Except that a Cabinet Secretary is not a middle manager. He is one of the government's senior leaders. In corporate terms, he is like a senior VP who sits on the executive committee.
But fine. Let's just leave it with a statement we can both agree on:
"Clinton claimed 'the era of big government is over.' And it is true that the number of people who received a paycheck directly from the federal government declined slightly.
* The post-war drawdown of military forces accounts for all of the decline. The number of non-military federal employees actually increased during this time period.
* So did the number of employees whose work was funded by taxpayers through government contracts and grants. In other words, the government paid these people, just not directly -- the government paid a third-party organization, which in turn passed the money along to the worker.
* How much of this gets Clinton credit for "shrink[ing] the government" is left up to the reader.
The OP said: "neither major party has done anything to shrink the government in at least the last quarter century."
Then you said:
"Except Bill Clinton. (Assuming we use number of federal employees as the yardstick)"
All I did was point out simple facts:
(1) That almost NO ONE considers the post-cold-war drawdown in military strength to be "shrink[ing] the government."
(2) This is quite reasonable. The military does not "govern"; that is, they do not execute the programs or services that most people associate with "government." People understand cutting "the military" and "government employees" in two quite distinct ways.
(3) Without that military drawdown, the number of federal employees actually grew during the 1990s.
Jeesh, I don't see what is so hard to understand about this. Using any measure, and under every president and congress, the size and scope of government has inexorably grown every year. Sometimes it turns quickly, and sometimes slowly, but the wheel of government growth is a ratchet; it only turns one way.
When you claim to be cutting government employees, most people assume you are talking about civil service. Clinton, like you and I, was perfectly aware of this.
So sure, there are different yardsticks. The obvious point is that Clinton only got his claimed result by using one different that that which most people use.
And your second claim is also false. "Number of people who get a paycheck directly from the US Treasury is as decent a measure as any other." No it's not. Clearly, a measure that includes grants and contracts is more "decent," since it gives a more accurate and realistic picture of the resources spent.
He was well clear of the area and moving in a different direction.
"He did not stop it nor denounce it after being pressed on it."
False. He denounced it, and fired the guy from his campaign.
But this is all futile. If there's one thing this entire slashdot thread has made crystal clear, it's that people will believe what they want to believe, and to hell with the truth.
"With ideas as foolish as Rand Paul's (the guy wants to abolish the dept of education and the NSF)."
It's not clear at all why this would be foolish.
Do you realize the Dept. of Education has only existed since 1980? That in America, education is a local function? That there is no evidence that, in its 30 years of existence, the DoE has made the slightest difference in education?
Note that I am not arguing here that it should be abolished. My point is narrower: That this is hardly a "foolish" argument. If Paul doesn't think the American people are getting their money's worth out of the DoE, well, that's tough to argue with.
- AJ
PS Essentially, the argument FOR the DoE is "You want to abolish it? Why do you hate children?" That's the kind of thinking that, in the Old Days, slashdotters would ridicule.
Listen, I respect your zealotry. And I don't pretend to be an expert in all this. But I have worked in politics, and I understand how number-shuffling works. Even a quick Googling shows that these things you assert are hotly disputed by reputable sources.
For the "Obamacare thingy", the gist is the the CBO must score a bill according to guidelines given it, and in this case, the guidelines require it to make unsupportable and in some cases extremely unlikely assumptions. For example see:
For the deficit claim: Oh my goodness. Did you read the linked article? Did you understand the deficit was reduced because, the prior year, the administration ran the biggest deficit in US history? And that it declined a little because the bulk of the stimulus spending had ended?
For the tax cut: That's neither here nor there. The other things you raise are *results*; the tax cut was a *tactic*, and even the administration doesn't seem to think it achieved the desired result.
The job creation thing: many, many people have pointed out this this is a totally unfalsifiable claim. There is simply no way to account for job creation in this manner. The only things we know for sure: (1) We've lost about 3.2M jobs;* and (2) The unemployment rate, post stimulus, is slightly higher than the rate the administration warned we would have if we *didn't* pass the stimulus.**
* Of the 214,000 net new jobs, half are in Texas ** A further critique is that the government, since it does not create wealth, cannot actually "create" a job. Any money it uses to "create" a job is money it must simply tax or borrow from the private sector to do so.
Doc, rhetoric aside, I'm really, sincerely curious about you as a person.
Where do you live? What do you do for a living? Do you socialize with other people much? Do you communicate with them face-to-face in the same way you do online? Have you ever been beaten up? Ever committed any crimes? What do you like to do in your spare time? Do you do drugs? Who are your role models? Were you ever abused? Do you have children? What were your parents like? Do you see a therapist? Have you ever been diagnosed with a mental or behavioral disorder? (OCD? Asperger's? ADHD? Tourette's?) Are you taking any kind of medication?
It seems to me if you were so smart, you'd lend some of that prodigious mental firepower to persuading others to come around to your point of view, rather than alienating them with poisonous invective and crude sexual epithets.
Ah, Doc Ruby. So predictably chiming in with a post that unselfconciously promotes every liberal stereotype: cocooned, arrogant, angry, insulting, intolerant, etc.
It's a good thing everyone knows liberals are so inherently good. Otherwise readers might think you're a grade-A jerk.
Under what tortured definition were the Bushes -- either of them -- fiscal conservatives? Are you aware that each was *heavily* criticized in the conservative community for their big-spending ways? For Pete's sake, before Obama, you could have made the case for Bush Jr. as the most profligate president in U.S. history.
Domestic spending also increased under Reagan. He did advocate cuts -- which were resisted by a Democratic Congress -- so I can at least how one might consider him a fiscal conservative. But it's hard to see where you are doing anything here except confirming your own biases.
Unfortunately, that claim of Clinton's is just another statistical mirage (of the kind both parties engage in).
First, when you talk about "federal employees" most people think of civil servants. But their ranks GREW during the 90s. The "shrinkage" was almost entirely due to downsizing the military.
The numbers also don't count contractors, jobs funded with federal grants, etc.
You really think this comment adds to the discussion?
1. Clearly, this is impossible to answer without knowing the particulars of the tax loopholes you are talking about. But that doesn't matter -- you are still talking about *increasing taxation.* It may be right, it may be wrong, but it certainly doesn't do anything to argue with the point I made above.
2. "Tax loopholes" are not a left-or-right issue. Indeed, the use of tax policy to reward/punish certain behaviors is a pillar of progressive thought. The idea that taxes should be applied uniformly and without "loopholes" is a common libertarian theme.
3. How far right the U.S. has shifted? In terms of what? Size of government? Number of regulations? Scope of individual freedoms? Size of the sphere of government authority as opposed to the sphere of private action? Seriously, besides your own perception -- what metric are you using?
The cornerstone of the free market is *competition.*
Businesses don't want competition. They want a steady, predictable supply of government-guaranteed income.
Fighting for customers is hard. It is comparatively easy to hire an experienced lobbyist to lobby government to craft regulations that provide barriers to entry, limit competition ultimately transfer wealth from taxpayers to themselves.
That's why it is foolish to consider big business "conservative." The only thing they seek to conserve is whatever status quo made them big to begin with.
Would you agree that the clash of conservatives vs liberals is often cast as a clash of rich vs poor?
Now, would you agree that wealthier people are more likely to be better educated?
Given these, it is not clear at all to me that "the smarter and better educated you are, the more liberal you are."
It also seems to fly in the face of the fact that, while it is very common for people to get more conservative as they get older, it is comparatively rare for people to get more liberal.
Also, let me add one more note.
You write:
People complain that our universities, urban elite, etc. 'lean left'."
Now, wait a sec. By saying "people complain" you seem to imply that it's not true. But then you go on to seemingly accept that it is. So why did you include the "people complain that" part? Why not just say "Our universities, urban elite, etc. "lean left"? Are you disputing it? I don't get it.
(1) It is very common for people to say they are socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. It has been pointed out many times, however, that this distinction falls apart when you start asking about details. Which extremely expensive social programs/entitlements are these people in favor of cutting? Davis-Bacon? Protectionist tariffs? EEO programs? Funding for the arts? Taxpayer support for abortions? Head Start? The Department of Education?
Not saying anything about you. Perhaps you are indeed one of the very few people who could accurately be described this way. But the fact remains: Social spending is *expensive*, and that money has to come from somewhere.
(2) This whole "reality has a liberal bias" thing to me just strikes me as bizarre.
Just 10 years ago, liberals would have cheerfully and forthrightly asserted the opposite. Remember this? -- "A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged."? Indeed, that was the whole point of contention between liberals and conservatives. The liberal vision was *aspirational and visionary*. It was not based on how things *are*, but how they *should be.* The progressive belief is that we can "progress," in the process change human nature to be more collectivist, less selfish and more aware of social justice issues. Cultural attitudes can be adjusted if we just hit on the right combination of levers, after which we will all link arms and march into the future together.
The conservative critique was that this was all pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking; that you can't ever really change human nature; that people act out of enlightened self-interest, not selfless concern for their fellow man; that you can't legislate away things like the law of supply and demand; and that government policies should take these things into account.
So now, it just strikes me as total revisionism to claim "reality has a well-known liberal bias." I mean, that's not what liberals of previous generations said. If you accused them of being visionary and aspirational, they would have replied, "Damn straight." So, why are you right and them wrong?
The left has come under criticism for rebranding "liberalism" as "progressivism." I strongly disagree -- I think it's a much more accurate term. Indeed, there is much in progressivism that is profoundly *illiberal*; i.e., incompatible with the set of values originally understood to be "liberal."
Your insightful post is based on a completely unsupportable assertion.
You write:
"If you dump labor rights and issues then you are not a left leaning people."
All you are doing here is basing your analysis off your own personal definition of "left." Surely you can see how this is meaningless (to others, anyway).
like khallow, below, I don't really understand your question. I feel just fine about it. I mean, I don't get it -- how *should* I feel? is it supposed to bother me or something? Why would it? What's your point?
1. I bet I know a lot more people in the gun rights movement than you, and I don't know one -- NOT A SINGLE ONE -- who thinks the way that *you* think they do.
2. You say "there are a lot of people in the US who think that *everyone* should have a gun." Really? So there are "a lot of people" who think psychopaths should have guns? Convicted felons on parole?
3. They may think that only people here legally should have guns, but that is a perfectly defensible position. I have NEVER, EVER seen ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of someone saying that guns are bad for illegal Mexicans, but fine for other illegals.
4. In the same vein, please support you assertion that "lots of people" believe everyone should have the right to bear arms in self defense except Muslims.
5. Failing all this, do you think it might be possible -- just *possible -- that in fact you just got up in front of everyone and tried to pass off your own personal bias as fact?
So we've got education and housing: Two major areas of life that are hugely subsidized by government, and in which prices have skyrocketed far past the rate of inflation. Now consider this:
Healthcare.
Again, not trying to provoke a flamewar. My only point is that simple laws of supply and demand cause fairly predictable effects, and those laws aren't going to go away just because we wish they would.
Football (and athletics in general) are not causing tuition to skyrocket. As much as I wish it were so, the numbers just don't add up. For example, tuition has also skyrocketed at schools (like mine) that don't even have football teams.
I think the cause is even simpler. The problem is, no one wants to talk about it because there is no easy, feel-good solution.
Thesis: The raise in tuition rates over the last 40 years or so is largely due to the easy availability of *cheap student loans.*
I don't think this should be particularly controversial: It is a logical outcome completely consistent with classical supply/demand economics.
Let's say the government prints money and starts giving it away. Everyone is richer, right? Wrong, of course -- that money is now worth less, so prices all go up. That's inflation. This is the same scenario, except that the money can only be used for one specific purpose: education. It should logically follow that the price of that education will simply go up correspondingly.
I'm not going to propose any solutions, because I don't want to start some stupid partisan flamewar. I just want to suggest that the widely perceived *solution* to high education costs is actually the *driver* of those costs.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that a Cabinet Secretary is not a middle manager. He is one of the government's senior leaders. In corporate terms, he is like a senior VP who sits on the executive committee.
- Alaska Jack
Wow, I admit, I wasn't expecting that response.
- AJ
None of which, obviously, addresses the point.
But fine. Let's just leave it with a statement we can both agree on:
"Clinton claimed 'the era of big government is over.' And it is true that the number of people who received a paycheck directly from the federal government declined slightly.
* The post-war drawdown of military forces accounts for all of the decline. The number of non-military federal employees actually increased during this time period.
* So did the number of employees whose work was funded by taxpayers through government contracts and grants. In other words, the government paid these people, just not directly -- the government paid a third-party organization, which in turn passed the money along to the worker.
* How much of this gets Clinton credit for "shrink[ing] the government" is left up to the reader.
Cheers
- AJ
You just did a bait-and-switch.
Go back to the beginning of this thread:
The OP said: "neither major party has done anything to shrink the government in at least the last quarter century."
Then you said:
"Except Bill Clinton. (Assuming we use number of federal employees as the yardstick)"
All I did was point out simple facts:
(1) That almost NO ONE considers the post-cold-war drawdown in military strength to be "shrink[ing] the government."
(2) This is quite reasonable. The military does not "govern"; that is, they do not execute the programs or services that most people associate with "government." People understand cutting "the military" and "government employees" in two quite distinct ways.
(3) Without that military drawdown, the number of federal employees actually grew during the 1990s.
Jeesh, I don't see what is so hard to understand about this. Using any measure, and under every president and congress, the size and scope of government has inexorably grown every year. Sometimes it turns quickly, and sometimes slowly, but the wheel of government growth is a ratchet; it only turns one way.
- AJ
Wow, mods. Insightful?
When you claim to be cutting government employees, most people assume you are talking about civil service. Clinton, like you and I, was perfectly aware of this.
So sure, there are different yardsticks. The obvious point is that Clinton only got his claimed result by using one different that that which most people use.
And your second claim is also false. "Number of people who get a paycheck directly from the US Treasury is as decent a measure as any other." No it's not. Clearly, a measure that includes grants and contracts is more "decent," since it gives a more accurate and realistic picture of the resources spent.
- AJ
"OK, Rand Paul was witness to his supporters holding down and stomping on a woman."
False. As clearly seen in the video here
http://www.redstate.com/rs_insider/2010/10/27/exclusive-video-lauren-valle-before-the-head-stomp-vid/
He was well clear of the area and moving in a different direction.
"He did not stop it nor denounce it after being pressed on it."
False. He denounced it, and fired the guy from his campaign.
But this is all futile. If there's one thing this entire slashdot thread has made crystal clear, it's that people will believe what they want to believe, and to hell with the truth.
- Alaska Jack
"With ideas as foolish as Rand Paul's (the guy wants to abolish the dept of education and the NSF)."
It's not clear at all why this would be foolish.
Do you realize the Dept. of Education has only existed since 1980? That in America, education is a local function? That there is no evidence that, in its 30 years of existence, the DoE has made the slightest difference in education?
Note that I am not arguing here that it should be abolished. My point is narrower: That this is hardly a "foolish" argument. If Paul doesn't think the American people are getting their money's worth out of the DoE, well, that's tough to argue with.
- AJ
PS Essentially, the argument FOR the DoE is "You want to abolish it? Why do you hate children?" That's the kind of thinking that, in the Old Days, slashdotters would ridicule.
Ok gotcha. Can you at least tell me one: How old are you? Pleeeeaasseee???
- AJ
Listen, I respect your zealotry. And I don't pretend to be an expert in all this. But I have worked in politics, and I understand how number-shuffling works. Even a quick Googling shows that these things you assert are hotly disputed by reputable sources.
For the "Obamacare thingy", the gist is the the CBO must score a bill according to guidelines given it, and in this case, the guidelines require it to make unsupportable and in some cases extremely unlikely assumptions. For example see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022504074.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/47494/obamacare-budgetary-disaster/james-c-capretta
Among many others.
For the deficit claim: Oh my goodness. Did you read the linked article? Did you understand the deficit was reduced because, the prior year, the administration ran the biggest deficit in US history? And that it declined a little because the bulk of the stimulus spending had ended?
For the tax cut: That's neither here nor there. The other things you raise are *results*; the tax cut was a *tactic*, and even the administration doesn't seem to think it achieved the desired result.
The job creation thing: many, many people have pointed out this this is a totally unfalsifiable claim. There is simply no way to account for job creation in this manner. The only things we know for sure: (1) We've lost about 3.2M jobs;* and (2) The unemployment rate, post stimulus, is slightly higher than the rate the administration warned we would have if we *didn't* pass the stimulus.**
* Of the 214,000 net new jobs, half are in Texas
** A further critique is that the government, since it does not create wealth, cannot actually "create" a job. Any money it uses to "create" a job is money it must simply tax or borrow from the private sector to do so.
Doc, rhetoric aside, I'm really, sincerely curious about you as a person.
Where do you live? What do you do for a living? Do you socialize with other people much? Do you communicate with them face-to-face in the same way you do online? Have you ever been beaten up? Ever committed any crimes? What do you like to do in your spare time? Do you do drugs? Who are your role models? Were you ever abused? Do you have children? What were your parents like? Do you see a therapist? Have you ever been diagnosed with a mental or behavioral disorder? (OCD? Asperger's? ADHD? Tourette's?) Are you taking any kind of medication?
etc.
Come on, spill. Help me understand you!
- AJ
It seems to me if you were so smart, you'd lend some of that prodigious mental firepower to persuading others to come around to your point of view, rather than alienating them with poisonous invective and crude sexual epithets.
Good luck with your strategy.
- AJ
Ah, Doc Ruby. So predictably chiming in with a post that unselfconciously promotes every liberal stereotype: cocooned, arrogant, angry, insulting, intolerant, etc.
It's a good thing everyone knows liberals are so inherently good. Otherwise readers might think you're a grade-A jerk.
- A fan
Oh for Pete's sake.
Under what tortured definition were the Bushes -- either of them -- fiscal conservatives? Are you aware that each was *heavily* criticized in the conservative community for their big-spending ways? For Pete's sake, before Obama, you could have made the case for Bush Jr. as the most profligate president in U.S. history.
Domestic spending also increased under Reagan. He did advocate cuts -- which were resisted by a Democratic Congress -- so I can at least how one might consider him a fiscal conservative. But it's hard to see where you are doing anything here except confirming your own biases.
- AJ
Unfortunately, that claim of Clinton's is just another statistical mirage (of the kind both parties engage in).
First, when you talk about "federal employees" most people think of civil servants. But their ranks GREW during the 90s. The "shrinkage" was almost entirely due to downsizing the military.
The numbers also don't count contractors, jobs funded with federal grants, etc.
Depressing details here:
http://www.govexec.com/features/0199/0199s1.htm
You really think this comment adds to the discussion?
1. Clearly, this is impossible to answer without knowing the particulars of the tax loopholes you are talking about. But that doesn't matter -- you are still talking about *increasing taxation.* It may be right, it may be wrong, but it certainly doesn't do anything to argue with the point I made above.
2. "Tax loopholes" are not a left-or-right issue. Indeed, the use of tax policy to reward/punish certain behaviors is a pillar of progressive thought. The idea that taxes should be applied uniformly and without "loopholes" is a common libertarian theme.
3. How far right the U.S. has shifted? In terms of what? Size of government? Number of regulations? Scope of individual freedoms? Size of the sphere of government authority as opposed to the sphere of private action? Seriously, besides your own perception -- what metric are you using?
- AJ
The cornerstone of the free market is *competition.*
Businesses don't want competition. They want a steady, predictable supply of government-guaranteed income.
Fighting for customers is hard. It is comparatively easy to hire an experienced lobbyist to lobby government to craft regulations that provide barriers to entry, limit competition ultimately transfer wealth from taxpayers to themselves.
That's why it is foolish to consider big business "conservative." The only thing they seek to conserve is whatever status quo made them big to begin with.
- AJ
bzzt. I don't have to define anything. I'm not the one making assertions that depend entirely on my own definitions.
- AJ
I don't understand something.
Would you agree that the clash of conservatives vs liberals is often cast as a clash of rich vs poor?
Now, would you agree that wealthier people are more likely to be better educated?
Given these, it is not clear at all to me that "the smarter and better educated you are, the more liberal you are."
It also seems to fly in the face of the fact that, while it is very common for people to get more conservative as they get older, it is comparatively rare for people to get more liberal.
Also, let me add one more note.
You write:
People complain that our universities, urban elite, etc. 'lean left'."
Now, wait a sec. By saying "people complain" you seem to imply that it's not true. But then you go on to seemingly accept that it is. So why did you include the "people complain that" part? Why not just say "Our universities, urban elite, etc. "lean left"? Are you disputing it? I don't get it.
- AJ
(1) It is very common for people to say they are socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. It has been pointed out many times, however, that this distinction falls apart when you start asking about details. Which extremely expensive social programs/entitlements are these people in favor of cutting? Davis-Bacon? Protectionist tariffs? EEO programs? Funding for the arts? Taxpayer support for abortions? Head Start? The Department of Education?
Not saying anything about you. Perhaps you are indeed one of the very few people who could accurately be described this way. But the fact remains: Social spending is *expensive*, and that money has to come from somewhere.
(2) This whole "reality has a liberal bias" thing to me just strikes me as bizarre.
Just 10 years ago, liberals would have cheerfully and forthrightly asserted the opposite. Remember this? -- "A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged."? Indeed, that was the whole point of contention between liberals and conservatives. The liberal vision was *aspirational and visionary*. It was not based on how things *are*, but how they *should be.* The progressive belief is that we can "progress," in the process change human nature to be more collectivist, less selfish and more aware of social justice issues. Cultural attitudes can be adjusted if we just hit on the right combination of levers, after which we will all link arms and march into the future together.
The conservative critique was that this was all pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking; that you can't ever really change human nature; that people act out of enlightened self-interest, not selfless concern for their fellow man; that you can't legislate away things like the law of supply and demand; and that government policies should take these things into account.
So now, it just strikes me as total revisionism to claim "reality has a well-known liberal bias." I mean, that's not what liberals of previous generations said. If you accused them of being visionary and aspirational, they would have replied, "Damn straight." So, why are you right and them wrong?
- Alaska Jack
Could not agree more.
The left has come under criticism for rebranding "liberalism" as "progressivism." I strongly disagree -- I think it's a much more accurate term. Indeed, there is much in progressivism that is profoundly *illiberal*; i.e., incompatible with the set of values originally understood to be "liberal."
- Alaska Jack
Your insightful post is based on a completely unsupportable assertion.
You write:
"If you dump labor rights and issues then you are not a left leaning people."
All you are doing here is basing your analysis off your own personal definition of "left." Surely you can see how this is meaningless (to others, anyway).
like khallow, below, I don't really understand your question. I feel just fine about it. I mean, I don't get it -- how *should* I feel? is it supposed to bother me or something? Why would it? What's your point?
- AJ
[needs citation]
1. I bet I know a lot more people in the gun rights movement than you, and I don't know one -- NOT A SINGLE ONE -- who thinks the way that *you* think they do.
2. You say "there are a lot of people in the US who think that *everyone* should have a gun." Really? So there are "a lot of people" who think psychopaths should have guns? Convicted felons on parole?
3. They may think that only people here legally should have guns, but that is a perfectly defensible position. I have NEVER, EVER seen ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of someone saying that guns are bad for illegal Mexicans, but fine for other illegals.
4. In the same vein, please support you assertion that "lots of people" believe everyone should have the right to bear arms in self defense except Muslims.
5. Failing all this, do you think it might be possible -- just *possible -- that in fact you just got up in front of everyone and tried to pass off your own personal bias as fact?
- AJ
So we've got education and housing: Two major areas of life that are hugely subsidized by government, and in which prices have skyrocketed far past the rate of inflation. Now consider this:
Healthcare.
Again, not trying to provoke a flamewar. My only point is that simple laws of supply and demand cause fairly predictable effects, and those laws aren't going to go away just because we wish they would.
- AJ
Football (and athletics in general) are not causing tuition to skyrocket. As much as I wish it were so, the numbers just don't add up. For example, tuition has also skyrocketed at schools (like mine) that don't even have football teams.
I think the cause is even simpler. The problem is, no one wants to talk about it because there is no easy, feel-good solution.
Thesis: The raise in tuition rates over the last 40 years or so is largely due to the easy availability of *cheap student loans.*
I don't think this should be particularly controversial: It is a logical outcome completely consistent with classical supply/demand economics.
Let's say the government prints money and starts giving it away. Everyone is richer, right? Wrong, of course -- that money is now worth less, so prices all go up. That's inflation. This is the same scenario, except that the money can only be used for one specific purpose: education. It should logically follow that the price of that education will simply go up correspondingly.
I'm not going to propose any solutions, because I don't want to start some stupid partisan flamewar. I just want to suggest that the widely perceived *solution* to high education costs is actually the *driver* of those costs.
- AJ
EDIT: Just found this:
"The simple economics of student loan crises"
http://dmarron.com/2009/09/15/the-simple-economics-of-student-loan-crises/