I will keep doing, but not worth it! The 2016 Presidential Primary Voting Thread

xpost to mordy on sanders economics -

i read the first one of those - not sure what we're left with at the end though. so the economy won't grow as much as this dude says it will, and the sanders people have been too rosy-eyed in touting his estimate, and that's irresponsible? i mean, i guess, but it's not quite the same as whether his plan is economically reasonable. it could still be a great plan, just not as great, right?

is the idea that sanders is counting on this absurd level of growth in order for taxes to pay for other things in his scheme, the way republicans insist that they can still pay for everything if you cut taxes, because of growth? but it can't be that, right, because these aren't sanders's numbers - they postdate the plan. anyway, is sanders really selling his plan in terms of how it will grow the economy? i know he says "we'll do X, we'll do Y, we'll bring back the middle class and we'll grow our economy," so, yeah, okay - - - but my understanding is that when a guy gets up and spends nearly all his time, every time, talking about the 1% and the 99%, the point is that the economy is already big enough and that the rigged game is in the distribution. "almost all of the new wealth is going to the top 1%" ---> so i'm going to do X Y and Z to keep that from happening. right? the whole problem he's critiquing is the bogus narrative where GDP growth, in a vacuum, means anything.

or is the idea just "he's making it sound like his plan will do more than it can" which is sort of like politics 101, no news here folks. apologies if i've missed something big though, i've been writing some big papers and moving shit around in scrivener for days and i think my addled brain is leading me to much worse ILX politics posts than usual.

i guess the federal government could issue blank-check pell grants or something, but it would also have to pressure schools into not raising tuitions accordingly and for which there is no clear or legal leverage

every time i look at slate there's at least two or three new articles calling sanders "delusional" about something

"Sanders Delusional: Claims the Wire is Better than the Sopranos"

for ex University of California - which, once upon a time, was totally free to California residents - is governed by the UC Board of Regents, who are appointed by the Governor of California. It is not connected to the federal government at all (beyond, I'm sure, receiving grants etc.)

xp

― Οὖτις, Thursday, 18 February 2016 17:12 (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I have no real idea what Sanders means when he says "free tuition for everybody" - maybe he just means the federal government would literally pay for students' tuition? there's no legal way the federal government could compel a state to just absorb the cost of all of its public university students.

This was sort of what I expected. It seems like a crazy thing to promise.

Watching the PBS debate, I found myself tending to agree with both Clinton's and Sanders's criticisms of each other.

re: Sanders's college plan - I agree that it's not well spelled out. My assumption (see this long rambling post) has always been something like, the federal government would be issuing block grants for tuition, paid for from this big new Wall Street tax fund, but with strings attached - like highway money. So maybe it would require that tuition be kept to a certain level, or that salaries for administrators are pegged to some standard, or whatever. And your state and board of regents could say, ehh, fuck this, you can keep your dirty money, we make our own decisions around here .... but only if it felt like facing the mass uprising of basically every parent in the state.

For private school (and, I figure, graduate school at public institutions), he proposes cutting student loan interest rates and eliminating all interest on federal loans. As previously noted, even a compromise halfway version of any of those proposals would do a hell of a lot of good, but it's probably the one plank in his platform that seems the easiest to pass despite what would no doubt be desperate Wall Street lobbying, unless Republicans take up Hillary's tendentious "but Donald Trump's kids could go to school on your plan" line.

hmm, that post i linked is not the one i was thinking of. sorry about that. well, you get the idea.

oh here we go: a clown car full of millionaires: the 2016 presidential primary thread

also sanders's plan in very slightly more detail: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file

Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition, colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty. States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty, and provide professional development opportunities for professors. No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based financial aid, or the construction of non-academic buildings like stadiums and student centers.

And your state and board of regents could say, ehh, fuck this, you can keep your dirty money, we make our own decisions around here

I can't conceive of any state's public higher education institutions agreeing to this - what benefit is it to them if the money comes from the feds or from the students' themselves? Costs at UC are insane, they would never agree to sacrificing autonomy just so students don't have to foot a bill, especially students that come from out of state and whose parents aren't CA voters.

xxp

presidential campaign promises (as stated) that never come to fruition: half? 80% 90% They're theatrical signifiers, not literal criteria.

maybe i am crazy/naive but i feel like the political pressure on state governors to get their regents to take the money would be enormous. any sitting governor who doesn't take the deal, however they hem and haw about applications and keeping our schools independent, would be painting a target on themselves for the next election. i mean you could not be handed an easier issue to run on: governor bozo turned away thirty bajillion dollars that would have sent YOUR KIDS to college TUITION FREE. of course i can imagine situations where that doesn't win, and the kinds of arguments the governors would use, but it doesn't seem like an open and shut "nope" to me.

yeah, it makes no difference to the board, sure, but that's like saying hospital administrators see no difference whether the money comes from patients or from free health care. that doesn't mean free health care doesn't have a powerful constituency lobbying for "take the money!" once it's available to be claimed! (which also doesn't mean there are not opposing forces, obviously!)

("applications"? i have no idea what word i meant to put there.)

The 1% aren't the only ones getting screwed this election season

http://berniesingles.com

Also, the very existence of the program would weaken many of the boards' arguments against its attached strings. If the schools in all the neighboring states have caps on administrative salaries or whatever other tuition-ballooning expenses, it gets harder to say "we NEED to pay the president $1.5 million a year or we'll lose them!" Plus a lot of the stuff the board would be defending would be stuff everybody hates anyway, like really outrageous ratios of administration to faculty. I think "we'll lose our autonomy" will ring pretty weak in those circumstances, up against your kid being saddled with tens of thousands of dollars of debt. But again, I may be naive or crazy.

but states would be on the hook for 33% of the tuition as well - where's that gonna come from, state taxes? "Now MY taxes are sending some kid from New Jersey to Berkeley? Fuck that!" I don't think it's an open and shut case at all. Could easily be sold as just increasing costs for everybody across the board.

xp

I mean UC tuition is insane - some kid from a state with shittier schools could conceivably get into UC and not pay a dime, while no one from CA goes to their state's shitty schools, and CA taxpayers end up footing the bill.

the Lobster works WILLIAMSBURG

http://gawker.com/i-watched-bill-clinton-not-play-the-saxophone-at-a-bowl-1759877462

idk this is all so hypothetical Morbz otm this plan has no chance of passage etc.

The 1% aren't the only ones getting screwed this election season

http://berniesingles.com

― mookieproof, Thursday, February 18, 2016 5:45 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

loooool

12
Women online

32
Men online

I mean UC tuition is insane - some kid from a state with shittier schools could conceivably get into UC and not pay a dime, while no one from CA goes to their state's shitty schools, and CA taxpayers end up footing the bill.

― Οὖτις, Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:48 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the current system is admitting larger amounts of out of state kids and charging them through the nose for out of state tuition to help subsidize in-state tuition.

I know, this plan sounds like it would reverse that - I'm sure that would be a big hit with CA voters

In my state graduation rates have been so connected to "performance metrics"

the current system is admitting larger amounts of out of state kids and charging them through the nose for out of state tuition to help subsidize in-state tuition.

― carthago delenda est (mayor jingleberries),

the Chronicle of Higher Ed runs this article, like, twice a month.

guys we crashed the Bernie dating site

I thought the whole idea of attaching the strings was that tuition would come down. both to keep the fund from being milked but also because the tuition is too damn high. i do agree that the in-state/out-of-state thing has real political wrinkles to it.

Trump thinking he can go head-to-head with the Holy Father is the most insane political calculation I expect to see in my lifetime. The Catholic vote isn't what it used to be, but burning that bridge is madness

Seriously. Maybe he'll start calling for a renewal of Prohibition just to see what he can't get away with. Rum, Romanism and Rubio.

It'll be super cool when tuition is free but all the professors are adjuncts who can't pay their bills.

States will need to maintain spending on their higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition, colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.

Where will the money come from?

Wall St speculation tax is the story. Free tuition definitely works in some countries (generally, afaik, ones with more streaming of students and more apprenticeships, with fewer students going to uni in the first place). I just don't see how it could be implemented in the US at the federal level.

I'd rather see universal healthcare and universal not-shitty high school before I start worrying about free college tuition.

you may be aware of this but sanders has also mentioned universal healthcare offhandedly, once or twice

I don't believe I suggested otherwise. This conversation appears to be about the feasibility and wisdom of the college idea, though...

universal not-shitty high school

yeah this would be nice. and the feds have more leverage here too iirc.

Not anymore thank you Arne Duncan.

Doesn't Sanders' plan necessitate speculation?

well, they have more leverage in terms of funding - the cost/tuition issue is obviously totally different for universities

xp

High school has to be one of the areas where the feds have the least control, right? It's all your local property tax dollars at work, no?

Re: health care and education - if Sanders were president and push was coming to shove and it looked like he was going to be able to pass one thing this term, then yeah, I say health care too, no contest. But given that it's a pie-in-the-sky candidacy meant to shift the Overton window etc. etc., does lobbying for one somehow damage lobbying for the other?

I'd actually argue the reverse: hawking a complete package of amazing socialist programs makes all of them more likely to become part of the conversation going forward from now - each benefits from the larger sense that this is not about pushing for this little tax credit or that little halfway program, but for a comprehensive shift in what we're looking to get out of our government, and what we think the economy and the income inequality chart should actually look like. A "new deal" of cards, if you will. If Sanders was a one-issue candidate just talking about health care, he'd probably still get some attention, but the "movement" such as it is would not be coalescing and nobody who actually gets elected would feel the slightest obligation to do anything about these other cases of institutionalized inequality and wealth extraction.

It's all your local property tax dollars at work, no?

my kids aren't in high school yet so all I know is that our k-9 school benefited hugely from injections of federal money - presumably more of that is always better. that's all I was saying. I didn't mean leverage as far as changing curriculums or whatever (which, tbh, I'm less interested). Dumping money into basic primary/hs education just seems like a better deal than this harebrained tuition scheme.

it looked like he was going to be able to pass one thing this term, then yeah, I say health care too, no contest.

argggh we already had one president do this and imo he should've picked climate change/energy legislation as the hill to die on, would suck to see Sanders make the same choice

Trump insulting the Pope is like something out of a ZAZ movie. You just can't make that up.

My bad, I thought the hypothetical choice milo z offered was only between those three!

a pie-in-the-sky candidacy meant to shift the Overton window etc.

But, I mean, he more or less tied the first caucus, handily won the first primary, and looks competitive for the third, right? Grassroots movement no one took seriously a year ago, anything could happen, etc., etc. Left-leaning governments that end up unexpectedly winning on pie-in-the-sky platforms can set their cause back.

(Tbc, I've been teaching at a US university since August so I'm trying to follow this seriously, not carping from another country.)

looks competitive for the third

*second

argggh we already had one president do this and imo he should've picked climate change/energy legislation as the hill to die on, would suck to see Sanders make the same choice

― Οὖτις,

Dude, really? As "small term" political gain and simple human decency, it made the best sense. People are alive thanks to the ACA.

I'd actually argue the reverse: hawking a complete package of amazing socialist programs makes all of them more likely to become part of the conversation going forward from now - each benefits from the larger sense that this is not about pushing for this little tax credit or that little halfway program, but for a comprehensive shift in what we're looking to get out of our government, and what we think the economy and the income inequality chart should actually look like

ehhhh I don't know. Do you live in a state with a GOP governor and a GOP supermajority? The only way in which I see these policies becoming part of the conversation is if student activism scares the shit out of lobbyists and legislators.

Rubio also going against the Pope's words; but Rubio, as far as I can tell, is only Catholic for show, since he also attends some evangelical church and was also a Mormon; also he's Cuban so it's not like he has any sense of what immigration is like for people from Mexico.

this Pope shit is temporary. Trump said what he needed to in a state where (a) the pope's already loathed by conservatives (b) evangelicals vote.