Monday, October 5, 1998

THE POST

Athens, Ohio * An Independent Daily Newspaper * Ohio University


Equal access to finances

Most students receiving subsidized student loans welcomed last week's federal passage of a bill that lowered interest rates on loans and raised the maximum amount of money students can receive from Pell Grants.

The mostly student-friendly Higher Education Act Congress, passed Sept. 29, also instilled a four-month time period in which loan payments can be combined into one payment system with a single interest rate.

But not all of the changes will benefit students.

The bill includes a provision to limit the financial aid eligibility of students convicted on drug charges. Upon first or second convictions, students will lose financial aid eligibility for one or two years, respectively. A student convicted on drug charges three times will lose eligibility permanently. And the stakes are higher for students convicted of drug dealing.

This provision establishes unfair limits for students seeking financial aid. Educators should not connect a student's criminal record with financial need, and singling out drug convictions places an unfair disadvantage on students convicted of only one kind of crime.

Perhaps students make a criminal mistake in the past and now are trying to get their lives back on track. Perhaps students are mixed up in criminal charges that do not relate to their education. These students should not be denied the right to seek or receive financial aid.

Federal higher education acts should focus on improving higher education and helping more students attain that education. A provision that limits the educational opportunities of convicted students does nothing to help advance such causes.

Spending the surplus
For the first time since 1969, the federal government spent less money than it brought in. On Oct.1, as the government closed its books on the fiscal year, President Clinton announced a budget surplus estimated at $70 billion.

The government now is faced with the dilemma of investing or spending the money as it sees fit. Economists and politicians are divided in the spending debate, arguing whether the $70 billion would be better used to help strengthen Social Security, start leveling-off the $5.5 trillion national debt or change the federal tax system.

Although $70 billion is only a drop in the bucket, we advocate putting the money toward reducing the national debt.

Clinton told Congress the money should be kept in reserve until the government can plan a more stable Social Security plan. We agree the government must re-evaluate the uses and pay-offs available with Social Security, but using the national surplus to pay for these options is not the answer. The plan must be re-evaluated completely before national money is poured into a leaky bucket.

Amid the plunging world markets, the surplus provides a confidence boost, even if temporary, for investors and politicians. A lower national debt would increase that feeling of security for Americans, and in turn the nation would become an even larger economic player than it is now. Imagine investing money or researching federal spending without factoring in the cloud of a growing national debt.

A reduced national debt also could allow for more flexible economic and social policy, including increased money for domestic programs and lower taxes. In general, using the estimated $70 billion to lower the national debt can be seen as a springboard to greater economic and political freedom.

[Front Page] [Top Story] [Today's Edition] [The Post Archives] [About The Post] [Post Phone Numbers] [Staff Resumes] [Advertising Information] [Contact Us] [Useful Links] [Entertainment]