It must be the worst feeling in the world to be drowning in debt, gasping for a chance to live life and fulfill dreams, goals, and aspirations. Earning a college degree is supposed to make life easier, however even today, those who attend highly ranked state schools graduate with massive amounts of debt. In turn this inhibits this generations ability to be financially sound and be productive members of the economy; buying goods, services and houses. Income inequality underhand's socioeconomic mobility, which is testament to saving the middle class from wealthy donors and right wing politicians. Rising college tuition and student debt is a crisis in this country because both constrict the financial future of many students and the sole solution is to make public college tuition free with a Wall Street financial tax in order to save the American Dream.

College. It is the foundation of a successful life in the ever-advancing world economy. From the first day of kindergarten parents would say time is going to fly before their kid goes to college, gets a good paying job and can one day be like their parents. However, this is not the case; actually their kid will graduate with massive amounts of debt, lack of financial mobility and independence, and a bleak outlook to change all of that all due to rising tuition and lack of state funding. College tuition is rising too high and too fast. According to the U.S. Department of Education, tuition has doubled even after taking in account of inflation "College Affordability and Completion: Ensuring a Pathway to Opportunity". This is destructive for having financially healthy families and individuals. Inflation is the rise in purchasing power of a dollar over time as more money gets introduced into the market. What the U.S. Department of Education is stating is that compared to 30 years ago, a dollar today is worth half as much in terms of paying for college. In an already weak middle class, this means that loans with high interest rate must be taken on in order to pay for college. In order to further demonstrate this point, College Board, a company that focuses on providing data for college bound students, reveals that in 1975, the average tuition of a public university was $2387 however in 2015 it is $9410 (College Board). Many conservatives and right leaning politicians will quote the lack of work ethic in today's generation because when they went to school, they worked during their summers and paid off their tuition; no doubt that liberals think that students should be able to do so, however it is far from the case. To put that in perspective, if $2387 was tuition today, a student working 20 hours a week making $10 an hour in the summer during college break, could pay off their tuition. However, with the astronomical cost of college today, that certainly is not the case. And these isn't a problem that can be solved by raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour and expect students to work 40 hours a week because then still they couldn't pay off their tuition. Now comes to the why. 

Who would allow students to graduate with such a burden? Well state governments sure aren't helping; in fact, many state governments have contributed greatly to this crisis. Michael Mitchell, an economist writer from the progressive Center of Budget and Policy Priorities, states that in the past 5 years' state spending per student has decreased 20% (Mitchell). How is it fiscally responsible to cut state spending at that rate, or at all really? It's not. Right wing conservatives have hijacked the conversation by avoiding rising debt and tuition stating that the reason is that the federal government is the cause by giving out so many subsidies and loans to American students. John Sexton of Breitbart News, a news organization dedicated to Tea Party ideals, states that the rising cost of tuition is directly related to how much government aid is given out. He says that government spending on tuition has risen over 100% in the past 20 years. He says that his theory has the backing of former Secretary of Education Bill Bennet (Sexton). However what Sexton fails to mention albeit obvious, is their bias towards extreme right wing views. In fact, the study he quoted is questioned among many conservatives and Bill Bennet is a known conservative pundit who makes money off conservatives listening to his show. There is a point that is important to make. Yes, John Sexton is right; government is spending more money on aid for students. However, the huge detail is that the spending per student has decreased; due to the major influx of students in colleges, the federal government needed to spend more money to aid them. However, state governments decided to cut state spending per student because they believed they could spin the numbers to make it seem that more aid isn't the answer. Now this doesn't seem beneficial for those who want the American Dream back; of course not, its beneficial for right wing lawmakers who are looking to cut state budgets and government influence down. The answer to rising inflation, tuition, and lacking state funding is the federal government funding free public tuition; this would take a lot of the burden off states and could therefore use their resources towards other needs.

Without a doubt there is nothing more financially burdensome than debt; it represents the restrictions of financial freedom and ultimately lives. Paying debt every month such as a mortgage is sign of healthy financials because it is a sign of good credit and a stable job however student debt is destructive; in a country good paying jobs are going extinct, mounting student debt can be almost impossible to pay off. Jillian Berman, an associate business editor at the progressive Huffington Post who has years of experience covering the student debt disaster, says that college graduates owe roughly $26,660 at an interest rate of around 6.6% (Berman). Student debt is a massive hurdle that hinders a graduate's ability to get married or buy a house. It is completely unreasonable to fathom that it is ok that graduates don't accomplish major life goals because of debt. The only way to solve this crisis is through federal government intervention that would provide free public college tuition. This program would enable many millennials to take back their financial freedom by limiting the cost of tuition. However, there is some opposition to this plan because some believe that it is worth to go to college no matter what. Hillary Clinton, a lifelong Democrat who is running for president, believes that public college tuition shouldn't be free because it is still worth it to attend college anyway. Granted, this is an excellent point to make; of course having a college degree is worth it, which is why so many students are attending. 

According to the Pew Research Center, a highly regarded nonpartisan think tank, full time working Millennials who hold a college degree make $17,500 more than their high school graduate counterparts (Pew Research Center). However, the difference between Clinton's plan and allowing the federal government to make public tuition free is that Clinton doesn't look at the looming issue of paying off debt with interest and not having a good job. Students went into college thinking once they have their degree and graduate, they can enter the job market and look for an ever-fulfilling career that pays well; they were extremely mistaken. 44% of those aged 22-30 with college degrees work in jobs that don't require degrees, fast food workers, clerks, etc., and that 30% those aged 22-30 work in jobs that make under $30,000 (Stahl). It is evident that as a result of a rough job market, many in these age brackets are using their college degree to the full potential. Now the effects of this are detrimental; there is no way that these students can pay off almost $30,000 in debt while making roughly the same amount. The reason why Clinton's plan is not suitable is because while these people are looking for the good paying jobs, student debt shouldn't be compounding massive amounts of interest as time goes on; without growing debt, they can remain financially tolerable through savings and work towards their goals. 

Not only is this situation destroying aspirations of a fulfilling career, student debt inhibits their lives. The American Dream is supposed to be worrying about what color walls you want to paint a freshly bought house or deciding on the bride's dress; it isn't about working hard at college and then be saddled with student debt that can virtually not be paid for. Not only is student debt a psychological burden, it a huge economic and personal burden. By having so much student debt, these people won't buy houses, which is an indicator of the strength of the economy and ultimately the American Dream. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a government agency responsible for collecting data, home ownership has dropped 10% from 2005 to 2015 among those under 35 (Holland). This is clearly a major result of rising student debt and its inhibitory powers. There are countless examples of massive student debt and the burden it places on the dreams of many young Americans. According to Mitch Daniels, president of Purdue University and the former Republican governor of Indiana, those saddled with debt are "are postponing marriage, childbearing and home purchases" and are limiting their entrepreneurial dreams (Holland). It is absolutely shameful that this nation allows student debt to roadblock the lives of those who went to college. The whole point of this argument is that rising tuition and lack of government intervention hatched the despicable problem of impeding young American lives because of student debt. Bernie Sanders, the junior senator from Vermont who has served in Congress for 25 years and a strong proponent of free public tuition, states that student debt is tragedy for this nation because it doesn't allow future generations to be financially well off which pushes off buying a house and getting married, both of which are disgraceful for the nation (Sanders, Washington Post). All in all, it is evident that student debt is disastrous for students because it slows down housing purchases, marriages and lives. Although some may call for incremental change such as Clinton, this is a major crisis that can only be solved with free public tuition, which would offer immediate help.  

The plight of the rich versus the poor, the battle of the elite versus the masses, bourgeois versus proletariat, these are all exaggerations of income inequality. Throughout history there has always been those with more, those with less, and the health of society often reflected the size of the difference of these numbers. Today in America income inequality is a serious issue in terms the power ordinary citizens have in terms of campaign finance but also its causes; lower taxes on the rich and corporations but more importantly the cost of college. Price is what you pay, value is what you get. Ronald Ehrenberg, a professor at Cornell University of economics specializing in the economics of higher education, believes that the price of an education and its' value are not directly correlated (Ehrenberg, Why College Costs). Just as the accessibility and affordability are important in this debate, the cost of college has a profound relationship with income and wealth inequality. The relationship is so important because more wealthier families are able to pay off their kids student loans and tuition meanwhile those in lower income brackets have to pay off their own loans or decide not even to go to college because of the high cost. Emmanuel Saez, an academic at the world prestigious UC Berkeley, states that income inequality is something that has historically plagued this country and is making a comeback since the 1980's (McElwee). Due to the rise of for profit colleges and the demise of proper government funding for students as college debt increased so did income inequality. Income inequality just isn't about the numbers; it is the symbol of socioeconomic mobility in America; it was once thought that going to college led to a better life. However the rising costs of college has proved otherwise because either lower income Americans are saddled with debt, which leaves them gridlocked or decide not even to go to college. This has a drastic effect on American society. Since lower income and middle class Americans decided not to go to college, drop out, or have too much debt to be financially stable, the middle class shrinks even more thus increasing the gap socioeconomically. 

The American Dream is about moving up the ladder, to make more money so that their kids can do the same and do better. According to Ehrenberg, society has become extremely competitive to get into the best school for the best job but if a majority of Americans are left behind, there is no better life after a degree. (Ehrenberg, International Journal). There is no question of the value a college degree holds but at what cost? Tens of thousands of dollars of debt and some who chose not even to go down that path. To show how much damage this really does, Martha White, a writer for the world renowned Time Money, states that those with $30,000 in debt are on average likely to make $400,000 less than those who don't have debt (White). Clearly income inequality is expanded even more. The change to fix this is a federally funded free public tuition program, which would eliminate debt and increase the accessibility of college for Americans, which would revive the dying American Dream.

Politics seem to be about building the perfect world with idealistic visions however the reality of it is everything but that. Republicans and Democrats alike are entrenched in their ideals and it takes a lot to bring them together. Some Republicans are against federal funded free public tuition. According to the National Review, a conservative commentary magazine, former Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush believes that college tuition is a crisis for future generations and he proposed cutting federal funding and allow states to lead the efforts (Kelly). His goal to is to stop spending of federal money on student relief and allow the states to assess and act on their own judgment. Granted this would cause a massive drop out of many lower income students and make many be subject to much higher private loan interest rates. Though there is something here that can be agreed on; the states should have a part in this. But they have failed this nation; they repeatedly cut funding, which was not in the best interest of the students, it was in the best interest of rich people who want taxes to decrease. Republican lawmakers answer to rich donors who want to lower taxes and by cutting funding, taxes are cut as well. Clearly there is bipartisan understanding that college tuition must be addressed as well as massive public support. According to Gallup Polling, a non-partisan polling agency, 67% of Americans believe that higher education is unaffordable (Gallup). Clearly there is a problem if more than two thirds of the nation believes it is. There are doubters on the right who believe that policy to make college public tuition free, but the numbers speak for themselves; an overwhelming majority of Americans think higher education isn't affordable and it is a matter of time before these people voice these opinions to their elected representative congressman. So no it is not credible to refute free public tuition by saying students rely on federal money too much because that is the exact thing keeping this nation's future afloat.

The national debt. Currently rising and rising everyday and most likely going to reach $20 trillion. There is no where to hide that fact that Republicans want to cut the size and strength of the government which is a direct opposition to federally funded free public tuition. Republicans are echoing a call to cut programs such as food stamps, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid among other programs. Republicans proposed to cut 5 million of Medicaid, cut the domestic budget by $5 trillion, while adding $90 billion to the military budget; clearly the middle class is not in their priorities. (Rosenfield). The Republicans are virtually blockading any legislation, which would benefit the general public and not rich donors or corporations. Their goal is to cut funding so that their donors pay less in taxes; corruption has riddled the Republican Party. Many Republicans state that from 2008 to 2013, the number of people who enrolled on food stamps shouldn't have been there dramatically increased which is why it must be cut however they forget to mention that error rates stayed roughly the same and the increased enrollment was due to the Great Recession (Lavender). The opponents of federally funded free public tuition state that the government can't afford it. It should be mentioned to these very people that they were proponents of the wars in the Middle East and Bush era tax cuts which increased the deficit immensely because it benefited rich donors and the military industrial complex which donates to Republicans. 

Now let's get to the stakeholders of federally funded free public tuition, students. Students want to have a future where it is possible to have no student debt so they can get married and be able to own a house just like their parents. In addition let it be know that the method to fix this problem would be a tax on Wall Street transactions, not individual incomes. The American people bailed out Wall Street in 2008 to the tune of $800 billion when the economy collapsed due to illegal trading and reckless mortgage lending. This isn't mentioning the $16 trillion that the Federal Reserve slyly underreported (Greenstein). Now it is time for Wall Street to bail out the American people to the tune of $62 billion. That is the all the money it would take to make public colleges tuition free. Yes this is a lot of money compared to what a middle class family makes but miniscule in the world of trillion dollar loans and wars. This is an investment on the future of the nation. Again the junior senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders believes this because it would reduce the gap of the middle class and build a future for this nation (Sanders, Youtube). Research has shown that this tax would be extremely beneficial to almost all Americans. Some opponents argue that it would cause less trades to happen thus slowing down the market. However it would only stop those involved in high frequency trades, not normal trading. Stopping high frequency traders who are responsible for mini market crashes is clearly a benefit for the middle class because then their retirement savings aren't ruined as well. (Lardner). It is evident that this tax would be extremely benefit to the economy but also rebuilding the American Dream by stopping enormous student debt, which increases socioeconomic mobility.

Let it be known that the middle class of this country is shrinking and its young people are running out of track to have a successful future due to increased student debt and lowering state funding. A call to action is a Wall Street financial tax, which would greatly benefit the middle class and those opposed to it might want to overlook their real constituents; for-profit colleges, wealthy donors and corporations. There is widespread support for action like this from high profile senators like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton but most importantly an overwhelming majority of Americans support this kind of legislation. By making college tuition free, education would be accessible to more, the burden of student debt would disappear, and the American Dream may once again be achievable. 

