Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Do you support the Paul Ryan plan to nearly eliminate Pell Grants?

By Howard B. Owens
Dave Olsen

Here's an un-libertarian position. Without Pell Grants, and government backed low interest student loans, a lot of people would be deprived of a post high school education. HIgh School isn't going to get a person very far anymore. I'd like to see grants and low interest loans attached to a commitment of public service. Doesn't have to be the military necessarily, but could be. there are many areas that could benefit from and to young people for a few years of service. Too many in this country (such as Paul Ryan for example) don't know what it means to "be a part of something bigger than yourself" Congress hardly counts.

May 24, 2011, 10:24am Permalink
George Richardson

Education is free for those who will do the work on their own. It is only expensive for those who won't do the work on their own and need someone to hold their hand and guide them through a few short years of forced thinking. If you think all the time and learn all the time because you want to, then education is free. Now, go read a book.

May 24, 2011, 11:55am Permalink
Bob Harker

Low interest deferred loans? Absolutely.

Pell grants? Absolutely not.

Providing funds that will be paid back is a helping hand.

Free money is a hand out - and often abused as is the case with many free government programs. I saw it first hand during a recent stint at GCC. Many students had great interest in the free ride and little or no interest in furthering their education.

May 24, 2011, 1:35pm Permalink
George Richardson

Bob, if all of that money can save just one person from a lifetime of stupid, it is worth it. I got a free ride at GCC with a Basic Educational Opportunity Grant, the tuition was paid but I still suffered like a starving artist, and the seed of education got planted forever. I'm much cheaper on WNY than if I had ended up in prison for being stupid. Like I said already, education is free if you can seek it on your own.

May 24, 2011, 1:58pm Permalink
Ed Gentner

The solution is tuition-free secondary and post secondary education that is open to any and all that qualify by virtue of H.S. diploma, decent grades, scores on sat/act, prior military service, on-going community service. A well educated people are a prosperous people. Those wealthy who want to eliminate broad availabilty of higher education by starving financial support for students rely on a low information uneducated populas to agree without question their dictates.

May 24, 2011, 2:51pm Permalink
Frank Cook

As someone who has been given the opportunity to attend one of the most expensive private universities in the nation because of pell grants, low-interest gov't backed loans, as well as generosity of the school itself, I think it'd be a shame to get rid of the aids to the poor that currently exist.

The easiest way out of poverty in America is a great education, and Batavia of all places desperately needs people to stick around after they graduate from good schools.

May 24, 2011, 5:02pm Permalink
Jeremiah Pedro

With out Pell grants I can't afford my books or gas to get to and from class. I just finished up two years at GCC and now I'm going on to a nice little college up in Amherst in the fall. If it weren't for the post 9/11 GI bill, Pell Grants, and the generosity of the school itself I would not be able to afford to go there. Lucky for me Jim Webb decided it was a good idea to revamp the education benefits for veterans.
I think the obligation of some type of public service for school loans is an outstanding idea. And like Dave said it doesn't necessarily need to be military service. Not everyone is cut out for the military but they may still want to do their part so to speak.

May 24, 2011, 10:21pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

I voted undecided. On one hand, we can't just keep spending money like we do.

On the other, my military benefits, plus generous Pell grants and CalGrants are what paid for me to attend a quality private college. I wouldn't have had a career in journalism without all that government aid and it seems unfair to deny it to others.

May 24, 2011, 11:24pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

There's plenty of need that could be filled by someone fulfilling a service promise or earning money for college. Hospitals, Police, Schools, Parks. I bet some young people who plan to go into finance or business admin or something else in the private sector, after having to serve as a classroom aide or some clerical job in law enforcement or at a hospital having never been exposed to public sector jobs, would decide to change their plans. This could be a way to find good teachers, cops, politicians even etc. Like I wrote above, too many people of all ages have no clue about much outside their little circles.

May 25, 2011, 10:20am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Paul Ryan, BTW is just another rich punk, whose family had no worries paying for his college. He's never had a job outside of politics. I don't count being a "marketing consultant" for Grandpa's construction company, he may have had duties and responsibilities to do, but please. He worked as a staffer for a couple other politicians, then ran for office himself. He has no clue how his budget will affect anyone who isn't a trust fund baby like him.

May 25, 2011, 10:25am Permalink
JoAnne Rock

Howard, I am curious as to the source behind this poll question.

President Obama’s budget request for over $40 billion includes maintaining a maximum grant amount at $5,550. In contrast, Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget proposal aims to return Pell Grants to their pre-stimulus 2008 level by reducing the maximum grant amount to $4,705. A reduction of $845 doesn't appear to rise to the level of "nearing elimination" as your poll question suggests.

President Obama's lofty goal of having the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020 is certainly noble. This goal has been his primary justification for increasing Pell Grant spending.

One of the studies that Paul Ryan cites, indicates that as Pell Grant awards increase, so does tuition.
http://pages.uoregon.edu/lsingell/Pell_Bennett.pdf

I think President Obama even recognizes the need to get Pell Grant spending under control. HR 1473, which he signed into law on 4/15/11, removes the ability to receive multiple grants in a single year (summer semester grants).

While Pell Grants are shown to increase college access to many students, studies show that it doesn't always result in graduation. Graduation is the goal of the program. If it is not meeting this goal, why maintain funding? There may be others ways to effectively meet the workforce challenges of students that may not be cut out for college.

I think it is at least worth considering.

Dave, you're probably right. Paul Ryan is just another rich punk. But, the more I read his budget proposal, the more inclined I am to believe that he is one of the least offensive rich punks in Congress.

May 25, 2011, 12:36pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

JoAnne: Any government program is being abused to some degree. I'll agree that graduation should be the goal. I have not read all of The Roadmap to Prosperity or whatever Paul Ryan's budget proposal is called. I'll also admit to having a strong prejudice against privileged politicians who have never accomplished anything outside of politics, no matter their side of the aisle (Charles Schumer comes to mind). There's no question many problems have to be addressed, Medicare, Social Security and Pell Grants among them. Why does the conversation always have to start with social programs designed to help folks change their status in life or live a little better? I'd like it to start with waste & fraud in the Defense Dept, chopping down the administration of the legislative branch, cut down the number of representatives and their pay and benefits, slap down some of the executive power of the Presidency, cut back on corporate welfare, curb special interest influences and STOP interfering with the rest of the world. The right wing always has to start with the poor and the left always has to scream about protecting them, while Rome just keeps on burning and the rich get richer. Paul Ryan is a charlatan (in my humble opinion, of course LOL) Yeah, he may have a degree in Economics but it seems that he's only used that knowledge to support the political ideology he's signed on with. He's "an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks" (Apocalypse Now, Colonel Kurtz) the clerks being the Republican Party, the Store being the corporate interests that employ them all and are screwing you and me and the majority of this country over daily. I listened to an interview with Mr. Ryan about a year ago and he talked about his Roadmap plan and said We, as a nation need to begin an adult conversation about the financial future of this country. Very articulate and engaging, sucked me right in. I liked him by the end of the interview, and it was on NPR, not a warm, fuzzy place for him I'm sure. I still agree with the Adult Conversation part, just don't as with, I believe, most people the page he chooses to begin the conversation on. Ryan IMHO, is carrying the water for those who will one day make him Speaker of the House or, dare I say it? President. I'd rather the wolf gets exposed early.

May 25, 2011, 2:18pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Joanne - Pell grants help millions of students go to college. That $845 dollars could be the difference between attending or not and it is hardly a modest cut. Some people will always drop out but that is no reason for eliminating Pell grants. What needs to be done on the federal level is what is currently happening on the state level, a bottom-up review of government and plans to eliminate costly duplicating bureaucracies; we also need to reset the tax rate for top income earners to Clinton levels (income not business, as is so often misreported). What we do not asinine proposals like cutting Pell grants.

I'm amazed that spoiled brats like Paul Ryan will always gut programs that help people pull themselves up by their bootstraps rather than tax the wealthy. What's even more amazing is upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class and even poor people that stand with him.

May 25, 2011, 2:32pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Dave - I would rather have someone who has accomplished in the area of government and running it effectively in Congress than someone who happened to have been born into the right family, like Paul Ryan, Chris Lee or Jane Corwin. Or even was successful in business but would be totally incapable of working with 435 other people to get legislation passed, like Jack Davis. Not that I am against people from the business world using their expertise in government, in fact, I think they are needed....but just because someone has been successful in business does not make everything that comes out of their mouth gold.

I'm electing a Congressperson, not a CEO.

Abraham Lincoln was a career politician.

May 25, 2011, 2:46pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

I said I do not see any problem with someone who makes a career out of being successful in government, like the Kennedy's and Andrew Cuomo. The Kennedys and Andrew Cuomo did not claim credit for their parents successes like Jane Corwin did. There are huge differences

May 25, 2011, 3:04pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

John - I may not have been clear enough, I meant it in the context of running a successful business. Jane Corwin took credit for things that her parents did and claimed to be creating jobs as a child. Paul Ryan is the heir to a major construction company. The Kennedy's and Andrew Cuomo, albeit humorously, admit and admitted that they were lucky to have been born into their respective families. That being said, they never took credit for the things that their parents did and had accomplishments far outside of their parents shadows.

May 25, 2011, 3:32pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Dan; I didn't say anything about success in business, or even being wealthy or not. I want to vote for well-rounded people who have life's experience outside of their cocoons. I would never write someone off who has flipped burgers or been a janitor etc as being not smart or capable, Someone who was born into wealth or a successful business doesn't necessarily bother me if they have done something by themselves with it, not just keep an office warm. People who have done nothing but work for politicians or be politicians themselves, don't have a clue what the rest of us deal with. You can see pictures, movies and read books about somewhere, but if you've never been there, you don't really know what it's like.
Lincoln was not a career politician either BTW. In addition to being raised on a frontier farm (Extremely hard work for everyone) he was a general store owner, Captain in the militia during the Black Hawk War, postmaster, county surveyor and attorney. Sort of well-rounded I'd say.

May 25, 2011, 3:37pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Postmaster and County Surveyor were elected positions I believe, he was also unsuccessful in almost every endeavor except for politics.

People who work for politicians typically do not make that much money, typically they start around 30k per year and struggle to pay bills and taxes just like the rest of us. Government isn't like it was in the founding of our country, it can't be, the nation and the world are too big and complex. I want someone who understands government and is effective at running it as lean and well oiled machine, not someone without a clue about it and who is a regular Joe or someone from the business world that may not understand it.

May 25, 2011, 4:06pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Well, Dan like I wrote last week, we'll just have to disagree and we can still be friends, although we've never met that i can remember. I will never vote for a career politician for anything, I'm sure our votes will cancel each other at some point. Yes, things are different than when the country was founded or in Lincoln's time. I don't agree that government needs to be so complex, we should have people elected who are committed to simplifying it, that is done by de-centralizing as much as possible and getting the decisions down to the most local entity possible. For example, college grants, local facilitation will eliminate many abuses.The founders envisioned citizen-lawmakers, not career politicians, I don't think that should ever change. But it has. How's that workin' for ya? (Dr. Phil)

May 25, 2011, 4:22pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Joanne, the source was a Buffalo News editorial. I can go look up the link for you if you like, but don't feel like doing it right now, frankly.

Also, I took pell grants, as I said before, but I never said I graduated. Graduation is just a piece of paper. I wish I had it, but I had an opportunity to start my career in journalism (by buying, with a friend, a small weekly paper in San Diego), so that's what I did.

May 25, 2011, 4:41pm Permalink
JoAnne Rock

Dave, I'd be hard pressed to disagree with much of what you said (I know, it surprises me too...LOL!). The exception would be with-- who started the conversation? In my opinion, the conversation begins where the media selectively decides to start it and depends on which way they lean. Few people look beyond headlines and many take the word of the media as gospel. And let's face it, sex, scandal and talk of shredding social programs sells better than Credit Default Swaps, Weather Derivatives and ForEx Trading Schemes. Our preoccupation with partisan bickering over spurious arguments provides the perfect cover for politicians.

Headlines about the Ryan plan that we have not seen:
http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf

Ryan plan proposes attrition policy to reduce federal workforce by 10% by 2014.

Ryan plan freezes federal pay through 2015.

Ryan plan reduces taxpayer's share of the Federal Employee Pension Plan.

Ryan plan attacks Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Ryan plan targets Wall Street bailout authority given to the FDIC by Dodd Frank Act.

Ryan plan adopts 178B in military spending cuts identified by Defense Secretary Gates.
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1527

These, Dave, are some of the conversations I would like to have.

Dan, the average Pell Grant award is about $3000, still well below the maximum proposed by Paul Ryan. The $845 cut is NOT per student. Millions of students will still be able to go to college. No one, to my knowledge, is calling for the elimination of Pell Grants, but if you have a source that proves otherwise, I'd love to see it. What amazes me is how some seemingly articulate and informed people will continue to support auto-pilot funding of programs without demanding any review of their effectiveness and efficiency; then mock, malign and marginalize (I'm fond of alliteration too) anyone that dares to entertain the notion that a social program may benefit from review, modification or reform. Some of us poor folk can read and even discern fact from fiction Dan.

Howard, your success story illustrates my point. You found an effective way to meet your own personal workforce challenge. Why can't Pell Grants present varied opportunities for high school seniors. Graduation for those that want or need it for their future endeavors, entreupreunership assistance to enourage small business ownership and preparedness or community internships for those that wish to enter vocational or skilled trades?

The goal of the Pell Grant program should be, as you eloquently stated in a previous post... "to help harness the power of the American worker to the greatest benefit of the individual, not as a nationalist agenda."

May 25, 2011, 11:08pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

This is what partisanship has gotten us:

I felt Obama blew a chance to come up with real health care reform because he essentially just launched his own party's idea on the country without really negotiating and obtaining bipartisan support.

His failure to govern rather than dictate has been a severe setback to real health care reform (what is often called "Obama care" ain't it.)

On Medicare, we have the Ryan plan which is just magically introduced and quickly passed -- no hearings of substance, no sitting down with the Democrats and trying to find other solutions or compromises.

The legislative process should be one of deliberation and consensus building. I believe that's how you get the best laws passed.

I wish some leaders would come along who would say something like, "Health care is broken. I'm going to get the smarts members of both parties to sit down with me, we're going to listen to all the experts, and hammer out a plan that we can all agree on and then present it to the American people and give them some time to rip it apart, then revise and see if we can get it passed."

These "here's the Democratic plan" and here's "the Republican plan" is not working for America. We need "here's the bi-partisan Congressional plan."

Any plan that comes only out of one party or the other is going to be flawed and just further divide the country.

May 25, 2011, 11:19pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Joanne - The maximum Pell grant being reduced means that the highest level of beneficiary of the grant may have their grant reduced by $845 dollars, an amount that may cause them not to return to college. Lowering the amount of Pell grants given out is not going to increase graduation rates, furthermore, financial hardship has become less of a problem because of programs like this one. What amazes me is that some people who would are beneficiaries of such programs or have friends and family that are would continue to support them falling under attack.

I believe in fiscal austerity, no question. I believe that there is no reason to have separate departments of the interior and environmental protection, for example. I do not want to see my hard working letter carrier not get a raise because some spoiled rich kid (Paul Ryan) decided that those bureaucrats and appointees making well into the six digits should get the same treatment as she does.

I do not understand people who vote against their own economic self interest.

May 26, 2011, 12:06am Permalink
John Roach

The Federal Government took over college loans from banks. They now control both the loans and Pell grants, so it should be no problem to convert the grants to loans. And why not?

What's wrong with paying us back? Just pay it back so it can be loaned out again.

May 26, 2011, 6:26am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Hey, JoAnne, reading some of the election coverage this morning, since I believe you said you actually read the Ryan plan ... I'm curious ... if you had been the GOP candidate instead of Corwin, or if you had been asked to draft Corwin's position on the Ryan plan .. how would you have defended it?

May 26, 2011, 6:37am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

To play devil's advocate, John.

Most college students already graduate with crippling debt into a job market that offers few prospects of finding a job commensurate either with the education they've obtained or the debt load they carry. (and because of free trade, I don't see that changing, even as the economy recovers)

So what will be accomplished by burdening Pell Grant recipients with debt (some of whom used grants to supplement their student loans)?

May 26, 2011, 6:40am Permalink
John Roach

Howard, why ask people who decide they do not want to go to college to pay out of their pocket for others who do? Some guy/girl joins the military with no intention of college. The government then takes money from them and gives it away free to one of their friends to attend college so they don't have to borrow so much. That does not seem fair.

Maybe the loan repayment period needs to be extended from 10 to 15 years?

We all want free money, free health care, free education for us and our kids. Free is good! Paying is bad.

May 26, 2011, 7:00am Permalink
Dave Olsen

JoAnne: "Our preoccupation with partisan bickering over spurious arguments provides the perfect cover for politicians." Absolutely, and goes straight to the trust issue and the low approval ratings of Congress.

John "We all want free money, free health care, free education for us and our kids. Free is good! Paying is bad." I disagree, I always feel better when I have earned what I need. That's the "American Way" as I was taught. I like the paying back idea, I just think it should be done with service, it could be viewed as continuing the student's education. And No, everyone is not going to go to college, and all those that do won't graduate. I see the nation as getting better if young people get the opportunity to broaden their views. As Howard and JoAnne pointed out, too much narrow-minded partisanship.. Free is good though when it relates to beer.

May 26, 2011, 7:36am Permalink
John Roach

The idea of public service to pay college debt is not bad, but have the service done prior to college, not after. Sort of like a national GI bill. You provide a service for a set number of years, and get a payment for college.

May 26, 2011, 7:51am Permalink
Dave Olsen

I'd like to see it have the option of either before or after college. Everyone is different and could contribute in different ways. The traditional GI bill would be one way.

May 26, 2011, 8:02am Permalink
Daniel Jones

One thing I will agree with Joanne on is that not everyone has the right set of skills for a college education, some people have skills that would cause them to be successful in other fields. I know of plumbers, construction workers and other tradesmen who make a better living than their white collar counterparts. It's not that they are less intelligent, some of those people are the most intellectual people I know and I'm going to bet that I could never figure out how to install pipes, operate heavy and complex machinery or work with wiring. Instead of discouraging skilled trades with the mantra of 'everyone needs to go to traditional college', we ought to encourage technical education and the trades for people who have the right set of skills for it.

May 26, 2011, 8:44am Permalink
Dave Olsen

"Instead of discouraging skilled trades with the mantra of 'everyone needs to go to traditional college'" Who in this thread advocated that?

May 26, 2011, 9:28am Permalink
Chelsea O'Brien

There seem to be a few misconceptions about the whole government funding higher education thing.

Pell Grants along with other government funding can be used for most post-secondary education opportunities, including trade schools, beauty schools, and traditional institutions of higher education.

The federal government doesn’t control all “federal” student loans, there are two programs institutions can choose to participate in. One is the Direct Loan program, in which loans for students are funded and backed directly by the Department of Education. The other option is FFELP, in which schools offer loans from private lenders and these loans are backed by the Department of Education.

The GI Bill can now be transferred to family members of recipients, meaning if GI Joe Dad or Mom doesn’t want to use the money for themselves, they can transfer the education benefits to their child(ren). Webb did an amazing thing for current military members and recent veterans, but it doesn’t always cover everything needed.
Tuition has been rising regardless of Pell Grant increases, and will probably continue to do so. As flagship universities continue to add services, students expect those same services at small campuses. These can include world-class fitness centers, brand new residence halls, and smaller class sizes. All of these cost more money, and if colleges and universities want to continue to be competitive, they need to include these.

Something else that has bothered me about this conversation, and it has to do with graduation. Graduation isn’t always the student’s goal, sometimes it’s certification, or just a few classes to gain enough experience. Two years of post-secondary education, regardless of institution or program, means there is a significant increase in earning potential. Veterans and adult students are in the high-risk pool of dropping out because of different factors, to claim that they don’t get the benefits of a Pell Grant simply because their risk is high, I just don’t think it’s fair.

May 26, 2011, 10:31am Permalink
JoAnne Rock

Chelsea, thank you for your informative post. I'm in full agreement with you that graduation is not always the student's goal. It is, however, the statutory goal of the Pell Grant program.

If a student applied for a Pell Grant, and indicated on the application that their goal was not graduation, but rather to take "just a few classes to gain enough experience", would they still receive a grant?

May 26, 2011, 11:41am Permalink
Chelsea O'Brien

JoAnne,

At my institution, I didn't necessarily "apply" for the Pell Grant, it was part of my assigned financial aid package that I could accept or fund otherwise. As far as I'm aware, that's how it works at most traditional higher education institutions. So, I would assume (being that I simply took a financial aid course during my Master's program and haven't worked in financial aid) that if you were not qualified for the program, the financial aid office wouldn't include it in your options.

May 26, 2011, 12:02pm Permalink
JoAnne Rock

Howard,I believe that in order to defend something, you have to know it inside and out and believe in it yourself, so that when speaking of it, you have an honest and natural confidence.

I could talk for hours about food and cooking, but put me in a room full of football fanatics and I'll be the quietest one there.

Jane Corwin should have read the plan herself and written her own position paper so that she could debate and discuss it with confidence.

"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."
-- Abraham Lincoln

May 26, 2011, 12:23pm Permalink

Authentically Local