Does Sanders' college plan really rely on governors to release funds?

[alcibiades_mystery]

This was the snippet of the debate they played on NPR this morning (I didn't watch/listen to the debate). Hillary was sarcastically noting that Scott Walker could not be relied on to release millions of dollars for public colleges; the plan, if it relies on such triggers from individual state governors, would be dead in the water.

Is any of this true? Is there a mechanism in Sanders' plan that requires governors to sign on, and gives them an option not to? Clearly, Scott Walker was a great example of how such a plan would be doomed - he is notorious for cutting public university budgets in Wisconsin, including devastating cuts to the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee.

Look at somebody like Rauner, too: he's currently refusing any budget deal at all until the Democratic state legislature agrees to his insane, Walkeresque union busting proposals for public employees. Concretely, this means even Illinois MAP Grants, which help low income students pay for college, are being withheld - even those MAP Grants that have already been approved and promised to be disbursed! If Rauner doesn't care about 130,000 Illinois students' MAP Grants, why would he sign off on a free college plan, even if it seems already paid for at a federal level?

And those are two BLUE states! What's going to happen in Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina?

Are governors a disbursement mechanism in Sanders' college plan? Can they refuse? I'm honestly asking here. I don't know.

[FBaggins]

1. Probably true

I don't know the specifics of the plan, but they're called "state schools" for a reason. It would be hard to think of a plan to fund college education at the federal level that wouldn't involve state acquiescence.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. So this is another thing we have to suppose that a groundswell of support

will move the Republicans to act contrary to their general inclinations and past behavior, I suppose.

So now Rauner and Walker and ntheir ilk will be moving money into the state public universities and community colleges? Because groundswell?

Hmmm. That doesn't sound so plausible when I think about it. How many GOP governors are still holding out against Obamacare provisions?

[liberal_at_heart]

50. We need to work to get more liberals in Congress no matter who our next President is.

Hillary will have just as hard a time as Bernie getting things through Congress. Maybe that's why she's telling us now we won't be able to accomplish anything. But why the hell have a President at all if they are just going to go into it with a failing attitude and not do anything to try and change it? We pay the President with our tax money just as we pay the Congress with our tax money. I expect our President to earn their pay and fight for what we want. That is their job. It is what they get elected and paid to do.

[alcibiades_mystery]

51. I'm not talking about the Congressional approval, which is challenging enough

I'm asking about the mechanism of execution, which seems to throw up more roadblocks if it relies on GOP governors to institute it. I hadn't seen anyone talk about that before. I'm still not asure it's true, since nobody seems to be able to explain how the plan would work.

[liberal_at_heart]

55. Yes, we must work to get more liberal governors as well. Bernie has always said he is not the

Revolution. We are. We must have a revolution at all stages of government. We the people must become active in the political process again. Bernie is bringing a lot of energized new voters to the table who are pissed at the fact that the government no longer represents them. There was a lot of excitement in 2008 as well. That excitement never made it to the congressional and governorship elections. Part of becoming more active in the process is harnessing that anger and excitement and getting that vote out for congressional and governorship elections.

[alcibiades_mystery]

56. It sounds increasingly like "We'll get all the policies we want if we control the whole political

landscape."

Well, yeah. But tell me something I didn't know when I woke up this morning.

When there is no political opposition to you, you get to set the policy. That's nice, but it doesn't seem like much of a revelation, or a plan.

[liberal_at_heart]

57. I think you are missing something. The middle class have been disappearing for over

30 years. The number of those living underneath the poverty line has increased dramatically. The rich are getting richer. The poor are getting poorer and the people are pissed. It may sound like a fantasy but if you study history this does happen from time to time. When the people feel the government is too corrupt and no longer represents them they fight back. Whether with a full blown revolution like the Labor Movement or just an anti-establishment sentiment during the election cycle it does happen and it his happening now.

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. I don't think I'm missing any of that

The middle class have been disappearing for over 30 years. I agree

The number of those living underneath the poverty line has increased dramatically. The rich are getting richer. The poor are getting poorer and the people are pissed. I agree mostly. People are always pissed. Whether enough of them are more pissed now and can direct that anger toward political gains is another story.

It may sound like a fantasy but if you study history this does happen from time to time. I do study history.

When the people feel the government is too corrupt and no longer represents them they fight back. Sometimes.

Whether with a full blown revolution like the Labor Movement or just an anti-establishment sentiment during the election cycle it does happen and it his happening now. There's anti-establishment sentiment during many election cycles. It usually doesn't end up with a complete run of the table that allows you to institute whatever policy you damn well please, which seems to be the only reasoning used to defend how any of the programs we're hearing about are feasible.

As of now, I'm hearing that we'll need to complete transform the Congress, and completely reshuffle the governorships, and (next, I'm sure) completely transform the state legislatures. How? Well, people are pissed! History tells me so.

That's nice. It just doesn't sound very thought through.

[liberal_at_heart]

59. Whatever. I am so tired of this being asked of Bernie and not asked of Hillary. She will have just

as hard a time as Bernie maybe even harder because Republicans hate her so much and yet I don't hear Hillary supporters saying her policies are fantasy. I'm done arguing this point with you. I will fight for single payer health care and I will fight for a living wage, and I will fight for tuition free college and I will fight to expand SS. You can do whatever you want.

[alcibiades_mystery]

60. I will fight for all those things as well

I appreciate your decision to contribute to this thread thus far.

[bettyellen]

54. Yep, and governorships if healthcare and education are to improve. It is a 12-16 year commitment.

At a minimum. No matter who is elected in November.
Are we up for it?

[mythology]

2. One of the reasons I'm not a fan of Sanders' education plan

Granted I'm not a fan of Clinton's either as I don't think it provides enough to cover the gap between community college and a 4 year degree.

[ladjf]

3. Well, if it does, it will never be approved by a single Republican Governor. nt

[MineralMan]

4. State colleges are run by states.

States set tuition fees. States have to change them if they are to change. The federal government can't really mandate that state colleges be tuition-free. The only way the federal government could make state colleges free of tuition would be to reimburse students for those tuition costs.

A President can't do any of that. Presidents don't control spending. Congress does.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. The federal government can mandate a lot from state and even private colleges and universities

by tying federal financial aid to particular policies. This can happen even at the curricular level (the feds made a big deal recently about graduate students--which is to say, students receiving financial aid at graduate rates--taking undergraduate courses for credit, for example).

That said, it's clear that there are limits on what the federal government can do at the level of public colleges and universities and community colleges. I just hadn't realized that Sanders' plan would require the likes of Scott Walker, Bruce Rauner, and even Sam Brownbeck to sign off on it! That's really not a great plan.

[MineralMan]

8. That's true, but the President can't do any of that.

It's not within his powers. Major changes that affect states must be initiated in Congress, and Congress is made up of people who must be elected in their own states.

Bottom line is that tuition-free state colleges will require additional taxation in the states. There's no surplus of tax dollars that can be redirected to end state college tuition. Additional taxation is unpopular with taxpayers, even Democratic taxpayers.

The only thing a President can do about such matters is use his or her Bully Pulpit to promote them. Tuition-free public colleges will require a sea change in Congress. I don't see that coming earlier than 2024, at best.

President Obama has called for free community colleges. That will not happen, either, unless Congress forces the issue on the states.

[AgingAmerican]

11. Not without a groundswell behind him

And Sanders has a groundswell behind him. Hillary and Third Way® thinking do not groundswell make.

[MineralMan]

14. Not without major Democratic majorities in Congress.

I don't see those coming this year or in 2020. We might just possibly regain control of the House in 2024, but only if we act together, rather than duking it out every election. If we're lucky, we'll have a tiny majority in the Senate, starting next year, but that might not happen, either, if Democrats don't turn out in large numbers in November.

We live in a real country, not an imaginary one. We have a Constitution that limits powers, not a fiat. Reality sucks a lot of the time, but that's the world we inhabit - a real one.

[AgingAmerican]

17. Third Way® thinking has destroyed the Congress

Only a Groundswell will bring it back, and Sanders has a groundswell behind him.

Hillary has no groundswell behind her, and her Third Way® policies would cost us even more congressional seats.

Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't!

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. Well, you'd need two groundswells: the one that forces Congressional Republicans

to your will in passing the plan, then the second one that forces Republican governors to your will in executing it.

The groundswells suddenly need to do more work, it seems.

I get the "CAN'T CAN'T CAN'T" business, but it's not unfair to ask whether a plan is feasible. Is it feasible that Scott Walker or Bruce Rauner or Sam Brownbeck will sign off on something they fundamentally oppose? That's not a fair question now?

[AgingAmerican]

21. You need a groundswell of pressure on congress

And a groundswell electing congress

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. Certainly that, but also the governors now

As I noted in the OP, we can't even get Bruce Rauner to disburse MAP Grant funds already promised to 130,000 low income students. We have an actual bill before the Illinois State senate (SB2043) to clear up that logjam regardless of other budget issues, but Rauner is promising to veto it: he's clearing nothing without a budget and not signing any budget that doesn't eviscerate the public employee unions and basically void the pension funds. So, we can talk about groundswell all we want, but I'd really like to know how this plan works if it will face such opposition from an intransigent governor even in blue Illinois!

How are you going to get Rauner to sign off on the Sanders free college plan when we can't get him to allow disbursement of funds for 130,000 low income students already promised!?

Don't tell me I'm a reactionary. Tell me how.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

25. Where has this "groundswell" been hiding?

Where was it in 2010 and 2014 (or 2012 for that matter)? I'd reckon that many of the same progressives who are "Feeling the Bern" this year were excited about Obama in 2008 yet, despite him crushing McCain in 2008 and Democrats literally achieving, albeit briefly, a filibuster-proof Senate, the revolution seemed to run out of gas by 2009-2010/be overtaken by the Republican Tea Party and has not been seen since and a progressive agenda has been stymied/reversed at the state and congressional level. So now, we're supposed to believe that 2016 will be the year that Bernie will create a groundswell of popular opinion seemingly out of nowhere that will wash the Republicans out of Congress and statehouses and deliver us single-payer and free college tuition? Sorry if I can't help feeling a little..........skeptical?

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Well, obviously...that's a different matter

Let's all stipulate that the plan would first have to be passed through Congress - duh. We're not stupid, MineralMan.

The question is, even assuming passage through Congress, does the actual plan as it exists require that state governors sign off on it. Because even with passage through Congress, that's a gigantic stumblingblock to this plan.

[AgingAmerican]

22. Pressure through federal funding

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. Through what specific means would you apply this pressure?

You'd threaten to withhold funds? Which ones? Under what disbursement mechanism? What happens if the governors refuse and you have to do it? Whose funds get withheld? Can you legally withhold X funds in retaliation for governors not disbursing Y funds?

Seriously, you must know that "pressure through federal funding" is not an adequate answer, nor is yelling "groundswell" over and over again. How is this plan to work if governors are intransigent, or various in their application of the legal mechanisms?

I don't understand why this is not a legitimate question to ask about a policy proposal.

[AgingAmerican]

35. There are many ways to pressure via funding

And many other ways too.

Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't!

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. Oh, the "many ways"

So you have no idea how the plan will work.

Good, then. Keep pretending it's illegitimate to ask whether a policy proposal is feasible.

[AgingAmerican]

37. I am not Sanders education planner

It isn't up to me. It's up to Bernie.

Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't!

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. Do you understand the free college plan or not?

You support it, right? Do you understand it?

[AgingAmerican]

40. Do you understand it? Apparently not. Can't! Can't!

I support it. You don't, cuz Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't!!

Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't!

[alcibiades_mystery]

41. I don't know if I support it

I'd first have to determine whether it is feasible. The people who do support it, like you, can't seem to explain it. It's sad that you'd retreat into this childish CAN'T business simply because you can't explain the actual policy. You support a plan you don't seem to understand.

[AgingAmerican]

42. Then why the Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't!???

Or is that the automatic default position of Hillary on almost every issue?

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. I'm asking after the policy

It's not my fault you can't explain it.

[MineralMan]

23. What is desirable, such as tuition-free college,

is not always possible in a given set of conditions. I'm part of the last age group that went through tuition-free college in California. I spent my last two years in college with nothing more than a $256/month GI bill check and another $100/month from my parents. That was possible in 1970 and 71. Out of that, I paid rent, bought food, bought used books and payed the administrative fees at the state university I attended. I'm very aware of how fortunate I was to live in that time period. Ronald Reagan put an abrupt end to all that as Governor of CA. He carried that kind of cutting off of ordinary people into the White House. Today, inflation has put the cost of higher education out of reach, but the subsidies that existed in the 60s and 70s are long gone.

More's the pity, and I hope we'll someday be able to return to that. Right now, I'm not seeing it in our future. In fact, I see a real possibility that things will get even worse. Instead of Democrats overwhelming the Republicans, both nationally and in our states, it appears to me that we're facing a very real risk of handing over all three branches of our federal government to the Republicans.

To prevent that, we're going to need to come together instead of fighting among ourselves. We have, maybe, three presidential elections to get that done. If we fail, even once, we may never have a chance to do it again. The Republicans, given control of all three branches, can and will eliminate the possibility, once and for all. That is their goal.

I'm an old man. I might not even see the 2024 election, although I certainly hope to. If we fuck up the 2016 election, it's going to be game over, frankly. I sincerely hope we do not do that.

[AgingAmerican]

10. I work in a state college

A huge chunk of our funding comes from the Federal Government. The Federal government can make them tuition free by paying the tuition. It's that simple.

Yes We Can't!

[FBaggins]

13. See my #12 below.

The states set the tuition rates... and would only increase them of someone else was going to pay them.

[MineralMan]

15. All of that funding must have congressional approval.

Presidents don't have the money to spend, frankly. Congress controls the national purse.

[AgingAmerican]

18. Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't!

Seems to be the Hillary battle cry!

Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't! Can't!

[FBaggins]

12. I think we have to assume that the plan would be passed in Congress

The President can't do anything like that by executive order. The question is whether the states would have to individually agree... and I think you've touched on one of the options that the federal govt. might elect... but it still has problems.

If, say, we wanted to make state schools tuition free and had to accomplish it by reimbursing the students for their tuition... We would run into the problem that different states set different tuition rates (depending, in large part, on the proportion of college costs that the state is willing to subsidize). The obvious danger is that states would change their tuition rates since the feds are now paying them.

[DURHAM D]

5. From the get-go his plan to make the states

do this for the federal government has reminded me of Trump getting Mexico to build a wall.
Pure nonsense.

[AgingAmerican]

43. So you are against Obamacare

Cuz getting the states to do it is like Trump.

Thanks for the insight.

[AgingAmerican]

9. Hillary's policy seems to be "We can't do anything good"

She has become a reactionary.

[Bobbie Jo]

16. He didn't rebut it.

He just waved his finger and shook his head.
So who knows?

[onecaliberal]

26. It's paid for with tax on Wall Street transactions. No not sure why anyone thinks

States are going to pay. He has explained this many times and it's layed out on his web site. If he would have corrected every lie she told he would have been doing that all night long.

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. Is it true that governors would have to approve disbursement to their state institutions?

I understand how he proposes to offset the cost through a new tax. I'm inquiring about the mechanism for executing the policy.

[onecaliberal]

30. Go read the plan.

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. So, you don't know the mechanisms?

OK. I'll go read the proposal.

[onecaliberal]

45. I'm not your personal researcher.

[alcibiades_mystery]

49. Ah

OK.

[oberliner]

29. Yes

They would get serious incentives from the federal government to do so.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. The federal government will incentivize Bruce Rauner, and Scott Walker, and Sam Brownbeck

and their ilk to sign off on a free public college plan?

Yes, I suspect those would have to be pretty serious incentives.

[PeaceNikki]

38. Walker turned down Medicaid expansion and high speed rail money, HRC was right.

Walker wouldn't go near it.

[seaglass]

33. Sanders filed a bill "College for All Act" in May 2015, after he announced. I would find it

extremely difficult to believe that he has changed his mind since then and has a different proposal.

College for All Act - DOES NOT get all funding from the fed govt and in fact it looks voluntary for states.

This is the text of the bill:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1373/text

Federal-State Partnership to Eliminate Tuition

Sec. 101.

Grant program to eliminate tuition and required fees at public institutions of higher education
(a)

Program authorized
(1)

Grants authorized

From amounts appropriated under subsection (f), the Secretary of Education (referred to in this section as the "Secretary&quot shall award grants, from allotments under subsection (b), to States having applications approved under subsection (d), to enable the States to eliminate tuition and required fees at public institutions of higher education.
(2)

Matching funds requirement

Each State that receives a grant under this section shall provide matching funds for a fiscal year in an amount that is equal to one half the amount received under this section for the fiscal year toward the cost of reducing the cost of attendance at public institutions of higher education in the State.

obviously much more at the link and why don't Bernie Sanders supporters know this?????

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. Jay-zuz...We can't even get Rauner to disburse funds already promised

The Illinois state Senate will likely pass SB2043, which orders the disbursement of funds for MAP grants affecting 130,000 low income students. The funds have already been promised, but the budget stand-off is being used as an excuse by Rauner not to disburse them. But Rauner's going to enter into a voluntary deal with the feds for free public college? Scott Walker is? Greg Abbott is? Sam Brownbeck?

Come on, now.

[seaglass]

47. Ha, I have 2 responses to that.

1.) Who even knows who will be governors when this happens, the day after never?

and

2.) Who even knows what will happen if against all conventional wisdom Bernie can get all these new voters/Indeps/repubs out who will not only get him into the WH but will not be attracted by the next shiny thing and will stick with him though midterm after midterm until the Congress has changed and all the politicians who are not on board get swept out of office?

The only reason I have not committed to Hillary yet is response #2.

[alcibiades_mystery]

48. True on 2

If he can turn the Congress, than maybe the governors, too.

The whole thing seems increasingly implausible when you look into the details, though. It's basically like "Here's what we'll do if everybody in the political process all agrees!"

Well, yeah.

[amborin]

46. it would have to be a federally-controlled reimbursement, no? otherwise, how deal with fre

foreign students or out of state students who are currently, at least at UC, a growing percentage of the
student body as they bring in needed $$$$$$$

[HassleCat]

52. Our experience with ACA should be instructive

As we know all to well, ACA depends on the cooperation of governors, and some have flat-out refused to allow anything to happen. In the old days, we could bully the states into cooperating by threatening to hold back on funds they needed. Since the Reagan era, we pulled so much federal funding for so many things that the states can just tell us to take a hike. So it appears governors like Walker could, and probably would, refuse to release federal money. That's the problem with trying to get any federal program passed now. To get red state and purple state Democrats, some of whom should probably be called "Democrats," with the quotation marks, to vote for a bill, we have to promise the states some say in disbursing the money. And we have governors like Walker who will intentionally harm their own citizens for ideological reasons. This is bad sign for any new or upgraded federal program, not just for Sanders' college proposal. We are living in a country that is quickly becoming not so much a nation as a collection of 50 fiefdoms, each ruled by its own special lord and his or her vassals.

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. Good analysis, and likely true

Concretely, it would mean that both Clinton and Sanders college plans would likely be non-starters, at least in many states where GOP governors would simply refuse to institute it.

So, in addition to the groundswell changing the Congress, it will change the governorships. And all else, besides.

I hadn't really heard of the governor aspect before that snippet this morning from the debate, so I was just curious.