This Education President Flunks Populist Course
Say what you want, the Clinton administration has made some major strides in education the past four years, particularly in higher education.
Taking on controversial education initiatives, all in the face of increasing pressure by the opposition party to abolish the Department of Education, is no small feat.
I’m afraid, however, that all of those hard-gained brownie points, from a burgeoning Head Start program to expedited student loans, are today in jeopardy of being overshadowed by the administration’s overly ambitious education package, unveiled in the president’s State of the Union message.
The administration wants to pump another 20 percent into education spending. Specifically, the president wants to see families get a $1,500 tax credit during the first two years of their offspring’s college, with an Individual Retirement Account no-penalty provision for early withdrawals involving incomes up to $100,000.
My guess is that no matter how palatable his proposal, Clinton’s tax credit and deduction approach are in for some rough sledding. That’s based on politics as usual, if not a majority Republican Party hellbent on not ceding any more tax credits or initiatives to a second-term Democratic president.
But Clinton and his Democrats are as protective of education as Republican conservatives are on tax cuts, capital gains reductions and tax credits. This explains why the president spent a sizable chunk of his State of the Union time a fortnight ago talking about education and extolling what could well end up being his much sought-after legacy while in office. Or so he hopes.
The problem with the educational package Clinton’s pushing is that it seems almost anathema to all of the good stuff in education the administration managed to get through Congress during his first term.
Just four years ago, the administration took an out of control, complicated college student loan program and made it really accessible to parents and students by eliminating unnecessary government bureaucracy and streamlining the whole process. I know because I had a couple of sons in college at the time who benefited from a rejuvenated student loan program.
By administrative estimates alone, those adjustments to the Direct Student Loan Program were expected to save taxpayers nearly $4.5 million through 1998. So far, the projection seems to be holding up.
For Clinton, it helps to have as Education Secretary Dick Riley, an individual who earlier gained a national reputation as governor of my home state of South Carolina, as a chief executive with schools and teachers at heart.
If Riley considered it a minor miracle in 1993, in the nation’s capital, to cut the red tape for college loans, Clinton’s proposal to tie a student’s above-average performance as a freshman to a college loan may pose an even greater challenge down the road.
And rightfully so. Something doesn’t seem right for a pro-education administration such as Clinton’s to mandate a student to maintain at least a B average to qualify his or her family for a $1,500 tax credit, while also allowing the student to get a college loan.
Problem is, poorer students under the administration’s fantasy proposal are apt to get left out of the loan process, with the academic bar tilting toward the middle class and remaining artificially high.
No question, the president has long been a supporter of much-needed tax credits in higher education. But he seems to have missed his higher education target by nudging his tax incentives to just the middle class, instead of to any family with dependants unlucky enough to flirt with mediocrity and muster only a C-average.
Understandably, incentives should always be there for students to excel. But the administration is living in a dream world world if it believes prospective middle class students and families are the only ones in need of college financial help.
xxxx
The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Fred Davis Washington State University