Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.


Having more, less qualified students attend college will do harm

  • Published in Letters

To The Daily Sun,

Michael Bloomer's letter of Saturday, Aug. 2, suggests he is a thoughtful young man. So Michael should do some critical thinking, considering results not promises, and facts and viewpoints typically ignored by schools and the main-stream-media.

First, the claim that there is a Republican "habit of denying funding for higher education..." is a lie promoted by Democrats and their supporters. In order to minimize taxes and student costs, Republicans fight for efficiencies, for elimination of waste and abuse, and against excessive subsidies that increase student costs.

Second, if government money actually reduced higher education costs, why are their costs so high? Our governments spend billions of dollars annually to support higher education. The fact is that government money (e.g., grants, scholarships, loans) supports higher, not lower, higher education costs.

Without government money, higher education providers (generically "colleges) would be forced to make the changes needed to offer educations at affordable prices or go out of business. There are many obvious ways to cut costs without harming student educations if government money didn't support wasteful practices, e.g., low utilization of professors and space, low value classes (e.g., UC Professor Mireille Miller-Young's classes on pornography and queer studies), excessive administrators, excessive salaries, benefits, and bonuses (some university presidents are paid over $1 million), etc.

Third, college costs are high because progressive politicians benefit from them being high. High college costs enable progressive politicians to claim benevolence while transferring wealth from hard working Americans to a key progressive special interest. With big incomes colleges provide cushy jobs to leftists (progressives, socialists, communists, etc.) who indoctrinate students with their anti-American ideologies, increase staff and compensation, wastefully expand facilities, and provide political support to the progressive politicians who subsidize them.

Easy college loan money encourages some students to make poor choices related to higher education, leading to drop-outs, low-value degrees, and college debt problems.
Before the easy availability of government money which supported the great increase in college costs, students who were not from rich families, like my father (pre-GI Bill), my friends, my brothers, and me were able to work and pay substantial portions or all of our college costs.

Fourth, President Obama wants more people to attend college. Is this to help young people or to help President Obama and his political supporters in colleges and universities?

Almost one in 10 recent college graduates is unemployed in President Obama's economy. More than 40 percent of recent graduates don't get jobs that require a college degree or pay wages commensurate with their education level. About 15 percent can only get jobs that don't even require a high school degree. Almost half of the people who start college don't graduate within six years (drop-outs don't get jobs that require a degree). And, even before President Obama's push to get more college attendees, his Labor Department reported that in 2010 more unemployed people had attended college than hadn't attended college.

The average recent graduate has about $30,000 in college debt which will take years to repay while young people struggle with many other expenses (about one-fourth of the loans are in default). (The Obamas finally repaid their school debt in their 40s despite having a family income over $200,000).

Having more less-qualified students attending college, who postpone starting their careers, taking on college debt, perhaps dropping out, or graduating without a good job will harm far more students than it helps. President Obama wants more college students because that would benefit his political supporters and his political goals.

Fifth, considering the high cost of a higher education and the fact that a college degree no longer guarantees a good job, students need to carefully consider their options for after high school. Fortunately, there are good options that lead to successful futures. Inexpensive online educations and degree programs provide an affordable alternative to a traditional high priced college; people can attend full-time, part-time while working, or just take classes occasionally to meet specific desires.

Many jobs that don't require a college degree can provide good incomes, e.g., plumbing, electrician, mechanic, appliance repair, heating and cooling, carpentry, and computer repair. Tech savvy young people can write programs, teach classes, install software and hardware, fix problems, etc. Many will become even more successful by building their own businesses and creating jobs for others.

Postponing, or skipping, college to get work experience, to learn what they are good at and enjoy doing, and to mature, may be a better option for students who would drop out or graduate with a relatively worthless degree and college loan debt.

Sixth, progressive propaganda, including President Obama's, claims that progressives take from the rich to help everyone else, but the results tell a different story. Under President Obama the rich keep getting richer, perhaps this is why they attend his $35,000 a plate fund raisers, while the number of poor people increase and the wealth and incomes of the middle class declines.

I accept Michael's description of success as being able to earn a higher income, pay higher taxes, and contribute to society. These imply that successful people are self-supporting, law abiding, and responsible for personal and family obligations.

The fact is that Senator Cataldo, Tony Boutin, myself, and everyone believing in traditional Republican principles wants Michael, Gabe, every other student, and every other American to be successful as Michael defines success, and we pursue tried and true policies that lead to people being successful.

Republicans have no incentive for wanting people to be unsuccessful. Unsuccessful people don't benefit us or anyone, they increase everyone's cost of living, and they too often react to their unhappiness by hurting people.

Most unsuccessful people vote for Democrats which may explain why Democrats continue, even after decades of failing results, their "progressive" policies that make so many people unsuccessful, e.g., by locking children in failing schools, by flooding the labor market with illegal aliens, by enticing people into debt, by trapping people in welfare, and by killing good jobs.

Reality is far different than the promises and the one-sided picture that people get from politicians, the main-stream-media and what most students get in school. Once people get past the (false) compassionate justification claimed for progressive policies, it is obvious that progressive policies, like the Trojan Horse, provide, at best, a brief benefit followed by long-term pain.

Best wishes to Michael, Gabe, and everyone.

Don Ewing