As the battle for school choice continues in State Houses across the country, momentum is building to reduce the burden of the federal education bureaucracy. Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT) introduced the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (A-PLUS) Act (H.R. 2514/S. 827) last summer in order to shift educational accountability away from the federal government and toward groups with the most at stake: parents and taxpayers.
A-PLUS would allow states to completely opt out of the onerous provisions of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)—the now infamous government expansion of federal control of the education sector—and would allow state leaders to direct education dollars and decision-making in a way that would best meet the needs of local students.
We knew that. You knew that. Apparently even Vice President Joe Biden knew that. Yet still, he and President Obama believe more government subsidies are the answer!
During a visit to Florida State University (this blogger’s Alma Mater) on Monday, the Vice President was asked how he felt about government subsidies interfering in the free market and how that artificially increased tuition costs. Vice President Biden responded (emphasis added):
“By the way, government subsidies have impacted upon rising tuition costs. It’s a conundrum here. But if we went the rate your view of the free market route what we would have done is we would have not of done that. We would not have increased Pell grants, for example. And there would be 9 million fewer students in college today.
“And there would be hundreds of thousands and millions of students who would not be in college who don’t get Pell grants because there was no ability for them to borrow money through Perkins loans and/or have the tax deduction.
“So you are right, in a pure free-market the college tuition would have to be lower because there would be fewer people going to school, they wouldn’t have as much coming in. But the end result is we would probably have — we go for the better part, half a generation, of going 16th in the world maybe down to 20th in the world.”
President Obama’s plan to lower college tuition costs is a lot like his plans to solve other problems: crowd out competition and force everyone into the higher-cost standard-bearer.
Just look at his corporate tax plan. Instead of competing with other countries by lowering our corporate tax rate (something that has broad, bipartisan agreement), the President wants to force global companies to pay that higher tax rate instead of the lower rate in the country they’re doing business. It’s backwards competition.
He has also done this to our energy sector. Instead of – honestly and truly – opening up more drilling for oil and natural gas (cheap, domestic energy) he is keeping prices high to promote “clean” energy. In the “clean” energy market, he is trying to force Americans to buy expensive, inefficient technologies with his “clean” energy loan programs, consumer incentives and calls for a “clean” energy standard (or mandate). No real innovation, just the heavy hand of government selecting alternatives.
Last night, President Obama delivered his annual State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress. The speech (unsurprisingly) contained no little content and in fact read like the stringing together of MSNBC’s liberal “Lean Forward” commercials. It came as no surprise that the speech contained no new ideas, but what is a little surprising is that it actually contained content from the previous State of the Union addresses, as the RNC points out in this video:
His speech was nothing but a laundry list of populist statements designed to get feel-good applause and repackage his Keynesian economic proposals. We’ll give him this; he wasn’t as viciously partisan as many suspected he’d be. Amongst the debunked myths he continues to peddle, a host of other fallacies and misstatements need to be exposed.
While talking about the troops overseas, President Obama discussed their teamwork:
Forgive student debt! One of the more, shall we say, unconventional demands from the Occupy Wall Street crowd, but it seems President Obama has taken their concerns to heart.
He’s losing the youth vote, less than 40% approve of the President’s job performance, while 54% disapprove, and the youth unemployment rate is higher than the national unemployment rate. The President needed to do something to try and win back this critical voting block, which came out in droves for him in 2008.