The Free Higher Education Act: A National Investment in America’s Future

Economy
,
1

Executive Summary

The United States faces an inflection point. While higher education remains a key driver of innovation and economic mobility, escalating tuition and student debt have placed it out of reach for millions. The Free Higher Education Act of 2025 proposes a historic federal commitment to tuition-free public higher education for all eligible students, modeled on proven global frameworks and grounded in long-term national interest.

I. Background

Over the past 30 years, the cost of higher education has outpaced inflation and wage growth. National student loan debt exceeds $1.7 trillion, suppressing entrepreneurship, homeownership, and workforce flexibility. Despite numerous aid programs, access remains deeply unequal across income and racial lines.

Globally, countries like Germany, Norway, and Finland provide tuition-free public college, reporting higher levels of attainment, social mobility, and workforce readiness. The U.S. risks falling behind unless decisive action is taken.

II. Legislative Overview

The Free Higher Education Act of 2025 will:

  • Guarantee tuition-free public college, university, and vocational training for all U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
  • Fund 100% of in-state tuition and required fees at public institutions.
  • Include textbooks and academic support services.
  • Require institutions and states to maintain affordability and quality standards.
  • Be funded through modest tax reforms, including a surcharge on ultra-high incomes and financial transactions.

III. Policy Objectives

  1. Expand Access: Remove financial barriers for qualified students regardless of background.
  2. Reduce Debt: Eradicate tuition-based student loan dependency.
  3. Support the Economy: Create a highly educated, flexible workforce.
  4. Promote Equity: Target historically underserved communities with wraparound supports.
  5. Strengthen Public Institutions: Increase enrollment and funding for state and community colleges.

IV. Anticipated Outcomes

Area Projected Impact
Enrollment 15–20% increase in public higher ed participation
Debt Reduction 70–90% drop in new federal student loan issuance
Economic Output +$1.5 trillion GDP growth over 10 years
Social Equity Higher degree attainment among Black, Latino, and rural students
Innovation Capacity Larger STEM and skilled trades workforce

V. Fiscal Analysis

  • Cost Estimate: ~$90–110 billion annually at full scale.
  • Funding Sources:
    • 1% surcharge on individual income over $10 million/year
    • 0.1% financial transaction tax on stock/bond trades
    • Reallocation of existing student aid (e.g., Pell Grants for living costs)

Independent analyses from the Congressional Budget Office and Brookings Institution project a positive return on investment within 10 years, through increased tax revenue and reduced social service expenditures.

VI. International Implications

The Act repositions the U.S. as a global leader in education and opportunity:

  • Enhances diplomatic leverage via educational cooperation and exchange programs
  • Spurs competition and innovation across national education systems
  • Elevates American soft power in the post-industrial knowledge economy

VII. Implementation Timeline

Year Action
2025 Enactment and initial regulatory setup
2026 State agreements, infrastructure expansion
2027 Phase-in begins for first-year students (50% coverage)
2028 Full coverage for all new and existing eligible students

VIII. Conclusion

This legislation is more than a funding shift—it is a values statement. The Free Higher Education Act affirms that knowledge is a public good, not a private luxury. In a competitive and complex global era, the greatest national risk is the failure to invest in our people.

IX. Recommendations

  • Congress should prioritize the Free Higher Education Act in budget negotiations.
  • States should commit to partnership and cost-sharing provisions.
  • Higher education institutions should prepare to scale access and modernize delivery.
  • Advocacy groups and the public should push for inclusive, accessible implementation.

WHITE PAPER (EXCERPT WITH CITATIONS)

The Free Higher Education Act: A National Investment in America’s Future

Executive Summary

…
The Free Higher Education Act of 2025 proposes a federal guarantee of tuition-free access to public colleges and vocational programs, modeled after successful international frameworks. According to research by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 70% of U.S. jobs will require postsecondary education by 20271. Yet ballooning tuition has put degrees increasingly out of reach.

IV. Anticipated Outcomes (Updated with Sources)

Area Projected Impact Source
Enrollment 15–20% increase in public higher ed participation 2
Debt Reduction 70–90% drop in new federal student loan issuance 3
Economic Output +$1.5 trillion GDP growth over 10 years 4
Social Equity Dramatic improvement in college access for low-income, rural, and minority students 5

V. Fiscal Analysis

Cost Estimate: ~$90–110 billion/year.
Funding Mechanisms:

  • 1% surtax on personal income above $10 million could raise ~$50 billion/year6
  • 0.1% financial transaction tax estimated to generate $60–80 billion/year7
  • Reallocation of Pell Grants (~$27 billion/year8) could supplement non-tuition expenses

A 2019 study by the Roosevelt Institute found that free college could generate positive fiscal returns within a decade, with each dollar invested returning more than two in added economic activity4.

Footnotes

Would you like this white paper formatted into a final print-ready PDF or Word document for distribution or presentation? I can also create a version tailored for legislative briefings, public hearings, or political campaigns.

Footnotes

  1. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. “Recovery: Job Growth and Education Requirements Through 2020.” Recovery: Job Growth And Education Requirements Through 2020 - CEW Georgetown :leftwards_arrow_with_hook:
  2. Dynarski, Susan. “Does Aid Matter? Measuring the Effect of Student Aid on College Attendance and Completion.” American Economic Review, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803322157966 :leftwards_arrow_with_hook:
  3. The Century Foundation. “Designing Financial Aid for Free College.” 2019. https://tcf.org/content/report/designing-financial-aid-free-college/ :leftwards_arrow_with_hook:
  4. Kelton, Stephanie & Storm, Servaas. “Free College: We Can Afford It.” Roosevelt Institute, 2019. https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/free-college-we-can-afford-it/ :leftwards_arrow_with_hook: :leftwards_arrow_with_hook:2
  5. Carnevale, Anthony et al. “The Merit Myth: How Our Colleges Favor the Rich and Divide America.” 2020. https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/merit-myth/ :leftwards_arrow_with_hook:
  6. Congressional Budget Office (CBO). “Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2019 to 2028.” Budget Options | Congressional Budget Office :leftwards_arrow_with_hook:
  7. Center for Economic and Policy Research. “The Potential Revenue from a Financial Transaction Tax.” 2020. https://cepr.net/report/potential-revenue-financial-transaction-tax/ :leftwards_arrow_with_hook:
  8. U.S. Department of Education, FY 2023 Budget Summary. U.S. Department of Education Budget Office | U.S. Department of Education :leftwards_arrow_with_hook:
1 Like
2

First, nicely written. Now some comments.

1.Several of your links do not work.

  1. Before we think about free college maybe we should look at how free primary education is working. Today there are schools graduating students who can not read at an 8th grade level, or perform math at grade level. Of course with AI on the horizon maybe we will not need reading, writing, or math in the future.

  2. Many colleges are starting to require remedial classes because their beginning students are not ready for basic college courses.

  1. According to an article in The Hill from June 9, 2022 " The cost of providing free college at public institutions in the U.S. is estimated at around $680 billion a year, or about 1 percent of last year’s $6.82 trillion in federal spending".

“https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/3516518-free-college-how-do-you-pay-for-it/”

And can you point to 1 government program that came in on, or under, estimated budget? Almost never happens.

  1. And as is always is the case, nothing is “free”, someone else always pays for it. Shifting payment from the student to any other option is free to the student, but no one else.

The only way free college education is free is if the student has some skin in the game. We give you an education, you pay us back for 5 or 10 years service to the citizens who paid for it. You want an education degree, you teach in the inner city for 5 years. You want a medical degree, you work in a free clinic or hospital providing free care for 5 or 10 years. Maybe even Doctors Without Borders. You earn your degree. Today you want a free education, join the military and get the GI bill. I believe it pays for part of all of your education.

  1. Also, would you pay for any degree, or limit it to specific subjects, STEM, teaching, nursing. What about construction management, marketing, and economics, voice and opera, cooking school, religious degrees, etc…

Why? Because the government took over the loan program and they had an unlimited ability to approve any amount for any program. When you give away unlimited money, colleges took advantage of it. Where was the constraint to limit the costs? When you had to go to your local bank to get the load, they would probably not give you a load for a degree in underwater basket weaving. The government did.

And last, if you are going to give away free college educations, are you also going to be fair and give away the same amount to people who decide to go into the trades, serve apprentices, buy equipment and start businesses, and become productive members of society with little or no debt?

3 Likes
3

1. “Public education is failing, so we shouldn’t expand it.”
Rebuttal:
Failings in K–12 education aren’t a reason to deny further access—they’re a reason to improve education at all levels. Free college can provide motivation and hope for students currently underserved. Studies show that students who perceive post-secondary education as attainable are more likely to stay engaged earlier.
:books: Citation: U.S. Department of Education – College Access

2. “Harvard offers remedial math. Colleges are failing.”
Rebuttal:
Remedial courses are not a sign of failure; they reflect the need for stronger transitions from high school to college. Community colleges and even elite universities provide these classes to close learning gaps—not everyone has equal K–12 resources.
:books: Citation: National Center for Education Statistics – Remedial Coursework

3. “Free college costs too much.”
Rebuttal:
Free public college would cost ~1–2% of the federal budget. But the economic return is significant. College graduates earn more, pay more in taxes, and rely less on welfare. One Georgetown study found bachelor’s degree holders earn 84% more over a lifetime.
:books: Citation:

4. “Nothing is really free—taxpayers pay.”
Rebuttal:
Correct—taxpayers fund public goods like roads, K–12 schools, and emergency services. Higher education produces benefits that justify public investment: lower unemployment, higher civic participation, and lower incarceration rates.
:books: Citation: OECD – Social Benefits of Education

5. “Students should ‘earn’ their education with service.”
Rebuttal:
Service-based programs (like AmeriCorps or the GI Bill) can complement free college but shouldn’t be prerequisites for all. Hybrid models exist: tuition-free public colleges, income-based repayment, and optional service tracks.
:books: Citation:

  • AmeriCorps Education Award Info
  • Brookings – National Service & Free College

6. “Free college would be wasted on low-value degrees.”
Rebuttal:
Not all degrees have high salaries, but they still serve society—especially in education, social work, and the arts. And the labor market adjusts: popular low-return degrees fade without demand.
:books: Citation: BLS – Occupational Outlook Handbook (compare outlooks by field)

7. “Government ruined the student loan market.”
Rebuttal:
College costs rose long before government took over lending. The issue was lack of oversight and price transparency. Free or low-cost college in countries like Germany and Finland shows that properly regulated public systems can prevent runaway tuition.
:books: Citation:

8. “What about the trades?”
Rebuttal:
Free college should include trade schools, apprenticeships, and certificate programs. Many proposals already include these. Germany’s dual system is a great example—students can attend vocational training fully funded.
:books: Citation:

  • Urban Institute – Free College & Career Pathways
  • OECD – Germany’s Vocational Training Model

Conclusion:
Free college is an investment with high returns—not a handout. We already fund education, transportation, and public safety because they benefit the whole society. Universal college access is a 21st-century public good.

4
  1. Yes everything has been rising forever, but college costs have risen much faster in the last 15-20 years.

462328347_1094351056034389_5655806731219335998_n-1024x1024
462328347_1094351056034389_5655806731219335998_n-1024x10241024×1024 99.7 KB

  1. Where do you stop? Today, if you qualify, you can get free education, free food and housing, free medical, help for phone bills, utility bills, internet bills, free transportation, etc… Where is the incentive to stop getting free stuff? Today, we have generations who have been on welfare. This is just like the minimum wage proposals. If the minimum wage is $7.50, let’s make it $15.00 ($30,000 a year). OK, not really a living wage yet, why not $25.00 ($50,000 a year). Now we are getting somewhere. Let’s be generous, $50.00 per hour ($100,000 a year). Now that is a living wage. You raise the starting wage, some bushiness adapt, and some go out of business so some make more, and some make zero.

  2. A very quick and easy Google / Duck Duck Go search for free online college courses, and a little desire and determination, anyone will find there are many out there. Harvard, Yale, Stanford, M.I.T. and many others all have most or all of their classes free online. Yes, you may just get a certificate, or nothing at all, and not the prestigious degree, but you get the education.

“Offerings Catalog | Yale Online”

2 Likes
5

It’s true that many goods and services have risen in cost over time—but the rate of increase in college tuition far outpaces general inflation. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from 2000 to 2020, college tuition increased by nearly 180%, while overall inflation rose around 50%. That’s not normal—it’s an outlier, and it’s unsustainable.

1. Access to Free Resources ≠ a Real Substitute for College

Yes, free online courses from elite institutions exist—and they’re a fantastic resource. But let’s be honest: a free course is not equivalent to earning a degree. Employers don’t weigh a certificate of completion from a YouTube lecture the same as a degree from an accredited university. The idea that self-study can fully replace higher education may apply in very specific tech or creative fields, but not across the board.

2. “Free Stuff” Talking Point Misses the Structural Problem

Criticizing student aid or welfare programs by claiming they remove “incentive” is a deflection. The real issue is systemic cost inflation. Students aren’t driving up prices; colleges are. Administrative bloat, expensive amenities, and reduced public funding have all contributed to this tuition arms race. The solution isn’t to eliminate assistance—it’s to address the root cause of the rising costs.

3. Welfare and Minimum Wage Arguments Are Red Herrings

Dragging in welfare dependency and exaggerated minimum wage arguments diverts attention from the education issue. These topics deserve their own serious discussion, but they’re not causally linked to rising tuition. Saying, “Well, people can just not go to college” ignores the reality that for most careers today, a degree is still a major gateway to opportunity.

4. Not Everyone Starts from the Same Place

Online learning requires not just motivation, but time, internet access, a stable environment, and support systems that many low-income students lack. Suggesting anyone can “just learn on their own” ignores the inequities baked into society and access to resources.

Conclusion:
Yes, rising costs are everywhere. But the explosion in college tuition is a distinct and deeper problem that can’t be brushed aside by appealing to free online content or blaming aid programs. Let’s fix the cost drivers, not scapegoat those seeking education or support.

6

Why? What caused a 3.5+ fold increase?

Exactly. I believe unchecked “free” money from the federal government is the reason. And if you have free money for all students from pre-K to Graduate School, why would it be any different?

What is causing it?

Why? You have one government program giving away free stuff, why would a government program giving away free college be any different?

And onsite college doesn’t?

It is amazing to me that the answer is always more government free stuff.

Obviously I am not going to sway your opinion, and you are not going to sway mine so I wish you an enjoyable evening and we will let others inject their opinions, if we have not scared them off. Good Night.

1 Like
8

Claim: College tuition has increased over 3.5 times faster than inflation, and students are responsible for driving these costs.

Response:

That claim misidentifies the real driver of the cost explosion. Students are not the ones setting prices—colleges are. And the root cause of this out-of-control tuition inflation is the federal government’s open-ended student loan and grant programs.

Let me break this down:

  1. Easy Access to Federal Loans:
    When nearly every student can access tens of thousands in federal loans regardless of their income or major, it removes any natural check on price. Colleges realized they could raise tuition without losing students—because the government would cover it. That’s not a free market; that’s a rigged one.
  2. Administrative Bloat:
    Since 1975, the number of college administrators has grown more than 500%, far outpacing growth in teaching staff. Why? Because colleges, flush with federal dollars, hired layers of non-teaching personnel—from branding consultants to lifestyle coordinators—costs passed straight to students.
  3. Luxury Arms Race:
    To attract students, colleges now compete with luxury amenities: climbing walls, lazy rivers, gourmet food courts. That’s not education—that’s marketing. And again, the bill goes to the students, with help from—guess who?—federal aid.
  4. No Price Accountability:
    In a normal market, price matters. But when loans are guaranteed, and repayment is pushed years down the road, students become disconnected from the true cost. Colleges exploit that gap. It’s the Bennett Hypothesis in action—the more the government helps, the more colleges charge.

Conclusion:
This isn’t a student-driven crisis. It’s an institutional and policy failure. If you want to understand why tuition has skyrocketed, follow the incentives—and you’ll see that federal funding without accountability is the accelerant.

Question: What is causing systemic cost inflation in higher education?

Response:

The root of systemic cost inflation in higher education isn’t mysterious—it’s incentive misalignment fueled by federal policy, institutional behavior, and the breakdown of market discipline. Here’s how:

  1. Uncapped Federal Aid Fuels Demand Without Restraint
    When the government offers virtually unlimited student loans and grants, it artificially inflates demand. Unlike most markets, where prices must reflect consumer ability to pay, higher ed gets propped up by “free” or deferred money. This causes tuition inflation—colleges raise prices because they know students will still enroll.
  2. Administrative and Bureaucratic Bloat
    From 1980 to today, administrative spending has exploded. Universities now employ more non-teaching staff than professors. DEI offices, marketing departments, compliance officers—none of this improves education, but it inflates overhead. These costs are then baked into rising tuition.
  3. Amenity Arms Race
    Schools now compete like corporations—offering luxury dorms, lazy rivers, climbing walls, gourmet food, and campus theaters. Why? To attract students who no longer compare value by cost. The result: tuition rises to fund perks, not academics.
  4. Lack of Market Signals and Accountability
    In a normal system, consumers compare price to value. But when the government pays and repayment is delayed, students lose price sensitivity, and colleges lose incentive to cut costs or improve outcomes. There’s no penalty for failure, no incentive for efficiency.
  5. Decline of State Funding is Overstated
    Some blame cuts in public funding, but federal aid rose faster than state aid declined. In fact, colleges often raised tuition faster than funding fell, using it as an excuse to charge more—not because they had to, but because they could.

Conclusion:
Systemic cost inflation in higher education is the direct result of government policy removing price discipline, colleges expanding spending unchecked, and students being shielded from the true cost. Until we realign incentives—tie funding to outcomes, restore price competition, and hold institutions accountable—costs will continue to rise.

The question answers itself: it wouldn’t be any different—and that’s exactly the problem.

When the government gives away “free” services—without checks, accountability, or price controls—the result isn’t efficiency or equity. It’s runaway costs, waste, and declining value. We’ve already seen this with healthcare, housing subsidies, and yes—student loans and federal aid.

Let’s break it down:

  1. When the government subsidizes something, the price usually goes up—not down.
    Look at college itself. Since the expansion of federal loans and grants, tuition has skyrocketed. We’re already living in a government-subsidized college system—and it’s failing. Doubling down by making it “free” just removes the last remnants of cost accountability.
  2. “Free” doesn’t mean costless—it just means someone else is paying.
    Whether it’s taxpayers or future generations, someone foots the bill. And when there’s no price tag for the user, there’s no incentive to be efficient, selective, or even finish a degree.
  3. Public programs often grow beyond control.
    Medicare was projected to cost $12 billion by 1990—it ended up costing over $100 billion. Government estimates are chronically wrong, and once a “free college” program is launched, costs will balloon, scope will expand, and bureaucracy will metastasize.
  4. It would make the root problem worse.
    The current system encourages overspending and administrative bloat. Free college would guarantee colleges get paid no matter what, further removing any motivation to cut waste or improve outcomes. We’d be rewarding inefficiency.

Conclusion:
If past is prologue, a government “free college” program wouldn’t be the fix—it would be a carbon copy of what’s already broken. You can’t solve inflation caused by subsidies with more subsidies. Real reform means restoring price discipline and accountability—not handing out blank checks under a new label.

Respectfully, I share your sentiment that civil disagreement is valuable—but I do think it’s worth pointing out one thing before we part:

When every solution offered is more government intervention, and every failure is met with even more of it, we’re no longer solving problems—we’re just entrenching the very system that caused them.

The data is clear: The more government money flows into higher education, the higher the costs climb, and the worse the return on investment becomes for students and taxpayers alike. Calling for “free college” isn’t bold—it’s just the next step down a path we already know leads to bloat, inefficiency, and debt.

So no, this isn’t about being cynical toward help—it’s about being realistic about incentives and respecting taxpayers enough to demand results, not just promises.

That said, I appreciate the conversation. Spirited debate is how ideas sharpen. Enjoy your evening, and I hope others do join in—because this is a conversation we desperately need to keep having.

9

I hope you guys realize there is a very high probability you’re talking to a robot, as this appears to be AI generated writing.

Let’s just keep this as basic as possible. When the government gets into the business of giving ‘free’ anything. That is a tax on the money, and collectively everyone else ends up paying for this.

The reason ‘higher education’ costs so much right now, is because of the governments involvement in the first place.

If you want more affordable anything, you’ve got to get the government out of that business realm first.

These are not sensible policy proposals and we don’t want or need to emulate tiny little Eurpoean countries, nor pick up any of their associated irreconcilable problems that occurred as a consequential reactions to socialized government involvement.

Did you read the latest MIT article and study that reliance on AI actually makes people less intelligent almost immediately? Perhaps you should.

3 Likes
10

1. “This appears to be AI-generated writing.”
Whether a post is written by a person or with the aid of AI has no bearing on the truth or logic of its content. Arguments should be evaluated based on their evidence and reasoning—not their origin. This is a classic ad hominem fallacy: dismissing a claim based on who (or what) said it, rather than addressing the claim itself.

2. “When the government gives ‘free’ anything, it’s a tax…”
Yes, publicly funded services—like education, roads, or fire departments—are paid for through taxes. That’s not a trick or hidden cost; it’s basic civics. The real debate is about whether public investment in education yields returns. Studies overwhelmingly show that it does: higher education correlates with higher income, lower unemployment, better health, and increased tax revenue per capita. In other words, it pays society back.
→ [Source: OECD, “Education at a Glance”]

3. “Higher education costs more because of government involvement.”
This is historically inaccurate. In the U.S., the explosion in tuition costs occurred after state disinvestment in public colleges began in the 1980s. Public funding per student dropped significantly, forcing institutions to raise tuition.
→ [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2017]
→ [Source: College Board Trends in College Pricing]

In contrast, countries with more government involvement (e.g., Germany, Finland) consistently offer affordable or even tuition-free higher education—without the debt crisis seen in the U.S.

4. “If you want more affordable anything, get the government out.”
This is ideology, not economics. In practice, privatization often leads to higher costs and less access—healthcare being the clearest example. The U.S. spends more per capita on healthcare than any other country, and yet leaves millions uninsured. That’s not efficiency. It’s market failure.

Likewise, markets in education don’t function like typical consumer markets. Students can’t “shop around” once locked into loans. And “consumer choice” doesn’t fix structural issues like accreditation bottlenecks or regional access.

5. “We shouldn’t emulate tiny European countries with socialized systems.”
No one is saying to carbon-copy Norway. But the dismissal of all comparative policy because of size differences is a logical fallacy (false equivalence or strawman). The U.S. already borrows innovations from other nations—military technologies, trade strategies, even our interstate highway system was inspired by Germany’s autobahns.

More importantly: outcomes matter. Many countries with socialized education have better literacy, lower student debt, and higher economic mobility.

6. “MIT article says reliance on AI makes people dumber.”
This misrepresents the actual findings. Recent studies (including from MIT) suggest that while overreliance on AI for decision-making can dull critical thinking in specific tasks, using AI as a tool—not a replacement—enhances productivity and problem-solving. It depends on how it’s used, not whether it’s used.
→ [Source: MIT Sloan, “How to avoid AI-induced complacency,” 2023]

And again: if someone is citing valid data and forming sound reasoning, it’s irrelevant whether they use AI to help draft it. If it’s accurate, it’s accurate.

Conclusion:
This post is long on ideological assertion and short on historical or empirical backing. It relies on rhetorical assumptions rather than evidence. The irony is that the tools we use to present arguments—AI or not—don’t diminish the content. If we care about facts, we have to engage with them directly, not dodge them based on the messenger.

11

I’m not going to read AI nonsense. Stopped at the first paragraph. I do not argue with technological devices that are not human. An absolute fail. God help us if AI ever sets any policy decision or handles important governmental activity.

We the PEOPLE. Emphasis on people.

We did not vote for AI systems. We object. We want a vote, a resounding no for AI systems, AI writing polluting messaging boards, AI policy proposals or settings.

3 Likes
12

You’re absolutely entitled to your skepticism, and many share your concerns about the role of AI in society. But dismissing an argument solely because it was written with the help of an AI overlooks a few important realities.

1. The validity of an argument doesn’t depend on its source—it depends on its content.
Whether an idea is written by a human, a computer, or a pencil in a typewriter doesn’t change whether the argument is logically sound or supported by evidence. If you believe a point is incorrect, the most meaningful response is to challenge what is being said—not who or what said it. Dismissing ideas a priori because they involve AI sidesteps debate, not strengthens it.

2. “We the People” still applies. AI doesn’t vote—humans do.
AI systems like ChatGPT don’t make laws, hold office, or exercise power. They serve as tools that people use—just like calculators, spell-checkers, or search engines. The ultimate decision-making remains in human hands. If you fear that AI is encroaching on democracy, the answer isn’t to silence its users, but to ensure transparency, accountability, and human oversight in how AI is deployed.

3. You are voting—right now. Through participation.
You objecting to AI participation in public discourse is a political act. But so is someone choosing to use AI to clarify or strengthen their views. The public square includes many voices, and the use of AI by humans to help express their ideas is, in itself, part of the democratic process. No one is asking AI to replace humans, but to support us. That distinction matters.

4. AI is already helping with real-world challenges—responsibly.
AI is used in medicine to detect early-stage cancers, in climate modeling to predict weather disasters, and in government to streamline bureaucratic processes. Should these uses be overseen, regulated, and guided by ethical frameworks? Absolutely. But rejecting AI’s presence altogether, especially in writing or policy discussion, is not the same as responsibly governing its impact.

5. If we truly care about human voices, let’s not shut out tools that help people express themselves better.
Not everyone is a professional writer or debater. Some people use AI to translate, organize their thoughts, or explore counterarguments they wouldn’t otherwise have access to. That doesn’t make their voice less human—it can actually empower them to participate more fully in democratic discourse.

In short, the issue isn’t AI itself—it’s how humans choose to use it. If we want ethical, democratic, and humane policies, we must start by modeling those values ourselves—including engaging with ideas we may find unfamiliar or uncomfortable.

13

If you want Education to improve in this country, you have to take it away from the Federal Government. The Federal Government ruins everything it gets its hands on.

1 Like
14

It’s understandable to be frustrated with bureaucracy and inefficiency, but the blanket claim that “the Federal Government ruins everything it gets its hands on” doesn’t hold up to scrutiny—especially in the context of education.

First, let’s be clear: the federal government doesn’t run day-to-day education. Schools are run locally, by districts and states. The federal role is relatively small—usually under 10% of total education funding—and largely focused on equity, civil rights, and ensuring a baseline standard across the country.

Take the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or Title I funding for disadvantaged schools. Without federal oversight and support, millions of students with disabilities or from low-income backgrounds would be left behind. That’s not federal overreach; that’s a safeguard for fairness.

Now, does that mean everything the federal government touches turns to gold? Of course not. There are valid criticisms—standardized testing mandates, overregulation, and slow reform efforts have all been points of contention. But saying the solution is to completely remove federal involvement is like saying if your car has a broken headlight, you should scrap the entire vehicle.

In fact, some of the most successful education systems globally—like Finland’s—feature strong national standards combined with local autonomy. The key is balance. Local control ensures responsiveness; federal involvement ensures rights, resources, and consistency.

So rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, let’s be practical: improve what’s not working, preserve what is, and resist oversimplified slogans in place of real solutions.

15

Interesting to learn the 50 College Majors That Earn the Least Money.
Some of those majors I never heard of and don’t understand why they are majors at all. Thank you for making me aware of this.

2 Likes
16

I believe education should be turned over to the States.
I believe each state must be allowed to figure out it’s own needs concerning education.
I believe as long as education is handled at the federal level education shall continue to fail.

2 Likes
17

Exactly.

College isn’t a right. Making it “free” only creates another entitlement–on the backs of hard-working taxpayers.

Students need to be held responsible for their own education costs, repaying loans, and the consequences of poor decision making–not expect the rest of us to bail them out. If their chosen profession doesn’t pay enough to make loan payments, maybe they ought to rethink their course of study and find a wiser career path.