Byko: 'Free tuition' isn't free

LESS THAN TWO WEEKS after Christmas, Santa Claus is back - this time wearing a Barack Obama mask, pulling the gift of "free tuition" out of his sack.

The idea came out of leftfield, following his bold moves on illegal immigration, climate control with China and opening a door to Cuba.

Santa Claus has gifts only for good children, and Santa Obama has a few strings on his proposal, called America's College Promise.

Before we analyze the content, let's agree on two things: First, the tuition is "free" to students, but the bill will be paid by the government, meaning you. Second, since the money goes to the colleges, it motivates them to enroll as many students as possible and to keep them eligible as long as possible. That almost guarantees grade inflation and lack of thrift. (If students fail to maintain eligibility, they are not required to repay the money.)

As a concept, free education is a benefit to society. That's why, more than 100 years ago, American free education was extended through high school. Societal benefit explains why most of us pay school taxes (one way or another) today even if we don't have children in public school. America was a boom town a century ago, but no longer.

In announcing the plan without much detail, Obama said he wants to make "the first two years of community college free for everybody who's willing to work for it." By "work" he didn't mean "work," like what you do. He meant students would have to attend "at least half-time," and "make steady progress" while maintaining a C-plus grade average. Not an overwhelming burden.

Obama said America's College Promise could benefit 9 million students with a "saving" (to them) of $3,800 a year. Although he didn't hang a price tag on the program, 9 million multiplied by $3,800 totals $34.2 billion a year. Just so we know what we are talking about. (Current spending on defense is about $839 billion. Just so we know what we are talking about.)

The federal government will pay 75 percent of the cost, while "states that choose to participate" will provide the rest. What happens in states that choose not to participate? No idea. Community colleges will "be expected" to offer academic programs that transfer easily to four-year colleges. Who will enforce that? No idea.

Maybe another layer of federal bureaucracy? Anyway, because this is a budget, the Republican-held Congress must approve, and that's unlikely in this form.

Like the president, I favor free higher education, particularly because I was a beneficiary of it at Brooklyn College, a four-year college. I was a student editor when what had been free tuition became (modest) paid tuition under New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller. I editorialized against it. That was a half-century ago.

Today we have two incompatible issues - the desire for a better-educated workforce and an $18 trillion national debt.

How to square them? Here's my idea:

The government guarantees a four-year education to every qualified student. Once students finish college - graduating or dropping out - and enter the workforce, they will have a 1 percent college tax added to their bill for their working life.

A forever tax? Is that fair?

Income tax is forever, and so are other payroll taxes, such as Social Security. This is as fair as those. The tax does not merely pay back what was spent, but will create a financial pool for the students who follow.

The college tax will be paid only by those who took advantage of it. That is fair and means graduates will not be burdened with a mountain of student-loan debt.

Because college graduates (or those with some college) earn more than high-school grads, why is it not fair to ask them to pay a tiny bit back annually?

Because the money must be paid back, it is not "free," but my plan provides the education when it is needed and requires payback when it can be afforded. What could be more fair?

Phone: 215-854-5977

On Twitter: @StuBykofsky

Blog: ph.ly/Byko

Columns: ph.ly/StuBykofsky