Liberals’ unrealizable free-college plans will only worsen political discourse

No issue has proved more effective in getting college students to the polls than the rising cost of tuition. It is doubtful, however, the issue’s prominence will have improved our political discourse after the dust has settled from the midterm elections.

Promises to subsidize tuition have cropped up in the campaign rhetoric of prominent democratic socialists like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and congressional candidates Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley. Even mainstream Democrats like California Sen. Kamala Harris have embraced the idea, asserting it would significantly alleviate student debt.

However, free-college proposals are simply unworkable from a financial point of view. For example, the Tax Policy Center, a liberal think tank, estimated Sanders’ free college tuition plan would increase federal expenditures by $807 billion over the next 10 years. Furthermore, this estimate is based on the assumptions that neither college attendance nor college tuition will increase over the next decade, meaning the plan could be even more expensive over the long run.

Given that left-leaning policy wonks are aware of the financial infeasibility of free tuition plans, it is fair to ask if Democrats have sincerely embraced free college on defensible grounds or whether they have simply latched onto the idea to win votes from college students in November.

The latter possibility is alarming because it suggests liberal politicians have paid lip service to the idea of free college without intending to actually enact the proposal.

That is to say, “free college” looks to be either an exercise in ideological purity or a self-conscious, politically motivated overpromise. Its continued prominence on the Democrat agenda will significantly degrade political discourse, at least as it relates to higher education.

Many political figures have put forth free-college plans, but Sanders’ version of the proposal has received outsize attention, in effect serving as the focal point of the ongoing debate. Sanders has pegged the cost of his program at $470 billion over 10 years. However, there is ample reason to discount his analysis.

The senator’s cost estimate is presented in a press release from his Washington office without so much as a citation or reference. And even under this rosier outlook, states would be forced to assume one-third of the plan’s cost. Because states do not have the financial leeway to run budget deficits, offloading the program’s cost in this manner would force cutbacks in state funding for other services.

Regardless of the exact cost, a free college program is likely to supersize the federal budget deficit, which in turn may hinder economic growth. In fact, the Tax Policy Center notes Sanders’ plan is likely to exponentially increase federal deficits. The think tank’s analysis goes on to argue this expansion of the federal deficit, especially if it is financed by greater borrowing, will act as a drag on economic growth by causing interest rates to rise.

Democrat politicians, policy wonks and party activists cannot possibly be ignorant of this evidence against free college’s financial feasibility. More likely, they have chosen to ignore the evidence either to demonstrate blind fidelity to liberal ideology or to craft a politically appealing message for the midterms. Neither possibility bodes well for the quality of electoral discourse in the years to come.

For instance, Ocasio-Cortez has deflected questions about the financial feasibility of free college plans not by defending their cost-effectiveness, but by changing the subject. Specifically, when the media characterized Ocasio-Cortez’s policies as too expensive, she responded by arguing the United States should catch up to the rest of the world in building a European-style welfare state. In other words, she pivoted to liberal talking points to avoid seriously addressing the cost of her plans.

In addition, Sanders is fond of deflecting questions about the cost of his plans by observing that free college programs can be found throughout the developed world.

If Ocasio-Cortez and other Democrats continue to ignore valid criticism of their ideas, the public will be denied a productive debate on the issue of free college and political discourse will be worse off as a result.

Perhaps more troubling, however, is the possibility that Democrat politicians have latched onto free college to boost their electoral fortunes without seriously intending to enact the proposal into law. Under this scenario, party leaders might plan to execute a political bait-and-switch by using the issue to motivate their base and abandoning it on practical grounds once they win election. Such a disingenuous move would only exacerbate millennial disillusionment with the state of national politics.

Some may argue that in placing free tuition proposals on the national agenda, Democrats have merely been articulating an ideological lodestar for the midterms and beyond. This position, however, is belied by the fact that liberal politicians have laid out detailed plans – infeasible ones, to be clear – rather than speaking in ideological generalities. Moreover, the high level of support for the proposal indicates that voters have been taking Democrats at their word.

Obviously, we cannot fully ascertain Democrats’ motives in placing free college on the midterm agenda. But the proposal’s enormous cost suggests it has not been hawked to young voters on the basis of its soundness as policy.

College students should heavily scrutinize any proposal that promises to make their tuition free. After all, the infeasibility of such plans may cause even fewer of them to come out to vote in 2020.