Should College Be Free For Americans?

Democratic Party socialist Bernie Sanders has inveigled sheep-like support from students with his campaign promise to make college free for every American.  Young people whoop every time Sanders trots out his line about how the U.S. needs to follow the lead of European nations.

Student enthusiasm for Sanders' Utopian plan is understandable.  The nation's student loan debt stands at $1.337 trillion dollars and is growing by an estimated $2,726.27 every second of every day. Some 40 million Americans are carrying student loans. 

Many students incur the debt without any consideration of how they will pay it back.  In fact, research from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that only 37 percent of students who borrow money from the federal government are actually paying down their college debt.  

Against that background, it is easy to understand why students are starry-eyed over the prospect of free college. Although Sanders offers little details about his plan, he always cites Germany, Sweden, Norway and Finland as examples of countries with free higher education.

No one in the mainstream media ever challenges his claims about these countries.  That's because the facts would confirm what most Americans intuitively know: there is no such thing as "free" college. Someone, most likely taxpayers, must pick up the costs.  

Take Germany as an example.  Until recently, Germany charged low college tuition and fees. Last year, the government of 84 million people voted to offer "free" college to students.  To support the education initiative, Germans pay among the highest income taxes levied in developed countries.    

The average German (not just the wealthy) hands over 49.8 cents of every dollar in income taxes. That does not include additional taxes for higher education levied by German states. In every country that doles out free tuition and fees, that nation's income taxes are higher than the United States.  

Because college is free, German students are in no hurry to leave the cozy campus environment.  The European norm is for a student to graduate in three years.  In Germany, most students fail to leave in four years and the average graduate is 28 years old.  Why not linger longer when it is "free"?

It is a misnomer to call college "free" in Germany anyway.  Students must pay for a place to live, transportation, food, books and supplies. Those costs typically make up for more than half of the expense of going to a U.S. college.  Tuition and fees are less than 50 percent of the cost.

Here is another fact that Sanders never mentions.  Even with "free" college, Germany has a lower student enrollment than most western countries, including the U.S.  One reason is the German education system steers many young people to trade schools and business apprenticeships.

Of those who enroll, only 31 percent of German students actually graduate.  By comparison, nearly 40 percent of American students earn a degree. There are few incentives for Germans to graduate because they can stay as long as they want without paying tuition and fees.    

In Sweden, "free" college isn't free either.  The average Swede graduates with $19,000 in debt, compared to $33,000 in the United States.  The fact is 85 percent of Swedish students leave college owing money for their education, compared to 70 percent in the U.S. 

They borrow money because of the high cost of rent, food, transportation and other expenses in large cities where Swedish colleges are located.  Unlike the typical U.S. family, moms and dads in Sweden feel no obligation to help pay for their students' college costs.  Students are on their own.  

Like Germany, Sweden has higher income tax rates than America and college enrollment is significantly less than our country.  It is also harder for a student to gain entry into college. According to the latest annual figure, there were 403,000 college applicants, but only 36 per cent were accepted.

Colleges in Sweden and Germany are no-frills, spartan campuses with few amenities.  They do not have a smorgasbord of activities and courses found in most American colleges. For instance, there are no African-American, gender or recreational studies.

"Free" college simply does not exist anywhere in the world.  The problem in the United States is that students and parents are not sensitive to mushrooming costs associated with college.  As a result, more than one-half take more than four years to earn a degree.  

Making college "free" would only exacerbate the problem.  Students would stay longer.  Increasing numbers of unqualified young people would attend college.  Overcrowding would hike costs. And multi-millionaire university presidents would still have zero incentive to reduce expenses.

"Free" college would create another entitlement that the government could not afford without borrowing trillions of dollars.  The real issue is this:  Average published tuition and fees at U.S. public four-year universities surged 225 percent from 1985 to 2014.  

That's why today 7 in 10 students borrow money to attend college. Twenty years ago fewer than one half of U.S. graduates incurred college debt.  Unless America addresses the ballooning expense of college, making higher education "free" will create more problems than it will solve.  

Stock Shock: Why The Market Is In Trouble

Gyrations in the stock market have zapped investors this year with more than $1 trillion in losses. The financial earthquake has been blamed on slowing growth in China, tumbling oil prices, global monetary policies and an anemic world economy.

The market bloodbath is a grim reminder of the worst financial meltdown in the country's history: the stock crash of 1929.  In that epic collapse, investors lost $25 billion, which is about $319 billion in today's dollars. There are some similarities in the genesis of today's market slump and 1929.

Historians finger the rapid growth in bank credit and loans in the 1920's as one of the causes of the cataclysmic market destruction.  Likewise, most of today's market woes can be traced to the mushrooming debt and riptide of borrowing that followed the 2007 financial train wreck.

In the aftermath of massive Wall Street bank bailouts, central government planners worldwide began lowering interest rates, stoking a credit boom.  By the middle of last year, total global debt for corporations, governments and households topped a mind-boggling $199 trillion dollars.

The figure comes from the McKinsey Global Institute, which has written extensively about the debt issue.  The debt works out to $27,500 for every man, woman, and child on planet Earth.

Just since the fiasco in 2007, total debt has zoomed up $57 trillion.  It is no coincidence that China, the world's No. 2 economy now experiencing a slump, has nearly quadrupled its debt in the last eight years, borrowing $28.2 trillion.  It's economic growth has been built on a shaky credit foundation.

During that same time frame, the U.S. federal debt has nearly doubled under President Obama. When the president leaves office next year, the nation's debt is expected to hover near $20 trillion. America had a national debt of $10.6 trillion when he entered the Oval Office in January of 2009.

Debt is not necessarily bad.  However, in this case, most of the government borrowing has not been invested in infrastructure or other economic levers.  Instead, the credit has been used to fund bloated social entitlement programs in many countries, including the U.S., or to pay for deficit spending.

As a result of the debt orgy, many countries, especially emerging nations, have few options to jump start their sagging economies. Moody's Investor Service has sounded the alarm about risks for worldwide economic malaise because central banks have run out of schemes to reverse the course.

Meanwhile, low interest rates have made stocks more attractive, leading to over exuberance in the market which has pumped up company valuations beyond reality.  High-tech stocks have reached bubble-bursting levels. Despite several market corrections, extraordinary valuations persist.

In China, the worst of all scenarios shredded its stock market.  Many Chinese, enamored with soaring stock prices at home, borrowed billions of dollars to invest in their market.  As stocks tanked, investors suddenly had their loans called, further exacerbating a sell-off as happened in 1929.

During this credit binge, global corporations fed at the debt trough, too. Corporations owe about $56 trillion of the $199 trillion in global debt. Experts at Standard and Poor's Rating Services are forecasting another $1 trillion in corporate debt will be added by 2019.

Like governments, corporate debt can produce growth if it is invested in people and assets.  However, since 2007 many firms used low rates to refinance high-interest debt.  Others have repurchased their own stock. In a single month last year, U.S. firms acquired a record $104 billion of company stock.

These buybacks are a sign corporate America believes it can get a better return on company stock instead of investing money in research, in expanding markets or in the development of new products. By not investing in growth, companies are short-changing future prospects.  

These maneuvers are at least partly to blame for the lack of revenue growth at many firms.  Last year, companies in the Standard and Poor's 500 index experienced a 3.4 percent annual revenue decline. That has fueled layoffs, operational cutbacks and asset sales aimed at trimming costs.

Some corporations have used their inflated stock prices to buy or merge with other firms. In 2015, global companies racked up nearly $5 trillion in deals, according to data from Thomson Reuters, making it a record-breaking year.  Corporate acquisitions rose 42 percent from 2014.

While this has some economic benefit, most of the transactions have ended with corporate downsizing, reductions in expenses and transfers of operations overseas to take advantage of lower business tax rates. Mergers often foreshadow the acquiring firm's lack of organic revenue growth.

During the borrowing spree, households in every country have siphoned off their share of money by raising credit card debt, refinancing homes and taking out loans for new automobiles.  Total global household debt stands at $40 trillion of which the U.S. accounts for $11.9 trillion.

Debt has proliferated in this country because the cost-of-living has outpaced wage growth.  In the last 12 years, wages have risen 20 percent, while living expenses have shot up 29 percent.  Today many households are borrowing just to keep their heads above water instead of making major purchases.

Consumer spending, which accounts for 70 per cent of the economy, grew less than one per cent in 2014, when compared to 2008. That helps explain why the nation has not reached the three-percent threshold of GDP growth in ten years, the longest sustained under performance since the 1930's.

The skyrocketing debt has saddled nations, corporations and households with a financial burden that threatens the future.  It's a damn shame that not a single presidential candidate in either party has made this issue a central focus of his or her campaign.

Obama: Islamophobia Rampant in America

America's lecturer-in-chief helicoptered to a Baltimore mosque to preach his recurring theme of Christian intolerance for Islam.  President Obama's choice of venues was curious considering the FBI just a few years ago arrested a member of the mosque for plotting to blow up a federal building.

During this month's visit with the Islamic Society of Baltimore, Mr. Obama couldn't resist giving Christians another black eye, suggesting they could use a few lessons in sensitivity and open-mindedness.

"If we're serious about freedom of religion--and I'm speaking now to my fellow Christians who remain the majority in this country--we have to understand, an attack on one faith is an attack on all faiths," a finger-wagging Mr. Obama scolded.

In his bloviated discourse, the president not once mentioned the slaughter of 14 innocent victims in the San Bernardino, California, shooting rampage, a terrorist attack committed by two Muslims. It was a lost opportunity to urge "peaceful" Muslims to condemn religious-inspired murders.

This is not the first time the president and his administration have sermonized about Christian persecution of Muslims in America.  Attorney General Loretta Lynch last December appeared at a Muslim Advocates dinner to condemn what she called "anti-Muslim hatred" in America.

"Since 9/11, we've had over 1,000 investigations into acts of anti-Muslim hatred, including rhetoric and bigoted actions, with over 45 prosecutions arising out of that," Lynch told the Muslim organization, which was celebrating its 10th anniversary in these prejudiced United States.

Using the attorney general's own statistics, it means in more than 14 years the government has prosecuted less than three cases annually of anti-Muslim hate crimes.  Based on those facts, Islamophobia hardly appears to be rampant in America.  It's almost non-existent.

You would think the attorney general would be better informed since the FBI director reports to her.   The bureau tracks hate crimes in the United States and publishes annual statistics.  Their numbers do not match the political bluster from either Ms. Lynch or the president.

In its latest report, the FBI counted 1,140 anti-religious crimes in 2014. The majority (56.8 percent) of the hate crimes were directed at Jews. Anti-Islamic crimes aimed at Muslims were 16.1 percent of the total. That means there were six times as many anti-Jewish cases.

In 2012, the FBI reported 1,166 anti-religious hate crimes in the U.S. The figure had dipped to 1,140 by 2014, a drop of two percent.  The statistics do not support the theory that Americans are becoming more intolerant of religion.  The numbers suggest the exact opposite.

Both President Obama and Attorney General Lynch know better.  So why do they persist in harping about America's assault on Muslims?  If they were genuinely concerned about hate crimes, they should visit a synagogue to address the anti-Jewish sentiment that remains a blight on America's soul.

As usual with the Obama Administration, its motivation is clearly political. The president and his party are openly courting Muslims to become another reliable Democratic Party voting block.  Mr. Obama's political modus operandi is to divide the country along racial, ethnic and gender lines.

It seems to be working.  According to the Pew Research Center, more than 70 percent of Muslims self-identify as Democrats.  Only 11 percent call themselves Republicans. There are about 1.8 million Muslim adults living in the U.S., the center's research indicates.

But the Muslim population is growing faster than any other religious group.  By 2050, Pew projects the numbers of Muslims in America will more than double, surpassing Judaism as the second-largest religious demographic in the U.S., behind only Christianity.

Not only are Muslims having larger families, America has flung open its borders to accommodate a greater influx from abroad.  In 2012 alone, more than 100,000 Muslims immigrated to the United States.  Each year Muslims account for a greater percentage of new arrivals to America.

Those eye-opening figures guarantee that the Democratic Party narrative will continue to portray Muslims as victims.  Their willing accomplices in the big media cabal serve as echo chambers for the unsubstantiated anti-Islamic charges.

Americans may not be perfect, but they are the most tolerant people on Earth.  If they weren't, this nation would not be home to so many diverse ethnic, racial and gender groups for Democrats to convert to victimhood.

Iowa Post Mortem: Presidential Race Shake-Up

Iowa hosts America's first in the nation presidential primary but the results of caucus voting may be the least reliable yardstick of a candidate's chances of winning the party nomination.  Iowans are predominantly white, zealously religious and socially conservative.  Not your average voters.

For those reasons, it has been hazardous for political pundits and Washington insiders to put too much stock in candidates who emerge victorious in Iowa, a state of only three million people. Past winners in the Hawkeye State, such as Rick Santorum in 2012, have wilted long before summer.

Putting aside the results, this year's contest produced telltale signs of the direction of the shifting political winds in both parties.  A detailed analysis of exit polls and voter profiles indicates the races are far from settled and it could be a long slog before the primary winners are crowned.

Here are a few takeaways from Iowa that could rattle the establishment bigwigs in both parties:

Ted Cruz Turns Out Winner

The Texas senator was not given much of a chance in Iowa.  His stance on ethanol subsidies was unpopular with farmers.  The sitting governor told Iowans to vote for anyone but Cruz.  He was unmercifully attacked by the state's leading newspaper.  Yet Cruz wound up winning more caucus votes than any Republican in history, confounding the news media and pollsters.

Cruz garnered strong support from evangelicals, very conservative voters and so-called "values" caucus goers.  He attracted majorities of young people and middle-aged and older caucus goers, out dueling the other Republicans among these key demographics.

But Cruz's secret weapon was his organizational juggernaut. That advantage will keep him in the race in every state because the campaign proved it can motivate voters, resulting in the largest Republican turnout in Iowa history.  In primaries, turnout matters most.

Rubio Is The Shiny New Thing

The Florida Senator, who trailed badly in the early Iowa polls, roared into third place within a few votes of former front runner Donald Trump.  Exit polls showed Republicans considered Rubio the most electable in the field by a wide margin (44% to 22%) over Cruz.

Moderates and non-ideologue conservatives gave the edge to Rubio. He lost only among strong conservatives, where Cruz bested the Floridian by a three-to-one margin. Rubio's showing in Iowa burnished the senator's statute and fueled a media bandwagon effect.

Long term, if Jeb Bush finally pulls the plug on his $100 million dispirited campaign before the Super Tuesday primaries, Rubio will lay claim to the so-called establishment financial gravy train. That could be the game-changer that vaults Rubio into the lead.  But if Bush soldiers on, it damages Rubio's ability to build a war chest to match Cruz.    

Trump Tumbles From Lofty Perch

After leading the polls for months, Donald Trump barely eked past Rubio for second place.  Exit polls found Trump won wide support among those with a high school degree or less and with senior citizens (65+). He finished third in most other demographic categories, including age and education. This does not portend well for his campaign.

But the worst news of all was that the Iowa vote exposed his weakness of a lack of ground troops to make telephone calls, knock on doors, hand out campaign literature and to cajole supporters to turn out at the caucuses.  Trump's loyalists, many of them political novices, packed his tent-revival rallies, but failed to show up at the caucuses.  This kind of "soft support" may cost him dearly in the upcoming contests.

The Rest of the Pests

After the Iowa caucuses, GOP candidates began dropping like flies. However, too many contestants ignored their poor showings and opted to plow forward.  After New Hampshire, the winnowing should increase. The crowded field is not helping the party reach a consensus before the convention. Time for Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich and Ben Carson to bow out.

Hillary Claims A Pyrrhic Victory

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary "Goldman" Clinton nosed out challenger Bernie Sanders by a coin flip. Five to be exact.  The bizarre ending gave her a two-delegate edge over Sanders and prompted the Des Moines Register to opine that "something smells in the Democratic Party."  The influential newspaper called on the party to "act quickly to assure the accuracy" of the outcome.

The clouded victory for Clinton was the least of her worries.  The former Secretary of State lost the male vote to Sanders and narrowly won females by a nine-point margin.  However, women under 45 gave a slight nod to Sanders.  That is a sobering development for Clinton's long-term chances.

Even more discouraging for the Clinton campaign, Sanders captured 84 percent of the youth vote (ages 17-29) in the exit polling by CBS News. President Obama would not have won the last two presidential elections without fawning support from Millennials.  Clinton's tepid approval among this demographic may be her eventual undoing.

For Sanders, Iowa represented a victory.  Polls have him with a double-digit lead in New Hampshire, where the Vermont Senator enjoys a home field advantage. After that primary, Sanders will have to switch tactics and attack Clinton's character or he will be a faint memory by summer.

After the New Hampshire primary, there may be more clarity but it is unlikely either party will be any closer to establishing a clear favorite to win the nomination.  

Media Bias: Republicans Need To Grow a Spine

America's big media cartel reacted with near unanimous outrage after Republican presidential contender Donald Trump thumbed his nose at Fox News, blaming a moderator's bias for his decision to skirt the seventh GOP candidate debate.

Whether or not you agree with the candidate's decision, Trump's political calculus was to tap into a deep vein of overwhelming media distrust. For decades, Republicans have expressed their dismay over media favoritism towards Democratic Party candidates, particularly in presidential elections.

A nationwide poll last fall by Gallup found that only 32 percent of GOP voters have a positive attitude toward the news media.  On the other hand, a majority of Democrats (55 percent) view the media favorably. That chasm between the two groups is rooted in more than just prejudice.

Scientists at Cornell University developed an algorithm to sniff out bias in news reporting.  Using computers, the researchers combed through thousands of stories about politics from 275 news outlets, including television, radio, web and newspaper organizations.

In the report issued last year, the scientists reported "systematic bias" and objectively quantified its existence.  This was not the first time research had documented liberal media bigotry.  Those on the left of the political spectrum always dismiss such research because it does not fit their narrative.

But the facts are unassailable.  A 2004 study by two professors from California and Illinois reached the same conclusion about the liberal inclination of the news media.  The media slant was skewed to the left of even most liberals in Congress, the research confirmed.

Among the most biased news outlets are The New York Times, Time Magazine, CBS Evening News, USA Today and NBC Nightly News, according to the exhaustive study entitled, "A Measure of Media Bias."  If you are surprised by the list, then you are most likely a liberal.

There is evidence that most journalists are self-proclaimed Democrats. In fact, Democrat supporters among reporters and editors outnumber Republicans by a four to one margin.  These findings were released last year by two Indiana professors of journalism.

Their conclusion was contained in a report, "Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind."  They chronicled that a measly seven percent of all journalists consider themselves to be Republicans. Is there any wonder the media is in the tank for Democrats?

Those who cover Washington politics are even more likely to be Democrats.  More than 90 percent of them admit to voting Democratic, the research uncovered.  A large percentage even donate to the political funds of Democrat candidates for office.

A prime example of this is ABC's George Stephanopoulus, a former top operative in the Clinton White House.  He interviewed Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton last year, lobbing softball questions and fawning over her innocuous answers.

It was revealed after the interview that Stephanopoulus had secretly contributed $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation without telling his ABC bosses.  The pseudo journalist was forced to make a public apology for not disclosing his political connection and withdrew as a debate moderator.  

Episodes like this have only heightened Americans' distrust of the media. Gallup's annual poll in 2014 found that only 40 percent of people expressed a "great deal or fair amount of confidence" in the news media. That is a historic low since Gallup began surveying opinions of the media.

Despite the tsunami of evidence, those on the political left will never be convinced.  They continue to cling to their belief that media bias favors conservatives.  That notion has absolutely no basis in research but facts have never seemed to matter to liberals who consider themselves open minded.

Research aside, Trump's no show at the Iowa debate may backfire.  But his claim of being treated unfairly by the media resonates with many Republican voters, who are tired of GOP candidates kowtowing to journalists who routinely bash their party's standard bearers.

More Republican candidates need to stand up to a biased media, instead of heeding the advice of pundits to schmooze journalists. Expecting fair news treatment from a clearly liberal news cartel is foolhardy. Pandering to the media and hoping for a different result this time is irrational.