| By N.Raider - Nov 15th, 2007 at 10:25 pm EST |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
Turn on CNN. Listen to the candidates. Are any of them talking about the fact that this past Tuesday, President Bush decided to veto the bill after the House passed it with bipartisan support 274-141? It gets worse. President Bush vetoed the bill because "this puts a balanced budget in jeopardy and risks future tax increases…this bill continues to fund programs that are duplicative and ineffective." Oh, I’m sorry that this bill would cost $205 billion (over the course of 5 years) more than the White House expected. Rep. David Obey points out that "the same president who is asking us to spend another $200 billion on the misguided war in Iraq and is insisting on providing $60 billion in tax cuts next year to folks who make over a million bucks a year, is now pretending to protect the deficit by refusing to provide a $6-billion increase to crucial domestic investments in education, health care, medical research and worker protections that will make this country stronger."
I don’t know about you, but my parents cannot afford to send three children to four-year public universities at $25,000 per year per child. In fact, because this has not been reauthorized in the past decade, the costs of attending college are higher than ever. To learn more about the Higher Education Act (now called the College Opportunity & Affordability Act), the United States Student Association has put together a spiffy factsheet.
All hope is NOT lost! We still have a couple weeks left during this session to pressure Congress to vote to overturn President Bush’s veto. We only need 16 votes to do it and 20 Congressional representatives did not even vote the first time. As a growing percentage of the population and the electorate, we need to send a clear message to Congress that we are watching them and that education ought not be a privilege but a basic right in the United States of America.

Comments are closed for this post.
Costs rise every year without a commensurate increase in productivity on the part of institutions and their staff. The institutions charge what the traffic will bear, and the availability of third party funds bumps up what the traffic will bear.
There is nothing wrong with working for your education, delaying your degree until you can afford it, or borrowing what your institution's financial aid package doesn't cover.
I don't think the two things are related. As the previous post points out, if the Act were done away with, this might actually serve to bring down the cost of higher education over time.