Education, then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of man, - the balance-wheel of the social machinery — Horace Mann
Unfortunately many people believe Hillary and Obama have the same policy positions. They do not actually.
Here’s a comparison contrast of Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s higher education policies. Higher Education policy is important not only if you are ever thinking of affording college for your self or your children, but also directly affects our economy, innovation, social justice and mobility in the United States. The plans are long and I suggest you click on the links to read the details. Highlighted below are the differences and when the policies were identical it was not included.
Obama
- Tax Credit: $4,000, fully refundable, universal
- Community College Partnership Program to strengthen community colleges by providing grants to:
- skill analysis for jobs
- new trade degrees for jobs
- reward graduate rates and transfers to four-year degree programs
Hillary
- Tax Credit: $3500. Replaces HOPE tax credit but is still graduated and is a partial refundable tax credit, phased for low income families.
- Incentive grants for investments by community colleges for increased graduates rates and transfer to a four-year degree program ($500M)
- Incentive grants to increase graduate rates in four-year colleges, focus on US diversity and low income students ($250M)
- On-the-job training and apprenticeship programs that are aligned to the needs of the local economy ($250M)
- $10k grant for anyone completing 1 or two years in public service programs.
- Higher Education Institution Accountability:
- A new online Higher Education Cost Calculator to clearly show costs
- A College Graduation and Employment Rate Index. Statistics on the graduation rates, job obtainment, earnings, occupational categories of graduates”
- Require colleges to accurately describe total costs of the entire degree in order to receive federal and state funding
- Mentions “challenging” selective schools to increase acceptance of more low income students and US diversity but does not specify precisely how to challenge them for inclusion.
Hillary goes further to mention a series of other policy areas including:
- a Public Service Academy program, seemingly modeled on military academies
- a student borrowers bill of rights
- greatly expanding the G.I. Bill.
The below Hillary policy addition I found particularly innovative:
Non-Traditional Student Success Act. This bill is aimed at expanding access to college for working adults, those who go back to school later in life, and first generation college students. This legislation increases the maximum Pell Grant. It also creates a pilot program to allow students attending college less than half-time to receive federal student aid. It increases the income protection allowance to allow working students to keep more of their income without losing crucial student aid. And it expands the Lifetime Learning Credit from 20 to 50% and allows students to receive the money in advance – when they need it to pay tuition.
Similarities
- Both are increasing Pell grant awards and adjusting for increasing college costs. Obama appears to have a $300 dollar larger increase. Neither mentions increasing the minimum income earned in order to qualify for a Pell grant, which is a key issue.
- Both are making the financial application a simple check box on the regular IRS tax form and reducing paperwork.
Differences
One of the biggest differences, in favor of Obama, is the tax credit. Obama is refundable whereas Hillary’s tax credit is progressive in benefit to low income students. In Hillary’s favor $10,000 dollars for a one year public service commitment is quite an addition, although I would like see more details on the requirements. Hillary is crafting incentives in multiple places, Obama just hands people $4k which is simpler.
Yet, overall Hillary has the most innovative policy for it’s ways of cross influencing other aspects of our society as well as increasing college access and affordability. Enabling older and non-traditional students access to higher education will increase workforce mobility and also greatly reduce age discrimination within the University system. It will also greatly benefit working mothers and women returning to school. It’s also clear Hillary is approaching improving access to college on multiple levels. I especially am thrilled to see a politician hold the universities accountable. Lately these days I wonder if anyone is.
Hillary’s position papers are much more detailed than Obama’s so it might be possible there are more details than what is publicly available at this time on Obama’s plan.
Another thing is note is Hillary accounts for cost. Budget busters might account for the differences in the tax credits.
Note she’s killing the private student loan industry, which has been notoriously predatory and put many students into bankruptcy.
Cost: The new college tax credit and other initiatives in this agenda will cost approximately $8 billion per year. These costs will be financed without increasing the deficit by eliminating the guaranteed student loan program and allocating a portion of the savings from freezing the estate tax at $7 million per couple rather than allowing it to be completely repealed. Freezing the estate tax at $7 million per couple will have no effect on 99.7% of estates. It will mean instead that the 10,000 wealthiest estates in the U.S. do not receive a further tax cut
While I prefer Obama’s universal refundable tax credit, where is the cost offset to pay for it? Overall Hillary’s plans have many more dimensions and touch multiple economic areas than Obama’s. In the end, this might make up for the universal tax credit differences. Gold Star to Hillary. 
No comments yet.