Yesterday I wrote about Obama's appeal to the youth vote through his discussion of student debt. I asked my friend Corey Jacobson to look into this subject.
..............
Corey lives in Washington DC, where he does consulting work at the crossroads of global politics and business. Follow him on Twitter at @CoreyJacobson.
..............
Image via Wikipedia
It’s the economy, stupid. But perhaps not in the way you’re thinking.
Like many of their older peers, young voters are concerned about the economy and jobs. But if you’re an 18- to 29-year-old with a college degree—a status that applies to a higher percentage of Millenials than any previous generation—unemployment may not be the worst of your problems.
As economist Diana Carew of the Progressive Policy Institute noted last week, of far greater concern is the alarming trend in student loan debt. Average student debt topped $25,000 this past year, a 25 percent increase over the last decade. In fact, Americans now have more student loan debt than credit card debt. This should not come as a huge surprise; tuition costs have also skyrocketed, rising by 32 percent at four-year institutions over the past decade, according to Department of Education numbers. All the while, real wages of recent college graduates have actually fallen.
As Carew puts it: “Just as college is getting more expensive, graduates are less able to pay for it.”
But how much do young voters care about student debt and college affordability? Rock the Vote polls in 2006, 2008, and 2010 rated “education and the cost of college” as one of the top five issues for young voters. And according to POLITICO’s Battleground poll from November, “education” topped “the economy” as the most important issue for young voters 22 to 18 percent. While far from conclusive that “education” is the top issue for young voters—“education” does not necessarily include college affordability and student debt—it is clearly a concern for young voters.
Given the electoral significance of the youth vote (which Stephen discussed here), tackling this issue seems to be an opportunity staring candidates in the face. After watching President Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday, I would say he agrees:
This Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July. Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves middle-class families thousands of dollars…. And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down…. So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can’t be a luxury – it’s an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford. [emphasis added]
This isn’t the first time Obama has used the State of the Union platform to draw attention to college affordability and student debt—he did so in both 2010 and 2011—but I noticed two major differences in his latest speech: (1) the president’s rhetoric has become decidedly stronger (compare his ultimatum above to 2010’s “It's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs”); and (2) he drew a direct line from the personal burden of student debt to the more abstract concept of long-term economic competitiveness. Obama is painting the issue as not just good social policy but fundamental economics.
In general, voters tend to think of issues in one of two ways: in the abstract (“What is good for the country?”) and in the personal (“What is good for me?”). When you’re advocating for policies that conflate these two interests, you’re playing a winning hand.
For all the messaging, Obama is not short on action, either. He created a $2,500 per year college tuition tax credit in 2009 and overhauled the student loan program in 2010 to redirect taxpayer dollars from federally-subsidized private middle men back towards students with increased Pell Grants. This past year, he used an executive order to cap student loan payments at 10 percent of annual income. Agree or disagree with the policies, the Administration has clearly tried to put itself on the side of students.
So what do prospective Republican challengers Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have to offer on the issues of college affordability and out-of-control student debt? Surprisingly very little.
Mitt Romney not only lacks a public position on these issues, but he has no specific plan on higher education whatsoever posted on his website—or included in his 87-page “Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth.” Romney’s disregard for this issue was on display last December at a New Hampshire town hall event when he responded to questions on how he would control soaring tuition costs with one suggestion: go check out for-profit universities.
I won’t get into the merits of for-profit education, but the notion that for-profit colleges offer an affordable alternative to community colleges, or even many four-year public universities, is questionable at best. Putting that aside, Romney’s “position” does not even begin to address existing student debt or high tuition costs faced by students already attending not-for-profit institutions.
For his part, Newt Gingrich has called for more personal responsibility. While his website does have a page devoted to education, the section on higher education is limited to three bullet points: award scholarship money to students who graduate early; establish work-study universities; and increase online education. Perhaps worthy policy ideas, but far from the bold, confidence-inspiring proposals that will get young voters interested.
So while Republicans are working to make this election entirely about the economy and the role of government, they seem to be completely ignoring an issue of both fundamental economic and social importance. The question at this point isn’t whether or not Republicans are vulnerable here; the question is: "When will young voters start to take notice?"
