Oregon treasurer pitches plan to pay for college

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Oregon Treasurer Ted Wheeler has a plan to make higher education more affordable, proposing the state take on debt so students don't have to.
Wheeler's plan, which faces several legislative hurdles and would have to be approved by voters, aims to use proceeds from state bond sales to establish a permanent scholarship fund to help students from low- and middle-income families attend a university or community college, or to receive vocational training.
"It would be a fund unlike anything else that we've been able to find anywhere else in the United States," Wheeler said, testifying before the Senate Education and Workforce Committee on Thursday.
The state typically invests in physical capital such as buildings and roads. Investing in students, human capital, is something new, Wheeler said.
The plan, embodied in Senate Bill 11 and House Joint Resolution 1, advanced from the Senate committee with a 3-1 vote after more than an hour of testimony from students. The bills now go to different legislative committees for review. If approved, the plan would be put to Oregon voters, most likely in 2014.
Wheeler, who's been treasurer since 2010, said his proposal is projected to eventually triple the amount of scholarship money available to help students fund higher education by selling $500 million in bonds backed by the state's general fund. It would use the interest earned, estimated to be about 7 percent per year, to establish a permanent fund for student aid.
Republican Jeff Kruse of Roseburg, the dissenting vote, said he understands that higher education is underfunded, but he isn't reassured that taking on debt is the solution.
"I get concerned over how much debt we're creating and how long it's going to take to pay it back," he said.
He suggested trying to reduce the cost of higher education.
"I wish we looked at why the cost of education has skyrocketed over the past few decades, and we pretty much ignore that," Kruse said. "We try to come up with ways to fund this accelerating curve without looking at other ways we can flatten the curve."
The plan will likely be sent to a capital construction budgetary subcommittee where it could be restructured — and the proposed $500 million bonding level lowered — as it competes with other projects seeking general fund-backed bond money, said the treasurer's office.
The state currently awards between $40 million and $50 million in "opportunity grants," which are given on a first-come-first-served basis, leaving more than 80 percent of eligible students without financial aid. Wheeler said his plan could increase this fund by 50 percent in the first year.
The cost of higher education can be a barrier to higher education for young people around the country, and in Oregon particular.
Oregon's public colleges have seen the greatest spike in enrollment numbers over the past five years, yet the state ranked fifth-lowest in the nation for the amount of public support it provides students, according to a report by the Association of State Higher Education Executive Officers released Wednesday.
Reduced available financial aid and higher tuition fees mean students pay more to go to college, leaving many students like Kevin Rackham, a political science major at Portland State University, drowning in debt.
Rackham said not going to college was never an option, but the cost has been staggering. When he graduates he will owe about $25,000 in student loans.
"It's always hanging over your head," he said. "You always know that you're going to have to pay it off."
In 2012, Rackham was part of a student project that came up with a debt-free model for funding higher education. The proposal is called "pay-it-forward," where students attend college tuition-free and then pay a percent of their income after graduating into the fund that enabled them to attend college.
Rep. Michael Dembrow, D-Portland, was intrigued by the students' idea and helped introduce it to the Legislature.
Dembrow, chair of the House Higher Education and Workforce Committee, said making college more accessible and affordable is a priority.
During the past five years, taxpayer support for Oregon students dropped by about 32 percent, from $5,660 in 2007 to $3,850 in 2012, the Education report found. For 2012, the national average is $6,500.
"If the University of Oregon slumped this low in the rankings, they'd be looking for a new football coach," said Steve Hughes, director of Oregon Working Families, which is backing the treasurer's endowment plan and the pay-it-forward proposal.
"It's killing students," he said.
But it could have been worse, said Diane Saunders, a spokeswoman for the Oregon University System. She said public universities reorganized and consolidated departments, and suffered layoffs and furloughs to keep tuition hikes as low as possible. It costs an average of $7,800 for tuition and fees in to attend a public college in Oregon, Saunders said.
"We have gotten used to doing more with less but there is a breaking point," she said.
Gov. John Kitzhaber set a target for the state that 80 percent of the adult population would have college credentials by 2025. But without the resources to pay for college, some students will remain shut out, Saunders said.
On the national stage, student-loan debts recently tripped over the $1 trillion mark, according to a February report by the Federal Reserve of New York.
The number of borrowers and the amount of money being borrowed is increasing dramatically, rising nearly 70 percent since 2004, the report said. At the same time, the share of young people taking out student loans has jumped from 27 percent of 25-year-olds in 2004 to 43 percent in 2012, the report found.
Student debt doesn't just impact the individual, said Portland State University economics professor Mary King. She said students with debt tend to "put off adulthood" after graduation, and don't buy cars or houses as they used to.
"We end up paying for it as a society," she said. "We need to invest in our young people."
In the 4 years I went to school starting in 2003 the price went from $500 a term to nearly $3000 for the same load. This was just tuition.Â
But i don't advocate for paying for people to go to school. Not because it's not worthy, or because the costs are too high, but because we have more pressing things we have to pay for first.
I mean you can go to a university with new buildings, but you will need to cross 5 100 year old and crumbling bridges to get there. You can see nice green grasses but you will need to use roads with massive potholes to see them. And you can get a great education for less, but you need to sacrifice feeding people who are hungry right now.
Is education a capitol asset, yes, but so are public buildings that need serious work (like the Multnomah county courthouse) and bridges that need repair (like the Sellwood Bridge that is still under funded) and roads that need fixing (like sections of Powell that are more rut than road).
Letâs not put the cart before the horse. If we want to fund the future, letâs first pay for the present.
If college graduates will make so much more money in their life time because of their college education, let them pay for their own loans!Â
If the students are willing to take that gamble the taxpayers should not be forced to pay for the gambling debts!
I didn't agree to any student's loans! I don't wish to be held accountable for them! Of course, if the students are willing to pay for my loans then we have room to talk about it. B
ut I'm sure that they are not willing to pay for my loans if they are not wanting to pay for their own.
The State of Oregon is not responsible for the loans of anyone! End of story!
It's just this simple -Â Tax payers should not have to pay for a college education for others. Â Period. Â
Perhaps. I would be interested to hear your rationale though. One could argue that investing government money into higher education reaps a net benefit through increased productivity and creativity, plus the supposed higher income the student will earn over their lifetime should ensure higher tax payments back to the government.
@Oregon7812Â My rationale? Â What business is it of the government, and ultimately the taxpayer to subsidize "productivity and creativity"...?? Â Sounds pretty nebulous to me, don't want my tax dollars in that pile. Â As far as increased income = increased revenue, that only works if there are jobs available. If government would first get out of the way and provide the incentives for business to flourish, people would feel comfortable investing in themselves. Â
It is not the business to take care of people, it is the business of government to facilitate an environment where people can take care of themselves.
@Oregon7812 Higher education is perfectly accessible if you are willing to work for it.  I did it, and no, mommy and daddy didn't pay my way for me.  It is not the government's duty to provide for the individual.  It is certainly not the responsibility of the taxpayer to pay for it.
"it is the business of government to facilitate an environment where people can take care of themselves."
Maybe they can achieve that through providing better access to higher education.
A college education appears to be highly overrated these days...and I hate saying that as my son and I both are college grads. That being said...we could have both saved much money had it not been for all the extra garbage we had to take to get our degrees. PE for an Architectural Design Degree??? REALLY??? That's just one of MANY outlandish classes that was needed to get what we wanted. Just teach us what we need to know...don't keep piling on classes that only create more money for books, credits...and teachers to justify themselves. You can also get rid of General Studies...what??!!?? If you don't know what you plan for yourself by the time you're college age...stay out of there until you do. Education has become a huge business...and it's time to stop. Parents need to quit insisting on a college education...it's becoming something to impress people with that little Johnny is doing...not something that really will benefit anyone.
Ah yes, my semester playing basketball for $500 really helped me out in the job market.
Professors work 40% less than they did 20 years ago. TA's do most of the work now in the classroom. Are professors getting 40% less pay?
@TimBurr President(s) pay, Football coaches pay, Administration costs.......  overinflated to the max.
The issue is in the cost of education rising. There is very little justification for the massive increases.
Tax payers should not have to pay for a college education for others.
Geez, most of us paying taxes now, paid our own way through school. Worked part time or full time, stayed at home or shared an apt. The more money you throw at colleges the more expensive they get. When will the government learn? Â
If people quit borrowing money for college and instead just pay as you go, eventually the college would have to drop rates just to increase attendance. Or at the very least, find the most reasonably priced education you can find and don't borrow to pay for it.
I think you miss the point that the cost has risen so much it's not simply a case of working a part time job. In many cases, a full time job is required just to fund the cost of schooling.
@Oregon7812Â I think you missed the point:Â Tax payers should not have to pay for a college education for others. Â Period. Â End of story.
@Oregon7812  So, get a full time job. I managed to get through college while working full time AND raising a very young child on my own. It's not easy, but it can be done. Oh wait, this generation is all about easy and "give it to me!"
@Oregon7812Â
I'm paying almost as much per credit hour now (at a community college) as I did for an entire 4 credit lab science course at a community college in 1996. So costs have definitely gone way up. I've seen them go up more than 25% just since I started a few years ago.
Perhaps not for you, everyone is different - but the data on the cost of college is readily available, it has nearly tripled since 1981 and is up almost 50% from 2001 alone.
@Oregon7812 No it hasn't. My DD is in college right now and her costs are not even double what I paid. Furthermore, I did it the smart way - got my general ed stuff out of the way at the Community College level, then transferred to the 4 year school. DD is doing the same thing.
The cost of college has doubled, maybe tripled since you went to school. Income has remained relatively flat over the same period. "Your generation" would have found the financial burden a lot easier than today, or maybe it would be appropriate for a student to work 3 full time jobs to make up for the growing gap in cost?
@Oregon7812 No I didn't and I addressed that in the second paragraph. If the federal government quit handing out taxpayer dollars on loans that over 35%% will never be paid, people would have to work to pay for college. When that happens, people will make better choices about what they spend their own money on. And without a free for all on the taxpayers back, colleges would have to make an education more affordable or go out of business.
We worked and paid our way because federal loans were not available.
The tax payer money should be spent for entertainment only not for investment. Oh wait that is kind of like the lottery disclaimer.
Here's a big gap   "It would use the interest earned, estimated to be about 7 percent per year, to establish a permanent fund for student aid."
I don't know of any investment that would provide a guaranteed 7% return (of course there were guys like Madoff), if there was then everyone would be doing it.
The Government can't give anything to anyone without first taking it from somebody else!!!
Socialism is becoming such an American concept.
This plan does not make higher education more affordable. The costs are the same. Try again.
The internal rate of return (IRR) to the education investment used to yield 11.5 to 16%. Now in bad times it does not. To what point do we continue to subsidize education? And at what point do we cap the salaries & benefits given to university employees in order to make education a social good again.
http://cascadepolicy.org/pdf/edref/pozdena.htm
@TimBurr Until the schoolteachers unions are busted and they no longer have legislators in their vest pockets.
" Gov. John Kitzhaber set a target for the state that 80 percent of the adult population would have college credentials by 2025. " In other words he's going to insist that the people who tile our bathrooms, check us out at the grocery store, sell us cars, sell us lattes, clean our toilets, service our cars, serve us burgers and mow our lawns have college credentials? You certainly can't do all of this, plus all the rest, with 20% of the population. We need fewer people with useless college degrees, not more.
But, but, but... if we're going to have an economy based on slaves (conscripted/forced workers, paid little if anything beyond subsistence wages), why should having educated slaves be important? Besides, aren't uneducated slaves more malleable, easier to control and expect less?
While the gov't at all levels needs to ensure we have a well qualified workforce, it is the private sector that drives what is needed for skills and knowledge. The gov't already funds numerous colleges and universities through research grants and such. This is a bad idea. There are already too many college graduates who cannot find jobs either because they have inadequate skills or education for what is needed, or they just did not do well enough in college for anyone to want to hire them. They are adults who have made a decsison to enter into a loan for education much like an adult who purchases a product. They need to pay it back. Now, if there was a stipulation that they would pay pack that loan thru volunteer work or reduced wages to help society - in Oregon - for a certain amount of time, then I might consider it. Otherwise it is just throwing good money after bad. to.
And this 'pay-it-forward' idea? What happens when graduates cannot find jobs (this is happening right now) and cannot pay anything back? Who gets stuck with that? THE TAXPAYER.
No thank you.Â
What happens when graduates start to complain that their fair share of paying it back is too much and they can't live without that money? I guess we just need to expect payment before and not after. Â
What a concept.
@GoldenÂ
How is it any different than the loans they get now? They get the money and then can't pay it back for some time because they can't find a job.
The big difference between the two is that with the "pay it forward" idea, students wouldn't rack up so much interest and such that the amount they owe ends up being 2, 3, 4... times as much as the original loan. And it wouldn't sit on their credit, giving them a bad credit score. Many employers now check your credit and will not employ you if your credit isn't at a certain level. So a student could go to school, take out loans, not be able to pay them because they can't get a job, and then not be able to get a job because they didn't pay the loan.
@Jenni S.   Loans would not be such a problem if the students didn't feel the need to finance their entire lifestyle while in college. They should be working their way through school and only finance the actual cost of the education. Coming out of college with $25,000 in loans is nothing. Hell, the kids these days pay way more than that for their "gotta have" brand new cars, and fnance those over 5 or 6 or even 7 years. The payback on student loans stretches way beyond that time frame. Furthermore, there are many hardship deferrals available for students if they are too lazy, er, are unable to find a job after graduation. The problem with new graduates, they think they are entitled to geting a job right out of college that pays big bucks without having any actual experience. Generally, one must "pay their dues" before making the big bucks in their field of choice.
@wondering @Jenni S.
You can't "finance their entire lifestyle while in college". There are limits as to how much you can get in loans based on how much it costs to go to school and how much you make (the more you make, the less loans you can get). They look at your tax filing to see how much you make and then the school computes how much on average it should take for your classes, tuition, books, etc. Then they add on so much on top of that for supplies needed for school, transportation to/from school and a few other such expenses. And that is how much you get. Unless you can go find a personal loan somewhere else, you're not getting any more than that. So you're not going to finance your entire lifestyle. And then if you get scholarships and such, that decreases the amount of loans you can take as well. Plus you can't get loans and financial aid for the summer term/semester unless you took another one off (they don't cover the whole year anymore). Â
And if you're buying a car, then you have a steady job with a good paycheck. That's not the case for many people when they are graduating. There aren't that many newer cars in the student lots at colleges and universities - lots of old, beat up vehicles.
"Student debt doesn't just impact the individual, said Portland State University economics professor Mary King. She said students with debt tend to "put off adulthood" after graduation, and don't buy cars or houses as they used to. We end up paying for it as a society," she said. "We need to invest in our young people."
**Alert: "We need to invest in..." is code for the government taking more money from taxpayers. Â
Taxpayers do not need to be put on the hook for 100's of millions of new debt. And since when is buying cars or houses equivalent to growing up? I'd say it is pretty grown up to not buy a car or a house until you can afford it.
I'd be wary of taking any classes from this 'economic professor'.
@GoldenÂ
Actually, things like buying a house have long been seen by society as the equivalent of "growing up". Nowadays a lot of people in their 20s are still living with their parents because they are spending everything they have to go to school. And they continue to pay long after they finish that degree, which means putting off things that have an effect on the economy, like buying a house or a car. Many economic indicators look at things like home purchases, and with people in their 20s and 30s putting that off because of student loan debt, that hurts the economy, which hurts everyone.
@Jenni S. @wondering The age that people purchase thier first house is lower than it ever was prior to the housing bubble. So I have to wonder about the Portland State econ professors thinking? People also buy larger starter houses than previous generations. As @wondering stated earlier (paraphrasing) - They manage to have no issues paying off large car loans and the like - but balk at student loans. They want and expect too much. They bought into the "need a college education" bull*** - let them pay for thier gamble.
@wvboyÂ
Actually, the people buying cars are not likely to also have student loans that aren't being paid - you're going to have a real hard time getting a car loan if you have student loans that have been marked as you not paying them. No one wants to give a loan to someone who has a loan that isn't being paid.
Some younger people were able to grab up homes when the bubble burst and home prices plummeted. That allowed them to get homes at really low prices - often times much lower than they were paying in rent. But that is quickly changing as the housing market picks back up.
@Jenni S. @GoldenÂ
I'm not interested in artificially supporting the economy. The economy is actually healthier when things get paid for along the way instead of expecting it to get "taken care of" in the future. A truly healthy economy helps everyone. An artificially sustained economy hurts everyone. Just look at where we are at now in this country.
@Owt_Raged @Jenni S.
No, they don't. There's no way the government made this much (and these are profits, not revenue):
Company   $(millions)
Exxon Mobil   41,060.02
Chevron   26,895.03
ConocoPhillips   12,436.0
And that is just three of the companies - these were in the top 15 most profitable companies that year (Exxon was #1 followed by Chevron at #2). If the government made more money off of the oil than these companies did, then that would fund the majority of the federal budget. As we all know, that isn't the case - it's mostly funded via income taxes, patents owned by the government, etc.
And people work their asses off every day, working multiple jobs, and still can't make enough to have a decent wage. Yet there are people who don't work all that much and make a ton. How hard you work does not translate to how much you make in most cases.
@Jenni S. The government makes more off of oil than the oil companies do.
And income inequity will grow larger as long as the government supports a specific class and does not require them to work hard and put back what they took, ie: student loans, welfare, grants and such. We spend way more than any other country (on the backs of taxpayers) for education and get dismal results.
Until people are forced to earn their own way, the path we are on will not change, and the rich will get richer (although there will be fewer of them) and the poor will quit trying because they can have their needs met by others.
There is NO market for a degree in "Woman's studies"
You remember the housing bubble of 2007/08? That was a bubble artificially supported by those who couldn't afford the homes they purchased.
@Golden @Jenni S.Â
Actually, I own a business and have to make payroll, so it shows what happens when assumptions are made.
Businesses are not bad. I love businesses. Plenty of businesses are run in a manner where their employees are well paid and the business makes a good profit. But there are other businesses where they crap on their employees so they can make a bigger profit. All the while the taxpayer picks up the load because the people can't afford basic healthcare, food, etc. even though they are working their asses off.
I never said they have unending means to support whatever. But many of those businesses have the ability to do more and choose not to. Costco and Sam's Club have similar pricing, membership fees, etc. One pays their workers a good wage and benefits, the other does not. Some businesses  choose to have profits and take care of their employees at the same time. It can be done, some just choose not to do it.
And yes, I am going to go after Big Oil. They keep having record profits, yet say they need to raise the price of gas because of x, y, and z. And when those situations are gone, they only lower gas a pittance. All the while they get huge subsidies. There are plenty of other businesses in this country that could use the subsidies those oil companies get and it would do more to help our economy - like businesses that are trying hard to bring manufacturing back to our country. As it is, few oil companies are U.S. owned anymore, which means those profits do little to help our economy.
@Jenni S. @Golden Â
Oh boy. Here we go. Now we are attacking business, and Big Oil no less because they are such an easy target. I do say this respectfully, but the more you write the more I understand that you do not have any experience running a business or making payroll. Business is not inherently greedy, and many businesses are happy to provide a decent wage and benefits as long as the company stays profitable. But somehow some people believe that businesses have an unending means to support all the warm and fuzzy ideas. That is simply not the case.
That's enough on this topic. Thank you.
@Golden @Jenni S.Â
Major purchases like homes aren't artificially supporting the economy.
And the problem in this country isn't people buying homes. It's a much bigger problem than that. We have huge income inequities in this country. Businesses with record profits are telling us they can't afford small increases in costs to pay employees a decent wage or give them benefits. Businesses with record profits - like oil companies - get huge subsidies and keep increasing the price of gas to sustain those record profits. The list goes on and on.Â
I also don't see the point of educating everyone if there are so few jobs. Maybe work on cutting education costs and creating jobs first, then work towards "free" education.
@AzacabazleÂ
In some fields there are a lot of openings. A good chunk of our unemployment problem is that the skills of those unemployed/underemployed don't match with the jobs available. We have to do more to change the programs and degrees to match the world today, not 20 years ago. Community colleges have been good about making those changes, universities have not.
Not to mention that it's only a matter of time before we start seeing huge numbers of people retiring, opening up a lot of positions.
"Education" can mean a lot of things. It could be getting them a degree in engineering, medicine, etc. It could also mean a degree/certificate in auto mechanics. Or welding. Or carpentry. Funeral service and support. Game design. App design.Â
How about 100% of everyone's paycheck just goes to the state.Â
Then we can all just have everything for free.
@Jack_BauerÂ
Nothing in here mentioned anything about tax increases to pay for this. It would be paid for out of interest made from bonds.Â
@Jenni S.   A little finance lesson for you. If the state issues bonds, then the state must pay interest TO the person/entity who invested in the bonds. And while the state might invest the proceeds from the bond issuance, just how much interest do you think they will actually make? When interest rates are at all time lows? Do you really think there will be enough income earned to pay both the investors and pay for the illegals to go to school? I don't think so. This idea will result in yet another epic fail on the part of government.
@wondering @Jenni S.Â
They won't be paying "for illegals to go to school". They will have to pay their own way through school. They may get in-state tuition, but that doesn't mean that the state is then giving the school more money because of it. In fact, every year colleges and universities are getting less and less money. So no, the state won't be sending more money to the colleges/universities no matter if illegals are paying in-state or out-of-state tuition.
And there are different kinds of bonds that are handled differently. And the estimate on the interest earned is based on what others are earning, not some guess or hope.