aid can turn off some individuals but I would like to
point out that Ron Paul is more concerned with fixing our foreign and monetary
policies than cutting federal student aid. You can view details about his Plan
to Restore American at ronpaul2012.com [5].
Personally,
I was first drawn to Ron Paul for his peaceful, diplomatic foreign policy. His
respect for the Constitution and 20-year record in Washington indicate he would
never start an unconstitutional war. This is important to me because
unconstitutional wars have cost us thousands of lives and trillions of dollars
in the past decade alone. As students and citizens, we should be concerned
about these types of issues; college is a choice but war is being forced on
citizens even when the reasons for the wars are lies (e.g., weapons of mass
destruction that were never found in Iraq). I would also like to point out that
Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that has spoken out against the
newest provision to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) [6], which
disregards some of the basic principles of a free society: habeas corpus and due
process of law (Subtitle D, Section 1021). Yes, President Obama signed a waiver for U.S. Citizens, but
shouldn’t we have all have been a bit more concerned about the very fact that
our constitutional rights were usurped with the stroke of a pen? I urge all students and citizens to do
their own research before deciding whether they will vote for a candidate or
not. Thank you for your time.
