This is from Congressman Emanuel’s web site, so let’s take a look a an important part of his plan and analysis it. The reason why I choose him is because I heard this idea mentioned at a Congressional Debate put on by the DLC, which more on this can be found here.
Here is one of the big problems I found with his idea:
"…I believe you have to make a one-year post high school education universal, and required, just like the high school education was required. I don’t care if you go become an apprentice at the IBEW. I don’t care if you go to the community college and do computer science. And I don’t care whether you go to a four-year institute. But you have to have a workforce that has the skills and capacity to compete and win."
Spend, Spend, Spend….
This seems to be the great idea that Democrats have, now that they are in control. So let’s look at the ramifications that this would have, besides the fact that it will put us in debt and be another social welfare program that will grow forever.
What does it mean to be against this proposal? Is it that you are now against education? No, what I am against is government planned education.
Anytime the government does something it is mandatory. This was seen clearly with Social Security, Income taxes, and many other regulations and taxes. They are trying to do this with healthcare too. This would be no different.
This is wrong because you are allocating resources to the wrong areas. If it is more profitable for a student from high school to continue his education then he will. If it is more profitable for them to go in the workforce then they will do that. To shift people into the field of education will then create too many educated people with not enough supply of jobs.
Let’s assume you force someone to go to a educational system they do not what to go to. Where would you go? Many kids may decide to go and party in college for a year flunk out and call it a day. This is at no monetary cost to them.
The only cost is the forgone income they could have been making in the workforce. Democrats are also the same people who believe that hang guns shouldn’t be in people hands under the age of 21. So they are assuming that the student will know where he wants to go or where he want to further his education.
If he chooses to go to a four year institution to party, because other than the booze and sex costs, it is free. It will lower the value of everyone else’s education. If they go to class they will be a disruption. If anyone went to public school and then college they understand what I am saying. They can also convince those who are going for all four years to party also.
Universities will probably just go to 5 year programs. In create a one year universal education payment, you could possibly make the college system less efficient, you would draw kids who could be working in businesses that need them and will pay them well away from them, and you may impose negative externalities on the "good" students.
Did I mention who was footing the bill?