noxiousdog wrote:
But free four year college for everyone? Hell, no.
Once upon a time, it was common for corporations to invest heavily in their workforce. Before the GI bill granted him free college, my dad was an apprentice tool and die maker for Westinghouse.
I would expect a "free college" initiative to come with strings attached. It's available to those who serve in the military, so that's one string. A corporate-sponsored college system should probably marry the student to the corporation -- the student gets a paid education; the sponsoring company gets X number of years of contractual services at a predetermined salary that might be somewhat lower than market price (astute companies would include a bonus program to keep up motivation and performance).
In the past 30 years, the cost of college has exploded (something like 1200%) and the burden has shifted almost entirely to the student. Now, there isn't much of a difference between a grad making $50,000 per year but paying off $10,000 debt per year for 5 years as opposed to a sponsored student not incurring college debt but only making $40,000 for a 5 year contract, except there's a much greater chance that the latter will be working the entire 5 years and in his chosen profession. It also aligns the skills of graduating students with the needs of the market place; cutting way back on students graduating with massive debt and unmarketable skills.
There are some career paths that don't fit well with this model, and for that, students can also do things the old fashioned way and have their parents pay for their education. I'd wager that some law, specialty medical, and sales positions might have enough variable earning potential in 5 years (or more, as advanced degrees would add to the contract) to not want to be limited by contractual obligations.
This would appeal those who need it the most - disadvantaged or those without marketable skills for one reason or another. They can't afford the current system, and they are currently likely to be a net drain on the economy. The poor are an economic drain in many ways -- push them up to middle-class, and suddenly you stop the bleeding and add a productive tax-payer, or net economic positive, to the economy. I don't know how well Bernie's campaign has crunched the numbers, but I suspect this sort of "entitlement program" has greater economic dividends than any other (such as, you know, taxing the poor even more).
As much as I like hearing what he's saying, I don't think Bernie has the resume to be president. He would be an interesting choice as vice-president, though and I would like to see Hillary agree to let him run with his education initiative as part of the deal.
