The difference in the decision rests more in an ideological sense: how should we pay for education?
With the Democratic Primary coming to California on June 7th and the candidates likely pulling into a closer race as Bernie Sanders rides his victories of the western states thus far, it would be of the best interest of society to educate you (the reader; and hopefully voter) on important issues raised by both the candidates.
Possibly most important to the average community-college-student-reader: reforms each candidate intends for public education through the collegiate level.
According to Clinton’s website, the former secretary’s plan proposes to spend $350 billion over the next ten years. The money is proposed to come from getting rid of tax cuts for “high-income Americans” and would be distributed as federal grants to states.
Secretary Clinton seeks to make community college free and for students to be able to refinance student loans to whatever the current interest rates are.
Imperative to her plan, she suggests to have college costs reduced so that the tuition fee be based upon family income status and that the student participate in a work-study program.
That is the vastest difference in the two plans – Senator Bernie Sander’s plan aims to make college free, regardless of income level or family status.
According to debates and interviews he has given, as can be found on POLITICO, Bernie’s plan proposes a $700 billion plan over the next ten years.
Sanders intends to create the money in the budget by taxing stock trades, bonds, and derivative trades on wall street.
Included in the proposal is free community college, and refinance options for loans currently held by students.
Both plans fiscally and theoretically work. The difference in opinions comes from the analysis of each’s specifics, and each individual’s view on whether education is something that should be provided through collegiate level by the government, or that should be funded by private institutions.
Bernie Sander’s pl
an is an idealistic one – it is a view that he shares with some of our founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson once stated, “an educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.” Jefferson believed in public education through the collegiate level to ensure that democracy was kept safe – and that the voters were educated people.
Hillary has had nice rebuttals however, in one MSNBC debate stating, “I’m a little different from those who say free college for everybody. I am not in favor of making college free for Donald Trump’s kids. I am in favor of making college free for your grandson by having no debt tuition.”
Hillary’s statement strikes a chord with the liberals seeking justice against the mega-rich. Let them continue paying while those less fortunate get college debt free.
However, it is important to note: Hillary doesn’t propose free college, just “debt-free” college.
Families of lower income levels are still expected to participate and pay for their children’s education, just arguably at a more realistic level of pay.
Both education plans aim to help aid those who currently have a hard time affording higher levels of education currently more available to those who have financial support.
The difference in the decision rests more in an ideological sense: how should we pay for education?
Should the money come from taxes and the institutions run by the government, or should college be a privatized organization – paid for directly by the families of those who want to attend. Come Tuesday, June 7 you will have the power to cast your vote for the plan that you support.