The Cost of a Gud Edukashun

The Ragin' Man just watched the latest episode of the McGlaughlin Group. At the top of the program they discussed something that he rages about often, the price of higher education. The Ragin' Man went to a private institution in Illinois before graduating from a public institution in Missouri with a BA in History. The Ragin' Man understands the value of a good education because he got one.

Now, out of the third person, something that has concerned me greatly is the growing cost of a good education. The McGlaughlin Group talked about President Obama's latest plan to reduce the cost of higher education. A statistic the McGlaughlin Group used was a 72% increase in the cost of a 4 year degree over the last ten years. Why the increase, and how does this plan help?

I know you're going to find this hard to believe, but the Republican on the panel, Rich Lowry, first blamed professors' salaries and how they were calculated. Lowry later went on to list a few professors who manage to rake in exorbitant salaries, but in the same episode they cited a statistic that said the average professor salary had only gone up 14% in the same time the cost of an education had gone up 72%. Figuring that there are far more students at an institution than there are faculty this 72% increase cannot be blamed anywhere near entirely on teacher compensation. The average professor makes about $30,000-$40,000 less than a 4 year education costs. Certainly increases in pay will lead to increases in cost, but costs have skyrocketed at 5.6% a year while professor salaries have been largely stagnant.

Many have made a big deal of supply and demand on the system, and I am sure that is a major issue. This is particularly true as the demand for low skill workers dries up. No longer is there any other option for a high school graduate seeking a good job than to go to college. Employment is simply not there.

Of slightly greater impact to the cost of an education than the 14% increase in professor salary is the 20% decrease in state support over that same time. At the same time more strain is put on the system due to more demand to educate students there is a drop in spending by governments that has an increased effect on pricing because, while the number of professors to students should increase relative to each other, the number of state governments remain constant.

Another issue only mentioned briefly by the McGlaughlin Group was the investments in sports programs and alumni outreach. I haven't seen this written, but as a graduate of a brick and mortar school with no major sports program I find that I have to identify I went to a "real" university and not an Ashford or University of Phoenix for profit. I've heard it said that students will fill institutions regardless as long as the doors stay open and pay whatever is charged, so Presidents worry about alumni relations (to get donations) as state spending has decreased. Essentially the student is no longer the consumer, the fan of the football program and the alumni become the sought after buyer. This is one of those cases where causation would be next to impossible to prove, but my personal experience leads me to believe there is a significant truth to this.

Now, what does the President's plan do to stop all of this? In truth, next to nothing. President Obama supports an opening of "Race For The Top" to higher institutions. This accounts for $1 billion of the program, but there is a $7 billion increase in the Perkins Loan Program. I don't see how a 7 fold increase in a program to allow more money for students to become indebted with provides much in the way of relief. The $55 million grants to institutions who keep costs low is a start, but clearly the largest amount in funding is borne by the student.

I guess I don't understand why Republicans don't support this plan. All but 13% of the spending increases are going to be paid for over time. Maybe the actual bill that is introduced will contain something more, but as it stands the plan does little to defray the costs of a good education.

Syria Unlike Libya

I've been reading a lot of stories about Syria like this one. A lot of people are questioning why we are not intervening in Syria like we did in Libya. Probably the best explanation was given by Peter Galbraith, former ambassador to Croatia.

On "Real Time with Bill Maher" Ambassador Galbraith said the two major differences are that Syria is mostly land locked, making smuggling in weapons difficult, and the opposition has not seized any territory, making it nearly impossible to determine who to give smuggled weapons to. In Libya the opposition almost immediately seized Benghazi, a port city, before help was offered.

It should be noted that we still trade freely with China and Russia after the two blocked an attempt at sanctions for the horrific shelling of their own citizens in the city of Homs.

I only wrote this because I've seen a few stories about Syria, and I've heard many ask why we aren't helping, but I don't hear this explanation given. I think the key to doing something in Syria without committing troops is going to involve all of America suffering economically to bring Russia and China on board. I'm not sure we're all really willing to do that much to help Syria though.

Republic, Really Lost

I just got done reading "Republic, Lost" by Lawrence Lessig. It is a very good book and I would recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about the corrupting influence of money or anyone who simply wants to understand why most people believe it is corrupting.

In the book Lessig points to ways to devalue big donor money and instead make the money a candidate gets tied more to the number of voters who support that candidate.

I came away from the book thinking that there were some good ideas in the book, but I don't know that campaigns are the big problem anymore. Check out this report from the CBS Evening News:



I think that even if we get candidates completely publicly funded contested races will then use Super PACs to push money into races. I'm not sure how to solve the problem, but it's just something to think about as you see more and more reporting on Super PACs.

Republican Race As It Stands

Not many people know that the Ragin' Man grew up in a very Republican household listening to Rush Limbaugh and sucking at the tit of the of the Republican party. I have since become staunchly independent, mostly because I feel that there is no "catch all" answer to our problems. If the economy turns south the answer is not always tax cuts for the rich, just as it is not always government spending increases. Each has its own place.

As a result of my childhood I am extremely interested in Republican politics. The "catch all" answer is actually couched in what I call "the narrative." The narrative explains how the world works in a very flowing story that involves Jesus and trickle down economics. I have identified a couple parts, but needless to say Republicans believe the narrative even if most deny it exists.

The Republican primary battle has yielded three winners in three different states largely because of the narrative. Each state had parts of the narrative that appealed to their Republicans the most. Iowa cared about Jesus, so they voted for Santorum. New Hampshire likes the capitalism that Jesus stands for, so they voted for Romney. South Carolina hates the news media more than they hate open marriages, so they voted for Gingrich.

A poll that put Gingrich at just 30% in South Carolina was conducted on Monday, but he ended up winning the race with 40% of the vote. Looking at Newt you can tell he didn't go door to door to 10% of South Carolinians who were not going to vote for him. It's reasonable to conclude that Rick Perry's 4% followed his endorsement and voted for Newt, but the key moments in the interim were the debates. Newt took on the media for daring to report on his marital infidelities and giving his ex-wife a forum to discuss their relationship's ending using language that appeals to the "liberal media" that is bent on the destruction of Republicans. This not only made Republicans like him for repeating what they believe, but it gave the appearance that the shadowy liberals who run the media want to destroy poor Newt. He even pointed out this was part of the media "protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans." Even the Blaze, Glenn Beck's website, referred to his outrage as "pious baloney" echoing an attack Gingrich had made on Romney.

Bravo Newt. Great politics, but I'm not sure it truly makes you electable to the Americans who don't have an "R" beside their name.

I'm going to watch Florida to see what the key narrative issue for those Republicans is.