GOP Rep Calls Pell Grants 'Welfare of the 21st Century'

[SgtMeowenstein]

I know that to people other than rabid right-wingers this will come as no surprise, but I thought I'd point it out. Yet another reason not to trust Republicans.

Rep. Denny Rehberg: Pell Grants Are Becoming 'The Welfare Of The 21st Century'

WASHINGTON -- Pell Grants are the nation's largest financial aid program, providing low-income students with grants to help pay for the rising cost of attending college. But the cost of the program is also growing rapidly, set to exceed $40 billion for the 2012 fiscal year.

Some lawmakers have been exploring ways to reducing the costs of the programs by lowering the maximum grant size -- which is currently $5,550 -- or somehow restricting eligibility. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services, Education that deals with the program, has examined whether there are ways to tie the grants to achievement or graduation rates.

In a radio interview on Friday, he compared Pell Grants to "welfare" and decried the fact that students who receive them don't have any sort of graduation requirement and could go straight from the education grant to "food stamps."

"So you can go to college on Pell Grants -- maybe I should not be telling anybody this because it’s turning out to be the welfare of the 21st century," said Rehberg in an interview with Blog Talk Radio. "You can go to school, collect your Pell Grants, get food stamps, low-income energy assistance, section 8 housing, and all of a sudden we find ourselves subsidizing people that don’t have to graduate from college. And there ought to be some kind of commitment and endgame."

Rehberg added under the federal program, a student could "go to school for nine years on Pell Grants and you don’t even have to get a degree."

 

[Vast LWC]

Hey man, I'm on the left side of the fence, but I do in fact agree that there need to be some sort of stipulations on the money we hand out for education.

I have seen way too many people get publicly funded college degrees in fields like "philosophy", and then go on to do nothing with it, because they never should have gotten it in the first place.

What the hell is the point of the public paying for a college degree if the public then sees no benefit from said degree?

 

[Vast LWC]

Calling Pell Grants "Welfare" is going a bit too far, of course, but the man does have a point.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Are there any requirements connected with these Pell Grants? Grade/graduation requirements and such? If not, there should be . . . don't you think?

The more federal money given to schools the more the schools increase their costs. It's a never-ending cycle that does squat to lower the cost of a college education.

What if the fed got out of the college game altogether and colleges actually had to compete with each other for students? Costs would drop significantly. This is all one big bullshit game.

The fed just increased Pell Grants with the 'savings' they garnered by eliminating the bank's role in the loans/grant process. They used more than half of the -- what was it, $67 million or something -- and rolled it into Pell Grants. They changed the eligibility requirements on the FAFSA too. You used to have to list the exact amount of your assets (how much you had in the bank, cd's etc). This year it just asks 'are your assets less than $50K', with no specifics. More people will likely qualify under this rewording.

Why shouldn't there be requirements that students have to meet in order to receive federal money?

 

[SgtMeowenstein]

There are requirements. They're called 'financial requirements'. If you're poor enough, you get a grant. Whether or not a person actually does something with that education is irrelevant. You can't make anybody do anything. Pell Grants were designed to give low-income people a chance at higher education. Is that not honorable enough?

 

[Truthmatters]

Some dont want the American people educated.

 

[asterism]

Hey man, I'm on the left side of the fence, but I do in fact agree that there need to be some sort of stipulations on the money we hand out for education.

I have seen way too many people get publicly funded college degrees in fields like "philosophy", and then go on to do nothing with it, because they never should have gotten it in the first place.

What the hell is the point of the public paying for a college degree if the public then sees no benefit from said degree?

Calling Pell Grants "Welfare" is going a bit too far, of course, but the man does have a point.

I agree that it's hyperbole, except in some situations it literally is "welfare." I know of a specific case:

Mommy and Daddy paid for tuition, room and board, food, and "a little" entertainment money for 4 years. Junior got an AA degree and then changed his major 5 times. After Mommy and Daddy cut him off, he took a year research internship that provided housing and a food stipend (none count as income). He did that internship in the Dominican Republic processing mail for Doctors Without Borders.

At 23, he was considered a full-fledged adult and having no income history. He qualified for a $13,000 Pell Grant each year he was a full time student and qualified for government sponsored interest and payment deferred loans. He spent 2 more years (all the time left that he was eligible) completing a Bachelor of Arts degree in History. He got $26,000 in grants and $32,000 in loans. When he went looking for a job, he realized he couldn't afford to make the payments on his loans on minimum wage. He was never considered for anything higher because he didn't have any skills and refused to shave or get rid of his dreadlocks ("smart people don't conform"). He was stuck, he need to eat and needed a place to live. An academic advisor gave him a solution, Graduate School. So he enrolled for a Master's in Social Work, which allowed him to get another $13,000 per year in grants and $20,000 per year in loans. His tuition, fees, campus housing and books were free because he also enrolled in a state program which exchanged education for a commitment to work for a state agency for 3 years upon graduation.

When he was scheduled to start his dissertation, he was sent a packet outlining the different places in Florida he was going to be sent to work for 3 years and the salary - $38,000 per year. He was a bit flustered because there was no way he could afford to live on that and pay on his $82,000 in student loans. He dropped out before graduation, one dissertation shy of an MSW because if he graduates he has to work in a job he can't afford to have. He doesn't have any official job because if he has any reportable income he has to start paying on the loans. He lives in his mom's house (his dad is dead and his mom lives in a nursing home) and has roommates that pay rent. He plays tambourine in a band, still has those dreadlocks. The lead singer says that they practice in the garage, which is why they have a tambourine player.

Can the $108,000 he got from the government be considered welfare? I think so. Upper middle class family, too.

 

[asterism]

There are requirements. They're called 'financial requirements'. If you're poor enough, you get a grant. Whether or not a person actually does something with that education is irrelevant. You can't make anybody do anything. Pell Grants were designed to give low-income people a chance at higher education. Is that not honorable enough?

"Poor" is relative though. A 25 year with no income but very rich parents who pay for everything is considered "poor."

The girl who lives behind my parents gets welfare, Section 8 housing (which she rents out under the table to her friends), and food stamps. She "occasionally spends the night" in her old bedroom still made up like a that of a 1987 teenager, lounges at the pool, and drives "Dad's" pink Mercedes. She's 40 and has been working the system ever since she was 22 and got laid off as a factory supervisor.

 

[Anachronism]

I know that to people other than rabid right-wingers this will come as no surprise, but I thought I'd point it out. Yet another reason not to trust Republicans.

I'm not a Republican, I'm a Conservative; but I would like to see them done away with as well.

Please show me the specific line item in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution allowing the Federal Government to legislate or spend money on EDUCATION. Until you can do that, these monies and ALL OTHER Federal Education spending need to be cut completely out of the budget; and all Federal Educational legislation, including No Child Left Behind needs to be declared void as unconstitutional.

Hey man, I'm on the left side of the fence, but I do in fact agree that there need to be some sort of stipulations on the money we hand out for education.

We shouldn't be handing out money through the government to begin with, but I would like to see a lot more of the private educational financing groups go down the road you're suggesting, LWC.

There are requirements. They're called 'financial requirements'. If you're poor enough, you get a grant. Whether or not a person actually does something with that education is irrelevant. You can't make anybody do anything. Pell Grants were designed to give low-income people a chance at higher education. Is that not honorable enough?

It's not about being Honorable. It's about being Legal and Constitutional. If YOU want to take extra money out of your pocket to pay to educate others, GREAT. Have at it. I wish you the best of luck with that. I have no kids. I never will. Why the hell should I be paying for these kids to go and spend 4 years of drunken revelry?

Some dont want the American people educated.

No. Some of us just don't want to pay for the education of other people's children. There used to be a time in this country where, if you wanted your kid educated, YOU paid for it. They got whatever level of education you could work out to pay for. That is what we ought to be going back to.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Some dont want the American people educated.

Spending 4 years in college for a General Studies degree isn't educated.

Watse your own money and time.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

There are requirements. They're called 'financial requirements'. If you're poor enough, you get a grant. Whether or not a person actually does something with that education is irrelevant. You can't make anybody do anything. Pell Grants were designed to give low-income people a chance at higher education. Is that not honorable enough?

"Poor" is relative though. A 25 year with no income but very rich parents who pay for everything is considered "poor."

The girl who lives behind my parents gets welfare, Section 8 housing (which she rents out under the table to her friends), and food stamps. She "occasionally spends the night" in her old bedroom still made up like a that of a 1987 teenager, lounges at the pool, and drives "Dad's" pink Mercedes. She's 40 and has been working the system ever since she was 22 and got laid off as a factory supervisor.

I was 22, living on my own making $18,000/year and considered making too much money.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

There are requirements. They're called 'financial requirements'. If you're poor enough, you get a grant. Whether or not a person actually does something with that education is irrelevant. You can't make anybody do anything. Pell Grants were designed to give low-income people a chance at higher education. Is that not honorable enough?

No, it;s bullshit. get a fucking job and pay for your education. Millions of us had to do it for lack of being a minority or having well to do parents.

 

[Zoom-boing]

There are requirements. They're called 'financial requirements'. If you're poor enough, you get a grant. Whether or not a person actually does something with that education is irrelevant. You can't make anybody do anything. Pell Grants were designed to give low-income people a chance at higher education. Is that not honorable enough?

And I call bullshit on that being the only requirement. Earning "x" grade (and that grade should be a B or better) and graduating should also be part of the requirements. If you don't earn the grade you don't get the grant; if you don't graduate you have to pay back the grant money. How is that unfair?

My daughter gets a discount on her car insurance provided she earns an average of "B" or better. She has to meet the grade requirement and provide proof of such each semester to the insurance company in order to get the discount. No proof? No discount. Didn't meet the requirements? No discount. How is that unfair?

The same should apply to money that the federal government (read that as JOE TAXPAYER) gives to these individuals. God forbid people actually do something to earn that grant money!

Wasn't the left screaming about Bush not attaching any requirements to TARP? But you don't want any requirements for this?

sniff, sniff

 

[uscitizen]

Of course we should let religous organizations administer the pell grant system. That would fix things.


And require monthly drug testing for recepients.

Require celabicy for recipients.

Require military service as well.

 

[Anachronism]

Of course we should let religous organizations administer the pell grant system. That would fix things.

And require monthly drug testing for recepients.

Require celabicy for recipients.

Require military service as well.

So far as I'm concerned, National Service at age 18 SHOULD be a requirement, but that's a different topic alltogether.

There's a young man at BYU who learned a very hard lesson a couple months back. See, there's an Honor Code at that University, and even considering that this young man was a member of their highly ranked NCAA basketball team, he was suspended from that team for violating the Honor Code. I don't see anything wrong with that, and in fact I think it's a great thing. Maybe if we actually started holding these people responsible for their own actions they'd start learning to live decent lives.

 

[uscitizen]

Personal responsibility?
I wonder why politicians stopped talking about that?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hey man, I'm on the left side of the fence, but I do in fact agree that there need to be some sort of stipulations on the money we hand out for education.

I have seen way too many people get publicly funded college degrees in fields like "philosophy", and then go on to do nothing with it, because they never should have gotten it in the first place.

What the hell is the point of the public paying for a college degree if the public then sees no benefit from said degree?

Calling Pell Grants "Welfare" is going a bit too far, of course, but the man does have a point.

I agree that it's hyperbole, except in some situations it literally is "welfare." I know of a specific case:

Mommy and Daddy paid for tuition, room and board, food, and "a little" entertainment money for 4 years. Junior got an AA degree and then changed his major 5 times. After Mommy and Daddy cut him off, he took a year research internship that provided housing and a food stipend (none count as income). He did that internship in the Dominican Republic processing mail for Doctors Without Borders.

At 23, he was considered a full-fledged adult and having no income history. He qualified for a $13,000 Pell Grant each year he was a full time student and qualified for government sponsored interest and payment deferred loans. He spent 2 more years (all the time left that he was eligible) completing a Bachelor of Arts degree in History. He got $26,000 in grants and $32,000 in loans. When he went looking for a job, he realized he couldn't afford to make the payments on his loans on minimum wage. He was never considered for anything higher because he didn't have any skills and refused to shave or get rid of his dreadlocks ("smart people don't conform"). He was stuck, he need to eat and needed a place to live. An academic advisor gave him a solution, Graduate School. So he enrolled for a Master's in Social Work, which allowed him to get another $13,000 per year in grants and $20,000 per year in loans. His tuition, fees, campus housing and books were free because he also enrolled in a state program which exchanged education for a commitment to work for a state agency for 3 years upon graduation.

When he was scheduled to start his dissertation, he was sent a packet outlining the different places in Florida he was going to be sent to work for 3 years and the salary - $38,000 per year. He was a bit flustered because there was no way he could afford to live on that and pay on his $82,000 in student loans. He dropped out before graduation, one dissertation shy of an MSW because if he graduates he has to work in a job he can't afford to have. He doesn't have any official job because if he has any reportable income he has to start paying on the loans. He lives in his mom's house (his dad is dead and his mom lives in a nursing home) and has roommates that pay rent. He plays tambourine in a band, still has those dreadlocks. The lead singer says that they practice in the garage, which is why they have a tambourine player.

Can the $108,000 he got from the government be considered welfare? I think so. Upper middle class family, too.

$13,000 in Pell Grants? Just a technical correction, Pell Grants have never exceeded $5,550.

Federal Student loans fall into two types: Stafford and Plus Loans...

• Stafford Loans - Subsidized
• Stafford Loans - Unsubsidized
• Parent Plus Loans

Subsidized loans are not automatic, the are merit based and do not accrue interest while in school. Unsubsidized loans are more widely available but accrue interest during school. Parent Plus Loans also accrue interest while in school. Normally payments have to start 6-months after graduation, not after employment. A person can request a deferment for up to three years based on employment.


FinAid | FinAid for Educators and FAAs | Pell Grant Historical Figures
Student Aid on the Web
Student Aid on the Web
Funding Education Beyond High School: The Guide to Federal Student Aid 2009-10


>>>>