Mueller Lake Park Outdoor Amphitheater
Budget Cutting Was Fiscally Foolish
RECEIVED Tue., Aug. 9, 2011
Dear Editor,
Last week, a recalcitrant Congress finally raised the federal debt ceiling, but not before slashing several social welfare programs. Some conservative lawmakers announced a victory for fiscal responsibility. Now that the dust has settled, we can see just what their "fiscal responsibility" entails.
My perspective is focused by my position as a graduate student at UT-Austin, but the effect of the bill on grad students is instructive. One immediate impact is that the federal government will no longer subsidize education loans for grad students. This means that graduates who require loans to cover some or all of their expenses will now have to make immediate payments against all interest accrued while still enrolled as students. Yet full-time graduate students have very limited earning power. In best-case scenarios, we are employed as teaching assistants and earn barely enough – sometimes not enough – to cover our costs. Many take low-paying service jobs to make ends meet. Graduate students are not averse to working hard – that is why we undertake seven-plus years of rigorous education at minimal/nonexistent pay, buoyed by the hopes that we will make a decent, but hardly extravagant, living as educators for the next generation.
It may seem unfair for taxpayers to help shoulder graduate debt, but these cuts come when college expenses are already skyrocketing. Many enter graduate school with significant debt, even from paying in-state rates at public universities. As tuition climbs higher, all but the wealthiest students have to finance at least some of their education. However, after incurring substantial undergraduate debt, we discover these degrees are increasingly worthless. To wit, a recent New York Times article billed the "Master's as the New Bachelor's," citing how little employment advancement was gained from earning a bachelor's degree in most fields. After selling us expensive educations that give little edge in competitive job markets, it appears we are expected to return to those same universities on our own dime for the dwindling privilege of decent employment.
Although the federal government expects to save $21 billion over the next 11 years from these cuts, only $4 billion will go toward paying down the deficit. Limiting access to education can only harm the economy in the long-term. So the next time a lawmaker declares a victory for fiscal responsibility, understand the hidden costs: cuts to programs that benefit hardworking Americans while failing to address the truly unsustainable revenue shortfalls driving the deficit.
Last week, a recalcitrant Congress finally raised the federal debt ceiling, but not before slashing several social welfare programs. Some conservative lawmakers announced a victory for fiscal responsibility. Now that the dust has settled, we can see just what their "fiscal responsibility" entails.
My perspective is focused by my position as a graduate student at UT-Austin, but the effect of the bill on grad students is instructive. One immediate impact is that the federal government will no longer subsidize education loans for grad students. This means that graduates who require loans to cover some or all of their expenses will now have to make immediate payments against all interest accrued while still enrolled as students. Yet full-time graduate students have very limited earning power. In best-case scenarios, we are employed as teaching assistants and earn barely enough – sometimes not enough – to cover our costs. Many take low-paying service jobs to make ends meet. Graduate students are not averse to working hard – that is why we undertake seven-plus years of rigorous education at minimal/nonexistent pay, buoyed by the hopes that we will make a decent, but hardly extravagant, living as educators for the next generation.
It may seem unfair for taxpayers to help shoulder graduate debt, but these cuts come when college expenses are already skyrocketing. Many enter graduate school with significant debt, even from paying in-state rates at public universities. As tuition climbs higher, all but the wealthiest students have to finance at least some of their education. However, after incurring substantial undergraduate debt, we discover these degrees are increasingly worthless. To wit, a recent New York Times article billed the "Master's as the New Bachelor's," citing how little employment advancement was gained from earning a bachelor's degree in most fields. After selling us expensive educations that give little edge in competitive job markets, it appears we are expected to return to those same universities on our own dime for the dwindling privilege of decent employment.
Although the federal government expects to save $21 billion over the next 11 years from these cuts, only $4 billion will go toward paying down the deficit. Limiting access to education can only harm the economy in the long-term. So the next time a lawmaker declares a victory for fiscal responsibility, understand the hidden costs: cuts to programs that benefit hardworking Americans while failing to address the truly unsustainable revenue shortfalls driving the deficit.
Andrew Gansky
