I, too, am glad that you’re well, Stelios. Feel free to continue in the thread should you wish.
Next Question! The genesis for this one comes from our own twickster!
“What level of support do you consider appropriate for federal funding of higher education? Specifically, do you support continued funding of the Pell grant? Also, what steps do you think are necessary at the federal level to control the growth of higher education costs, if any?”
Having taught in both Europe and the United States, this is a subject near and dear. Although your question is regarding only higher education, I would like to preface my remarks by saying we need to fix our problems with the entire US educational system, starting at the grade school level and progressing up and through the high school level. As I have stated earlier, we should be paying teachers 20% more than they would get in jobs in their chosen field to ensure we get the best of the best, so that future generations will become even better in those fields.
Getting back to the question, I truly believe that a four year college or university is, quite simply, not for everybody. This does not mean I am not an advocate for higher education; to the contrary, I think it is important for everyone, no matter their age, to have affordable, easy access to continuing education.
However, for many students, this might mean attending two years of community college to get an Associate’s Degree – and then, depending on their course of study, perhaps transferring to a four year college or university. For others, It might mean attending a vocational school to get specific skills that would improve their chances at gainful employment and/or career advancement.
More importantly, I believe we need to fully fund those community colleges and vocational schools so that every student has the opportunity to further their education at an easily affordable rate. This would make many grants almost unnecessary and require students not eligible for grants to take out student loans for a lesser amount that would not take a decade to repay.
This would also make it easier for people who might only realize later in life that a higher education is something they want and need. Sometimes we need real world experience before we realize the value of continuing education in achieving our goals.
By offering affordable higher education to everyone, we are giving people the chance to keep their jobs and provide for their families, but still have the opportunity to make a positive change in their lives.
So, to be specific:
Keep Pell grants and ensure they are going to worthy students who have proven skills to succeed in an educational environment. Also, make student loans interest free for the first five years after graduation, so that it is possible to quickly get out of debt and be able to start families, start businesses, buy homes and perhaps even go on for an advanced degree.
Fund community colleges and vocational schools, allowing people of all ages to be able to afford to continue their education and develop the skills they need to get a better job or career advancement. Creating a more educated and professionally trained workforce will be beneficial in many ways, short term and long term, economically and socially, and is the best investment we can make in our future…
And lastly, of all the budgetary cuts, in all of the sectors of US society, education should be the last on the list to cut or underfund.
There is no price too steep for an educated society.
Oh snap–I’ve got another question to answer.
Will do it tonight.
Tripler
Still runnin’ for President.
Soo…
I get the impression the candidates are running out of steam, here.
Is it time for the “boxers or briefs” question?
Nope. . . just real-world events and exercises getting in the way. It’s not every day Barack calls up and says, “Hey man, wanna go with me to Kabul?” 
Tripler
I will neither confirm nor deny the truth to that statement.
Thanks Twickster. You can expect my administration to provide substantial research grants to advance our illudium Q-36 explosive space technology 
My higher education plan begins with favorable tax treatment for college tuition. While I think we need to get rid of income tax and I’m sure we’ll be discussing tax policy soon, for as long as we have the current federal income tax system I would make it as favorable to higher education as possible. I would make all tuition for a first bachelor’s degree fully tax deductible for whoever pays it: students, parents, or importantly, employers. Any employer providing a tuition reimbursement program would have any such expenditures fully deductible from their business profits and/or business income taxes.
As for federal funding of education, I’m for us a a nation helping citizens with tuition as much as we possibly can while protecting the interests of taxpayers. While I’m on record that the government ought be out of the financial business, I think the DOE should be able to borrow money on publicly available bonds. These funds would them be made available for student loans at an interest rate higher than that paid on the bonds to cover the costs of administration. Such loans should involve an small automatic garnishment so that repayment is automatic and is based on a percentage of earned income for the life of the loan. I’d like to keep need-based Pell grants but would insist they be paid directly to the institution of higher learning for tuition only. For both grants and loans, I’d limit federal tuition assistance to tuition only; going to college far from home, incurring room and board costs, is a choice, not a necessity and ought not be borne by the government and its people. I would make provisions for applicants whose parents were unwilling to help fund their education so long as the applicant was willing to earn a portion of their own tuition. To be eligible for either means of tuition support, I would require applicants to have a realistic financial plan for earning a bachelor’s degree. My intent here is to weed out applicants who would complete one or two semesters on their Pell grant funds and then have no means of completing their education. I would make these loans and grants available up to the mean tuition in the region; anyone who would like to attend an expensive school may make up the difference themselves. It should go without saying that I will support funding of the GI Bill education benefit, ROTC scholarships and paying off all tuition debt of qualified officer candidates who earned a bachelor’s degree outside of ROTC. I would also incentivize retired enlisted military who use their GI Bill benefits to obtain a bachelor’s degree to return as officer candidates.
I believe in the free market and feel strongly that private colleges should be able to charge whatever they like. I think the federal government can best control the cost of higher education by making sure that state and community colleges continue to offer a high quality, low cost and well respected competitive alternative. States have a responsibility here, too. As I’ve stated before I intend for states to fund and control state obligations (such as university systems) without federal funds. I think state and community colleges ought to be just that: colleges. Many expensive schools pride themselves on being “institutions” with a heavy focus on research and academia. While these universities serve an important purpose, I think states schools should be more narrowly focused on teaching and producing bachelor’s degreed graduates well qualified for well-paying careers in their field. To this end, I think professors in all publicly funded colleges should be teaching an average of at least 30 hours out of 40 per week. My philosophy is that states have free choice here, but states would be wise to realize that an affordable accredited state and community college system is critical to a strong economy. I would pressure states, and indeed all institutions of higher learning to keep tuitions low by using the enormous scale of the buying power of the federal government’s student loans and grants to negotiate better tuition rates with low-to-mid priced private, state and community colleges. Students would, of course, always have free choice of which school to attend with their federal education benefits. By doing this I think we’d see the cost of even higher priced colleges come back into line with what the average middle class family can afford and keep tuition costs roughly pegged with inflation.
Moving right along and the others will have to play catch up ball…
Our next question comes from, believe it or not, DrumBum…
I apologize for the delay. We’ve had real-world things going on here and in Florida that have monopolized my time and attention. F-16 crash yesterday here, and a troop got put in the hospital in FL . . . all in the same day.
Good question, and I think it’s pretty pertinent, especially in today’s workforce where I have noticed a particular ‘brain drain’ of scientific and engineering specialists to overseas. I am behind in my questions, so I’ll keep this one unusually short.
I support continued funding for the Pell Grant, and other federal programs that enable students to borrow low-cost money to attend college.
I have graduated from a school with a BS degree under with assistance from US Dept of Education loans, and a variety of part time (and summer full-time) jobs that kept me in the black. Wasn’t easy, but it worked. I know that experience made me really enjoy the town I went to school at, and kept me from being *too* distracted from my studies. But the Pell Grant was a cornerstone of the funding, and while not a traditional loan, the grant helped me get my foot into the door. I know of a lot of similar individuals that went through the same process, and did well for themselves, families, and economy.
We have a lot of talent in the United States, and some of it can be stellar if educated well and given the tools to succeed. I mentioned the ‘brain drain’ earlier; well, that goes hand-in-hand with a lot of the manufacturing and electronics-industry jobs that have gone overseas due to cheap labor. With those jobs has gone engineering and management oversight to those foreign countries, and that puts the United States at a strategic disadvantage: we’re dependent on foreign manufacturing and know-how for the production of our economy’s goods and services. That’s no less dangerous than our dependence on foreign sources of energy. By building and training a domestic, established workforce, we can start to break the dependencies, and more export the technology and goods, bringing more economic prosperity to the domestic economy and into the middle-class’ pockets (which will have to be managed to prevent corporations from another end-run at keeping all the money for themselves—but that’s another policy).
So, I do see the growth of an educated, intelligent, articulate workforce as a strategic security concern, and the federal Pell Grant, Perkins Loans, and other state and local based financing. School *should* be a challenge, but not too difficult on the financing side.
Tripler
Sorry I’m late. . .
My question for the candidates concerns energy policy in the US. I work in the Oil & Gas industry, I am frequently annoyed at overly broad generalizations that are made by candidates and other political commentators. So my question is what should be the main components of a sensible and equitable US energy policy ?
Thank you for this question!
One of the first things I would do would be to make it illegal for Wall Street to speculate on oil prices. This has made the price of oil/gas go up dramatically, not because of supply and demand, but because of pure speculation and greed.
That said, once prices stabilized at a far lower rate, I would turn right around and raise the tax on oil/gas – still making it cheaper than it is now, but allowing for a huge financial profit for the federal government. This profit would be used solely for investment in alternative sources of energy, and also provide financial benefits and tax incentives to people who start using these alternative sources of energy. Those who use and waste the most fossil fuels and energy should be taxed more to subsidize those who use and waste the least.
People buying smaller cars, and/or cars using electrical power/alternative energy sources would be given generous tax incentives; not only offering large deductions on the cost of the car on their federal taxes, but removing sales taxes on the purchase of those vehicles. Larger gas guzzlers would see an increase in taxes. Once again, as more and more people buy energy efficient transportation, prices would decrease and hopefully technology would continue to improve, making these modes of transportation even more cost effective and efficient.
Invest in public transportation at the same rate and level as highway construction. At the same time, lower the cost of taking buses, subways and trains to an absolute minimum, so more people would take advantage of these modes of transportation. Wherever feasible, take major city centers and create pedestrian zones and bike paths.
Current versions of solar panels are not perfect – they are costly and do have a limited shelf life. However, by using the same formula of giving tax breaks to defray costs, more businesses and private individuals would be able to install them and become one less customer for power consumption – plus, many even become sources of power. More widespread use of this form of energy would also lower the cost of production and installation, and hopefully increase quality and performance – to the point where more and more homes and businesses could become mostly self-sufficient in terms of electrical energy usage.
Yes, the short term costs would be substantial – but the long term benefits would be priceless. By turning our nation into a self- supplier of energy, we will remove many threats to our nation’s security and no longer be reliant on the whims and political climate of oil producing nations.
More importantly, we will be cleaning up our environment and hopefully lead the world in alternative energy usage and technology.
So, knowing you don’t want to hear broad generalizations:
- Stop Wall Street speculation on oil/gas.
- Once prices stabilize, increase taxes on oil/gas.
- Take that financial windfall and re-invest every penny into alternative energy technology, as well as offer increased tax incentives for the public to begin buying smaller, environmentally sound products (vehicles, household appliances and solar panels).
- Maintain existing, and build new, public transportation systems, lowering the cost to those who use them to the bare minimum.
- Achieve the goal of becoming a nation that does not rely on any imports of any form of energy.
There is no downside to curbing our wasteful energy habits. We just need the courage to start and the backbone to stick with the plan.
The question smacks of annoyance at the stereotypes from pundits, and I have to say, I can’t blame either side. The “corporate masters” of the petroleum companies have done their fair share of contributing to the negativity by lack of oversight on major incidents (most often with negative press reaction), and with paltry “smoke and mirror” damage control that barely shades pursuits of profit and greed. On the other hand, the pundits have had low-hanging fruit, and it’s an easy bandwagon to jump on.
So I’ll take a different approach: the American public. The American citizenry *loves* its cars, *loves* its mobility, and frankly, has its head in the sand about so many issues around the world. . . up until the TV stops working and the lights go out. Honestly, the masses can be transfixed by “Housewives of Orange County” and the “Kardashians”, but can’t be troubled to take a bicycle to the supermarket a mile away? Priorities need to change, and perceptions must start that process.
I fully understand that at the individual level, we’re a petroleum-dependent nation. We love our cars and to a lesser extent, our trains. I am one of those folks that bought a gas-guzzling pickup truck, which was based on the fact that I tow a lot and haul things across the country every few years—I drive my work vehicle. However, I do take my wife’s car when practical (especially on long trips) and plan on biking to work as the weather warms up. It’s not *that friggin’ hard* to walk to the supermarket, a half mile away. These facts I think are in dire need of being raised to the American public—the “alternate methods” of transportation aren’t so ‘alternate’. They ought to be more ‘primary’. Yeah, riding a bike to work will take you an extra half hour, but you’re getting in your personal exercise (health benefit) and actually slowing down to see the community you’re going through (physical networking). And it’s cheaper (financial gains). Even taking the train when you can saves your pocketbook.
On the other side of the question, most of American society and industry runs on what comes across the end of a pair of black & white wires: electricity. Whether its 120/208V, or 600V-wye wound, electricity is the industrial lifeblood of this country*. There’s no limit to the ability of *how* we generate that electricity, only the limit on current generative capacity. To me, it’s a strategic concern that we’ve limited methods of generation—I support broadening our methods, to include more hydroelectric plants (where environmentally feasible and safe), more solar and wind driven plants, developing catalytic fuel cells, tidal-driven generators and geothermal plants. I even support the investment into research of fusion technology for power.
The technologies exist, and I realize it will take time, money, and even real estate to make all of these happen to begin to chip away at petroleum’s influence on our energy streams. But I think it’s worth it—it’s reliable, relatively free (notwithstanding initial investments), environmentally safe and clean, and pretty much failsafe; the sun will rise, the wind will blow. Once we get to the point we can dump “cleaner” power onto the national electric grid, we can shift focus to cleaner employment of that power.
To fund most of this, I would propose that the House draft up a feasible tax plan to help; one that does draw the necessary funds for these projects, but not so much that it cripples, say, transportation companies dependent on petroleum to move goods. The cost of goods (most of which imported) will rise, which in turn will generate a slightly higher sales-tax rate which could be reinvested at the state and local levels to contribute to, or match, federal investments into the plan.
It’s going to take a culture change, and most people are resistant to it. But to continue down this path will only dig a deeper hole for the United States, and leave us in a precarious situation, dependent on others for our survival. We need to limit petroleum’s “corporate masters” both by management, reducing the demand on its services, and changing the mindset of the American public that around the rest of the world, things aren’t so easy as hopping into your Escalade with one baby, and driving a block to go buy Haagen-Dazs and Twinkies. You need to work for some things, and reducing petroleum’s impact and influence on our lives is one of them.
Tripler
Dear America: “Embrace the Suck. You caused it.”
Do we have another question lined up?
Tripler
Ready to go. . . again.
I was sort of hoping for the others to pop up. But if you and DMark are content to go forward I’m ready to go.
I’m ready for the next question(s).
I can wait for our other hopefuls to chime in, but to be honest, with the exception of me and DMark, I don’t know who’s in the race anymore. I know DMark is in a double-digit trail to me, according the latest Giddy-up polls. 
Tripler
Really, I’m only ahead by a nose.
Perhaps the other candidates are busy contacting wealthy donors to provide hush money for those rumored indelicate dalliances?
But I digress.
I look forward to the next questions and will be happy to help Tripler with any big words he might not fully understand.
DMark
Occording to my own Occupy Wall Street Journal polls, I lead Tripler in every state that doesn’t ban evolution from science textbooks.
All right then. Next question:
From me:
Do you, as candidates, support the concept of the President as a ‘Unitary Executive’? What limitations, not enforced currently, would you accept upon your own power as President?
Do you, as candidates, support the concept of the President as a ‘Unitary Executive’? What limitations, not enforced currently, would you accept upon your own power as President?
It was Harry Truman who popularized the phrase, “The Buck Stops Here”.
I think the American public still expects that buck to stop at the desk of any President. They know that like any good CEO, their President has to make hard decisions every day, and unlike many bad CEO’s of late, the President has to take full responsibility for those decisions. The American public also wants to know that, whatever happens, their President has made an educated, informed choice that is the best for this country.
Far more importantly, in times of an urgent national crisis, the nation needs a President who will not sit back and wait for the House and Senate to reach an agreement before taking action.
The President of the United States needs to be able to make executive decisions, quickly.
Can and could this power be abused?
Certainly.
Perhaps a President could start a war without consulting anyone. Perhaps a President could re-define what torture is or isn’t. Perhaps a President could place woefully unqualified cronies in powerful positions that could cause irreparable damage during times of natural disaster. These are worst-case scenarios that have scared the American public and given pause to the idea that a President has so much power.
But the alternative of running a government solely by committee consensus is not in our nation’s best interest. In a perfect world, the House and Senate would work in harmony to ensure things run smoothly, quickly and with great efficiency. How has that worked out for us of late?
Thus I think it is necessary to allow the President to have strong, executive powers that allow him or her to lead our nation and speak for the nation as a whole.
I would, however, agree that there has to be some control.
As President, I will make certain that any action I undertake in terms national security will also be presented as a seperate, emergency bill to the House and Congress, who will then have 30 days to ratify those actions by a majority vote, or come up with a suitable comprise that is agreed upon by a three quarters majority. This would allow for a quick response from the White House, but also demand accountability and solid support for the President’s actions to remain in effect.
Thank you for this question Mr Chance. Of all of them, if there’s one in particular, I hope this is the one that defines my platform, and one that I hope I can adequately explain in a scant 750 words.
I do support the concept of a unitary executive, as framed by the writers of the Constitution, however, I feel that the office of the President has become a little too powerful, and is a critical point of failure—one center of gravity for lobbyists and special interest groups, and the power of the office needs to be wielded very carefully.
If elected, I would accept a stricter interpretation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The American Executive has an important mantle as Commander-in-Chief (Art II, Sec 2, Constitution), however, the Congress retains the power to raise, support, and authorize the use of the Armed Forces of the United States (Art 1, Sec 8). The Resolution requires the President in every possible instance to consult the Congress before wielding the Armed Forces as a means to an end. In some self-evident cases, time is of the essence: 9/11 style terrorist attacks, nuclear engagement of the United States, immediate WMD employment, etc. However, the majority of military deployments have been thoughtfully planned out ahead of time, with careful study of political, diplomatic, economic, military, and social ends to the enemy. Rarely has it been studied of the effect on the American constituency, which makes up the Armed Forces, and supports it. The House Armed Services Committee exists, and should be consulted—I would even support the inclusion of ranking members to sit on the National Security Advisory board to the President to ensure Congressional inclusion on non-imminent matters. The Congress supplies & maintains the forces, and in deliberate deployments, should be consulted (albeit the President retains final decisions on the ways and means of employment, and the ramifications thereof). The Congress has not gnashed its teeth at the President in years over this topic, and I believe it needs to rein in this very important power.
Another limitation I support, is the limitation of the President to enter into mutual “executive agreements” with other nations. There are several levels of arrangements that are peculiar to United States law: full-blown treaties (requiring Congressional approval), Congressional-agreements, and executive agreements. The “agreements” are not always privy to the public scrutiny that full treaties are, and may lead to interwoven, competing goals—including within domestic industries and production. At a minimum, I would accept limitations set by Congress on the matters of executive agreement without Congressional approval, and the requirement that all executive agreements be published, as treaties are in the State Dept’s “Treaties in Force 2011”. I believe this limitation would help force the President to employ the State Department more as a diplomatic tool, and reduce his/her visibility (and culpability) as a “negotiator.”
A third limitation I would support, if elected, would be limitations on political appointed positions to several levels of Cabinet-level agencies and Ambassadorships. For reasons of continuity and accountability, I would accept a Congressionally-driven requirement that once appointed (based on their effective date of appointment), a senior agency member would hold tenure in the office for a period of four years. This would ensure a continuity of agency directives, policies, and frankly, good corporate knowledge. It would also ensure that programs enacted by a previous White House administration were either boldly carried over, or efficiently ramped off. I would support this fully, knowing it would come with term limits as well–I understand there are major political ramifications in allowing a previous administration’s appointee to work for a new President, however, I think the example of SECDEF Robert Gates is a stellar one. A government must not go through a mechanical stop every election simply based on the whims of a new Executive. It would focus the President on performing the most necessary appointments as they came due instead of an entire clearing-of-the-house which has a tendency to stagnate the Congress in many approval processes.
Simply put, the President has over time, centralized too much power, which should be returned to the Congress or put under more scrutiny. The President, as the Unitary Executive, should be working alongside the Congress, instead of pursuing his own particular agenda as a ‘free actor.’
Tripler
Totally about the term limits.
::tap tap:: Is this thing on?
So, uh. . . got another question?
Tripler
I’ll win this race by default, I swear.