Paul Weinstein for the Progressive Policy Institute: Recently a group urging free tuition at Harvard University failed to win a seat on the University’s Board of Overseers.
With an endowment of $38 billion, Harvard can afford to have this debate. But the vast majority of schools in America today are too tuition-dependent to offer universal free tuition. And while any plan to get the debt monkey off the back of students is welcome, the reality is the promise of free tuition is illusory – most of the proposals would cover the cost of tuition only at your typical community college, fail to rein in rising college prices, and are cost prohibitive. For example, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ proposal would run about $70 billion a year.
Fortunately, many voters have not been blinded by the allure of promises of free tuition. According to a recent poll by veteran Democratic pollster Peter Brodnitz for the Progressive Policy Institute, When asked to choose between free college tuition and a proposal to offer three-year college degrees, thereby cutting college tuition costs by a quarter, swing voters picked three-year degrees by a 63 percent to 29 percent margin.
Three-year colleges are the norm in many European countries, and a few enterprising universities here have begun to follow suit. …
By making a three-year bachelor’s degree the norm, the cost of attending college would drop dramatically. Students currently attending four-year public schools in-state would see savings on average of $8,893 while those at private schools would get a $30,094 reduction.
Cutting tuition by a quarter also would reduce the amount students need to borrow. Nearly 70 percent of bachelor degree holders have taken out student loans, with an average debt burden of $29,400. Assuming someone borrows $29,400 at the going rate of 4.66 percent over four years, the interest owed would amount to $7,505. But shaving a year off college cuts that interest tab to about $5,629, a savings of $1,876. And keep in mind we are talking averages here; the many students carrying debt well above the average will reap bigger savings.
Trump’s missing half a tax plan
John Olson for the Tax Foundation: Broader bases and lower rates: These are the two pillars of tax reform. Unfortunately, when it comes to reforming America’s tax code, Donald Trump’s tax plan has only half of the blueprint. While Trump’s plan slashes tax rates across the board, it fails to broaden the tax base to make up for lost revenue.
First of all, what is meant by “broader bases and lower rates”? Simply put, this means lowering marginal tax rates while simultaneously increasing the amount of the economy subject to taxation to keep revenues in line. …
Trump’s tax plan successfully lowers tax rates. He cuts the top ordinary income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent, the federal tax rate on corporate income from 35 percent to 15 percent, and eliminates estate taxes altogether. These lower marginal rates are the part of tax reform that Trump has right, but he fails to address the need for broader tax bases.
In fact, Trump significantly narrows the tax base by exempting the first $25,000 of income for single filers and $50,000 for married filers. Trump’s plan remarks that this “removes nearly 75 million households – over 50 percent – from the income tax rolls.” This means that not only are people facing lower marginal tax rates, but a considerable amount are paying no income taxes at all.
This is a major reason why Trump’s tax plan, if enacted, would hemorrhage federal revenue.
Justice delayed
James Copland and Rafael Mangual for the Manhattan Institute: Each year, the Department of Justice and other federal agencies enter into scores of deferred prosecution agreement and non-prosecution agreements with businesses.
DPAs involve cases in which criminal charges have been filed, and Justice asserts that judicial oversight is limited to ensuring their compliance with the Speedy Trial Act, an understanding that was recently embraced by a federal appellate court. NPAs are entered into without the filing of any formal criminal charges and no judge ever reviews their contents. …
Since the beginning of 2010, 17 of America’s 100 largest companies have been operating under one of these agreements. In 2015, the government entered into 100 — a record — and companies paid out more than $6 billion under their terms without any guilty plea or adjudication. …
DPAs and NPAs raise serious legal and policy issues:
1. National sovereignty. The Justice Department regularly polices activities by foreign corporations, with little apparent regard for the foreign-policy implications of its efforts.
2. Free speech. The deals often require companies to agree to statements of facts and include “non-contradiction clauses” that restrict corporate speech, including in civil litigation.
3. Deputizing private businesses to undertake law-enforcement activities. Justice uses the threat of prosecution to enlist companies to police misconduct — even that of third-party contractors and vendors — without clear statutory authorization.
4. Lack of judicial oversight and transparency. NPAs lack any judicial oversight and DPAs’ judicial review is limited to enforcing the procedural terms of the Speedy Trial Act, which means that Justice’s actions are essentially unilateral.
Compiled by Joseph Lawler from reports published by the various think tanks.
