SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Rebuilding a higher education system so that everyone who wants one can get a post-high school education - debt-free - can be a winning issue in the 2016 election. But it won't come without a fight.
Many young people are discovering a historical secret: There was a time, only a few decades ago when almost all Americans could find a way to attend college or university (like the University of California or New York University) and emerge with a degree without going into debt. Today, a new generation has begun to rebel against an education-financial system that seems to take for granted the imposition of huge debts - often over $200,000 in student loans - for the privilege of competing for decent jobs in a Hunger Games-style economy.
On Monday, Hillary Clinton responded to the emerging Student Debt Voter movement with her own plan to reduce the cost of college education and the burden of student debt. She calls it her New College Compact, presented at a forum in New Hampshire. (Video and transcript.) While not as ambitious as the plans advanced by her competitors for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, Clinton's proposals are large in scale, and they set a goal of making it possible to attend public colleges and universities and graduate debt-free - but there will surely be a debate over whether her plan might still force students or parents to take on debt to pay for room and board. She also pulls together many of the best proposals out there - some advanced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) - to help people who are struggling to pay off their student loans by renegotiating interest rates and adjusting debt payments to match people's incomes.
Millennial activists and education experts will soon publish comparative analyses of the different parts of the Clinton proposals and those of her Democratic rivals. So we won't do that here. But it is important to stress that Democrats are now debating the relative strengths and weaknesses of these three bold plans as a result of an energetic and effective organizing campaign on the part of progressive activists - working closely with populist leaders in Congress like Warren and the leaders of the Progressive Caucus - and like Sanders. Here's how we made it happen.
Warren has been working steadily to take the student loan system out of private bankers' hands and into the public sector's domain. She has also sought to reduce profiteering on student loans, lowering interest rates and the overall costs our loan-based system imposes on students and their families. Coalitions like Higher Ed and Not Debt have pushed for repayment systems that adjust payments to the actual income of the people struggling to repay. And the steadily building pressure of this growing effort to rationalize the system led many to ask why we have a debt-based system at all. In this system, $1.3 trillion in debt now burdens and distorts the lives of over 41 million people in America.
All this public pressure led President Obama to propose an important step forward: his plan for two years of tuition-free community college. If two years is a good idea, what about four years of free college at any public university? Almost immediately, groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee built support for this even bolder idea. Leaders of the Progressive Caucus joined with Senator Warren and others to introduce a congressional resolution urging that all students who attend public colleges and universities have access to debt-free college educations. PCCC, with the help of eight other groups (including our Campaign for America's Future), gathered over 400,000 signatures on a petition in support.
Bring Back Free College and Cancel Debt for the 'In-Betweeners'
Only a few months later, all major Democratic presidential candidates embraced the idea of a four-year debt-free college. All acknowledge that this part of their plan will cost federal money (raised via increasing taxes). The new money will go to state universities on the condition that the states put in additional funds (reversing the trend of cutbacks in recent decades) to achieve a financing level where tuition can be eliminated or reduced to manageable levels.
Sanders would spend $47 billion per year to eliminate tuition and fees, with states covering 33 percent of the costs of getting rid of tuition (which now totals $70 billion annually). Clinton said her whole plan would cost $350 billion over 10 years, with more than half going to grants to states to reduce tuition (at least $20 billion per year for reducing tuition costs under her plan). The debate now becomes whose plan is big enough to make college debt-free - along with all the other details focused on cost controls, increasing Pell Grants, and special outreach to populations who wouldn't normally think about higher education. But this will be a very productive debate - advancing the details of an idea that only a few months ago only a few were taking seriously. And it must be said one of those pioneers was Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Liberate 41 Million Americans From Student Loan Debt.
There is another part of the grassroots movement for debt-free college - and that has to do with relieving $1.3 trillion in student debt that now burdens the several generations of Americans who had no choice but to take on debt to finance their education. If we move to a system that makes college debt-free, it is only right that the 41 million struggling to deal with that debt should get some relief. IAF's National Student Debt Jubilee Project, led by Mary and Steven Swig, argues that wiping out all student debt (based on a time-honored practical and moral Jubilee practice) would be good for all Americans because it would stimulate the economy, creating jobs and growth. The idea is a common-sense one: the people now forced to labor at jobs they hate would be liberated to create new businesses they invest with creativity. Younger workers (rapidly aging) would be freed of debt and able to get married, start families, and buy houses and cars - and the debt forgiven would inject new life into a struggling economy.
None of the presidential candidates has taken action to reduce the overall debt burden except through half-measures, like negotiating lower rates or better payment terms. But the organizing has begun: " Sen. Warren Receives 240,000 Signatures Asking CANCEL ALL STUDENT DEBT."
There are two areas where immediate debt relief seems obvious:
Free the Corinthian 100+. This article describes the growing movement to demand debt forgiveness for the many, many young people who were lured into taking on student debt by rip-off for-profit colleges, like Corinthian and others, who delivered a bad education and then went bankrupt, leaving their students with a lousy education and bad employment prospects but with a large burden of student debt. Over 100 brave former students have gone on strike, refusing to pay their debt payments. The resulting movement has gotten the Education Department to acknowledge they have the power to wipe out these debts, and the resulting movement has pressured the Department to (far too slowly) begin to set up mechanisms for these people to free themselves from the dead weight of their student debt. We should all support this proposition: If a college rips off students and leaves them stranded, they should not have to pay those debts. They should be able to get on with their lives.
Don't Let Student Debt Haunt Americans to the Grave. Many seniors - 706,000 households headed by someone 65 or older - are still paying off their student debt, according to a report by the GAO. Collectively, these households owed $18.2 billion in 2013. The government can take up to 15 percent of a Social Security check to pay back a student loan if the monthly check amount does not drop below $750 a month. Social Security payments could not be seized for any reason until - for the first time - Congress created an exception for student debt in 1996. The original Social Security Act of 1935 stated that benefits were not "subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law."
Surely, America can and should establish the principle that, having been forced to take on debt during this aberrational period, Americans who reach the age of 65 and depend on Social Security for most of their income should not have to continue paying off student loans from their Social Security checks.
Interestingly, one line in Clinton's speech on Monday points in this direction. Speaking of her limited debt reform proposals, she declared: "Your debt will only last for a fixed period of time. It will not hang over your head forever." That should obviously mean that debt should not last until you get to Social Security age. It is a start toward a debt jubilee.
Debt-Free College and Action on Debt Can Win Primaries - and the General Election
Many people can claim credit for Hillary Clinton's New Compact plan. As she acknowledged in her speech on the future of college education and debt, she responded to our organizing, including "young progressive activists who have put the issue of student debt at the top of the agenda." At the Campaign for America's Future, we work with groups like Young Invincibles to ensure that Clinton and the other candidates are confronted at every stop by young people in our t-shirt that declares I AM A STUDENT DEBT VOTER. ( You can get those t-shirts here.) And here's Clinton with one of those "young progressive activists" in Iowa:
Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, and Hillary Clinton all think of themselves as champions of debt-free college - and of reducing the burden of past student debt. They also think their proposals give them a winning edge in the Democratic caucuses and primaries. Those of us who put these issues on the table should push to get them to debate to explain and improve their plans.
Take It To the General Election
However, we need to make sure that our progressive college affordability ideas are made into big winning issues in the general election. So far, we have heard nothing but bromides - and some of them dangerous - from the large number of Republicans running to win the White House. None of them identify with President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican who believed in investing in infrastructure and education. And their ideological blinders make them unable to be as creative as the Eisenhower Republicans (and the Veterans of Foreign Wars) who supported the vast investments in the GI Bill that today's Republicans would consider unaffordable.
The Asbury Park Press reports that Gov. Chris Christie, in an interview on Fox & Friends, "said the top two issues people in New Hampshire ask him about are terrorism, specifically the Islamic State, and student debt accumulated by college students." We know that Christie and all the others have a lot to say about terrorism, much of it wrong - but what do they have to say to the many, many Americans, including lots of Republicans, who are standing up at town halls and asking them what they would do about student debt?
The video the Clinton campaign released with her plan contains a good line: "Higher education should be a right - not a privilege for those who can afford it."
Rebuilding our higher education system so that everyone who wants one can get a post-high school education - debt-free - can be a winning issue in the 2016 election. But we must work hard to keep it on the front burner as a very important part of the economic debate.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Many young people are discovering a historical secret: There was a time, only a few decades ago when almost all Americans could find a way to attend college or university (like the University of California or New York University) and emerge with a degree without going into debt. Today, a new generation has begun to rebel against an education-financial system that seems to take for granted the imposition of huge debts - often over $200,000 in student loans - for the privilege of competing for decent jobs in a Hunger Games-style economy.
On Monday, Hillary Clinton responded to the emerging Student Debt Voter movement with her own plan to reduce the cost of college education and the burden of student debt. She calls it her New College Compact, presented at a forum in New Hampshire. (Video and transcript.) While not as ambitious as the plans advanced by her competitors for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, Clinton's proposals are large in scale, and they set a goal of making it possible to attend public colleges and universities and graduate debt-free - but there will surely be a debate over whether her plan might still force students or parents to take on debt to pay for room and board. She also pulls together many of the best proposals out there - some advanced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) - to help people who are struggling to pay off their student loans by renegotiating interest rates and adjusting debt payments to match people's incomes.
Millennial activists and education experts will soon publish comparative analyses of the different parts of the Clinton proposals and those of her Democratic rivals. So we won't do that here. But it is important to stress that Democrats are now debating the relative strengths and weaknesses of these three bold plans as a result of an energetic and effective organizing campaign on the part of progressive activists - working closely with populist leaders in Congress like Warren and the leaders of the Progressive Caucus - and like Sanders. Here's how we made it happen.
Warren has been working steadily to take the student loan system out of private bankers' hands and into the public sector's domain. She has also sought to reduce profiteering on student loans, lowering interest rates and the overall costs our loan-based system imposes on students and their families. Coalitions like Higher Ed and Not Debt have pushed for repayment systems that adjust payments to the actual income of the people struggling to repay. And the steadily building pressure of this growing effort to rationalize the system led many to ask why we have a debt-based system at all. In this system, $1.3 trillion in debt now burdens and distorts the lives of over 41 million people in America.
All this public pressure led President Obama to propose an important step forward: his plan for two years of tuition-free community college. If two years is a good idea, what about four years of free college at any public university? Almost immediately, groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee built support for this even bolder idea. Leaders of the Progressive Caucus joined with Senator Warren and others to introduce a congressional resolution urging that all students who attend public colleges and universities have access to debt-free college educations. PCCC, with the help of eight other groups (including our Campaign for America's Future), gathered over 400,000 signatures on a petition in support.
Bring Back Free College and Cancel Debt for the 'In-Betweeners'
Only a few months later, all major Democratic presidential candidates embraced the idea of a four-year debt-free college. All acknowledge that this part of their plan will cost federal money (raised via increasing taxes). The new money will go to state universities on the condition that the states put in additional funds (reversing the trend of cutbacks in recent decades) to achieve a financing level where tuition can be eliminated or reduced to manageable levels.
Sanders would spend $47 billion per year to eliminate tuition and fees, with states covering 33 percent of the costs of getting rid of tuition (which now totals $70 billion annually). Clinton said her whole plan would cost $350 billion over 10 years, with more than half going to grants to states to reduce tuition (at least $20 billion per year for reducing tuition costs under her plan). The debate now becomes whose plan is big enough to make college debt-free - along with all the other details focused on cost controls, increasing Pell Grants, and special outreach to populations who wouldn't normally think about higher education. But this will be a very productive debate - advancing the details of an idea that only a few months ago only a few were taking seriously. And it must be said one of those pioneers was Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Liberate 41 Million Americans From Student Loan Debt.
There is another part of the grassroots movement for debt-free college - and that has to do with relieving $1.3 trillion in student debt that now burdens the several generations of Americans who had no choice but to take on debt to finance their education. If we move to a system that makes college debt-free, it is only right that the 41 million struggling to deal with that debt should get some relief. IAF's National Student Debt Jubilee Project, led by Mary and Steven Swig, argues that wiping out all student debt (based on a time-honored practical and moral Jubilee practice) would be good for all Americans because it would stimulate the economy, creating jobs and growth. The idea is a common-sense one: the people now forced to labor at jobs they hate would be liberated to create new businesses they invest with creativity. Younger workers (rapidly aging) would be freed of debt and able to get married, start families, and buy houses and cars - and the debt forgiven would inject new life into a struggling economy.
None of the presidential candidates has taken action to reduce the overall debt burden except through half-measures, like negotiating lower rates or better payment terms. But the organizing has begun: " Sen. Warren Receives 240,000 Signatures Asking CANCEL ALL STUDENT DEBT."
There are two areas where immediate debt relief seems obvious:
Free the Corinthian 100+. This article describes the growing movement to demand debt forgiveness for the many, many young people who were lured into taking on student debt by rip-off for-profit colleges, like Corinthian and others, who delivered a bad education and then went bankrupt, leaving their students with a lousy education and bad employment prospects but with a large burden of student debt. Over 100 brave former students have gone on strike, refusing to pay their debt payments. The resulting movement has gotten the Education Department to acknowledge they have the power to wipe out these debts, and the resulting movement has pressured the Department to (far too slowly) begin to set up mechanisms for these people to free themselves from the dead weight of their student debt. We should all support this proposition: If a college rips off students and leaves them stranded, they should not have to pay those debts. They should be able to get on with their lives.
Don't Let Student Debt Haunt Americans to the Grave. Many seniors - 706,000 households headed by someone 65 or older - are still paying off their student debt, according to a report by the GAO. Collectively, these households owed $18.2 billion in 2013. The government can take up to 15 percent of a Social Security check to pay back a student loan if the monthly check amount does not drop below $750 a month. Social Security payments could not be seized for any reason until - for the first time - Congress created an exception for student debt in 1996. The original Social Security Act of 1935 stated that benefits were not "subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law."
Surely, America can and should establish the principle that, having been forced to take on debt during this aberrational period, Americans who reach the age of 65 and depend on Social Security for most of their income should not have to continue paying off student loans from their Social Security checks.
Interestingly, one line in Clinton's speech on Monday points in this direction. Speaking of her limited debt reform proposals, she declared: "Your debt will only last for a fixed period of time. It will not hang over your head forever." That should obviously mean that debt should not last until you get to Social Security age. It is a start toward a debt jubilee.
Debt-Free College and Action on Debt Can Win Primaries - and the General Election
Many people can claim credit for Hillary Clinton's New Compact plan. As she acknowledged in her speech on the future of college education and debt, she responded to our organizing, including "young progressive activists who have put the issue of student debt at the top of the agenda." At the Campaign for America's Future, we work with groups like Young Invincibles to ensure that Clinton and the other candidates are confronted at every stop by young people in our t-shirt that declares I AM A STUDENT DEBT VOTER. ( You can get those t-shirts here.) And here's Clinton with one of those "young progressive activists" in Iowa:
Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, and Hillary Clinton all think of themselves as champions of debt-free college - and of reducing the burden of past student debt. They also think their proposals give them a winning edge in the Democratic caucuses and primaries. Those of us who put these issues on the table should push to get them to debate to explain and improve their plans.
Take It To the General Election
However, we need to make sure that our progressive college affordability ideas are made into big winning issues in the general election. So far, we have heard nothing but bromides - and some of them dangerous - from the large number of Republicans running to win the White House. None of them identify with President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican who believed in investing in infrastructure and education. And their ideological blinders make them unable to be as creative as the Eisenhower Republicans (and the Veterans of Foreign Wars) who supported the vast investments in the GI Bill that today's Republicans would consider unaffordable.
The Asbury Park Press reports that Gov. Chris Christie, in an interview on Fox & Friends, "said the top two issues people in New Hampshire ask him about are terrorism, specifically the Islamic State, and student debt accumulated by college students." We know that Christie and all the others have a lot to say about terrorism, much of it wrong - but what do they have to say to the many, many Americans, including lots of Republicans, who are standing up at town halls and asking them what they would do about student debt?
The video the Clinton campaign released with her plan contains a good line: "Higher education should be a right - not a privilege for those who can afford it."
Rebuilding our higher education system so that everyone who wants one can get a post-high school education - debt-free - can be a winning issue in the 2016 election. But we must work hard to keep it on the front burner as a very important part of the economic debate.
Many young people are discovering a historical secret: There was a time, only a few decades ago when almost all Americans could find a way to attend college or university (like the University of California or New York University) and emerge with a degree without going into debt. Today, a new generation has begun to rebel against an education-financial system that seems to take for granted the imposition of huge debts - often over $200,000 in student loans - for the privilege of competing for decent jobs in a Hunger Games-style economy.
On Monday, Hillary Clinton responded to the emerging Student Debt Voter movement with her own plan to reduce the cost of college education and the burden of student debt. She calls it her New College Compact, presented at a forum in New Hampshire. (Video and transcript.) While not as ambitious as the plans advanced by her competitors for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, Clinton's proposals are large in scale, and they set a goal of making it possible to attend public colleges and universities and graduate debt-free - but there will surely be a debate over whether her plan might still force students or parents to take on debt to pay for room and board. She also pulls together many of the best proposals out there - some advanced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) - to help people who are struggling to pay off their student loans by renegotiating interest rates and adjusting debt payments to match people's incomes.
Millennial activists and education experts will soon publish comparative analyses of the different parts of the Clinton proposals and those of her Democratic rivals. So we won't do that here. But it is important to stress that Democrats are now debating the relative strengths and weaknesses of these three bold plans as a result of an energetic and effective organizing campaign on the part of progressive activists - working closely with populist leaders in Congress like Warren and the leaders of the Progressive Caucus - and like Sanders. Here's how we made it happen.
Warren has been working steadily to take the student loan system out of private bankers' hands and into the public sector's domain. She has also sought to reduce profiteering on student loans, lowering interest rates and the overall costs our loan-based system imposes on students and their families. Coalitions like Higher Ed and Not Debt have pushed for repayment systems that adjust payments to the actual income of the people struggling to repay. And the steadily building pressure of this growing effort to rationalize the system led many to ask why we have a debt-based system at all. In this system, $1.3 trillion in debt now burdens and distorts the lives of over 41 million people in America.
All this public pressure led President Obama to propose an important step forward: his plan for two years of tuition-free community college. If two years is a good idea, what about four years of free college at any public university? Almost immediately, groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee built support for this even bolder idea. Leaders of the Progressive Caucus joined with Senator Warren and others to introduce a congressional resolution urging that all students who attend public colleges and universities have access to debt-free college educations. PCCC, with the help of eight other groups (including our Campaign for America's Future), gathered over 400,000 signatures on a petition in support.
Bring Back Free College and Cancel Debt for the 'In-Betweeners'
Only a few months later, all major Democratic presidential candidates embraced the idea of a four-year debt-free college. All acknowledge that this part of their plan will cost federal money (raised via increasing taxes). The new money will go to state universities on the condition that the states put in additional funds (reversing the trend of cutbacks in recent decades) to achieve a financing level where tuition can be eliminated or reduced to manageable levels.
Sanders would spend $47 billion per year to eliminate tuition and fees, with states covering 33 percent of the costs of getting rid of tuition (which now totals $70 billion annually). Clinton said her whole plan would cost $350 billion over 10 years, with more than half going to grants to states to reduce tuition (at least $20 billion per year for reducing tuition costs under her plan). The debate now becomes whose plan is big enough to make college debt-free - along with all the other details focused on cost controls, increasing Pell Grants, and special outreach to populations who wouldn't normally think about higher education. But this will be a very productive debate - advancing the details of an idea that only a few months ago only a few were taking seriously. And it must be said one of those pioneers was Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Liberate 41 Million Americans From Student Loan Debt.
There is another part of the grassroots movement for debt-free college - and that has to do with relieving $1.3 trillion in student debt that now burdens the several generations of Americans who had no choice but to take on debt to finance their education. If we move to a system that makes college debt-free, it is only right that the 41 million struggling to deal with that debt should get some relief. IAF's National Student Debt Jubilee Project, led by Mary and Steven Swig, argues that wiping out all student debt (based on a time-honored practical and moral Jubilee practice) would be good for all Americans because it would stimulate the economy, creating jobs and growth. The idea is a common-sense one: the people now forced to labor at jobs they hate would be liberated to create new businesses they invest with creativity. Younger workers (rapidly aging) would be freed of debt and able to get married, start families, and buy houses and cars - and the debt forgiven would inject new life into a struggling economy.
None of the presidential candidates has taken action to reduce the overall debt burden except through half-measures, like negotiating lower rates or better payment terms. But the organizing has begun: " Sen. Warren Receives 240,000 Signatures Asking CANCEL ALL STUDENT DEBT."
There are two areas where immediate debt relief seems obvious:
Free the Corinthian 100+. This article describes the growing movement to demand debt forgiveness for the many, many young people who were lured into taking on student debt by rip-off for-profit colleges, like Corinthian and others, who delivered a bad education and then went bankrupt, leaving their students with a lousy education and bad employment prospects but with a large burden of student debt. Over 100 brave former students have gone on strike, refusing to pay their debt payments. The resulting movement has gotten the Education Department to acknowledge they have the power to wipe out these debts, and the resulting movement has pressured the Department to (far too slowly) begin to set up mechanisms for these people to free themselves from the dead weight of their student debt. We should all support this proposition: If a college rips off students and leaves them stranded, they should not have to pay those debts. They should be able to get on with their lives.
Don't Let Student Debt Haunt Americans to the Grave. Many seniors - 706,000 households headed by someone 65 or older - are still paying off their student debt, according to a report by the GAO. Collectively, these households owed $18.2 billion in 2013. The government can take up to 15 percent of a Social Security check to pay back a student loan if the monthly check amount does not drop below $750 a month. Social Security payments could not be seized for any reason until - for the first time - Congress created an exception for student debt in 1996. The original Social Security Act of 1935 stated that benefits were not "subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law."
Surely, America can and should establish the principle that, having been forced to take on debt during this aberrational period, Americans who reach the age of 65 and depend on Social Security for most of their income should not have to continue paying off student loans from their Social Security checks.
Interestingly, one line in Clinton's speech on Monday points in this direction. Speaking of her limited debt reform proposals, she declared: "Your debt will only last for a fixed period of time. It will not hang over your head forever." That should obviously mean that debt should not last until you get to Social Security age. It is a start toward a debt jubilee.
Debt-Free College and Action on Debt Can Win Primaries - and the General Election
Many people can claim credit for Hillary Clinton's New Compact plan. As she acknowledged in her speech on the future of college education and debt, she responded to our organizing, including "young progressive activists who have put the issue of student debt at the top of the agenda." At the Campaign for America's Future, we work with groups like Young Invincibles to ensure that Clinton and the other candidates are confronted at every stop by young people in our t-shirt that declares I AM A STUDENT DEBT VOTER. ( You can get those t-shirts here.) And here's Clinton with one of those "young progressive activists" in Iowa:
Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, and Hillary Clinton all think of themselves as champions of debt-free college - and of reducing the burden of past student debt. They also think their proposals give them a winning edge in the Democratic caucuses and primaries. Those of us who put these issues on the table should push to get them to debate to explain and improve their plans.
Take It To the General Election
However, we need to make sure that our progressive college affordability ideas are made into big winning issues in the general election. So far, we have heard nothing but bromides - and some of them dangerous - from the large number of Republicans running to win the White House. None of them identify with President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican who believed in investing in infrastructure and education. And their ideological blinders make them unable to be as creative as the Eisenhower Republicans (and the Veterans of Foreign Wars) who supported the vast investments in the GI Bill that today's Republicans would consider unaffordable.
The Asbury Park Press reports that Gov. Chris Christie, in an interview on Fox & Friends, "said the top two issues people in New Hampshire ask him about are terrorism, specifically the Islamic State, and student debt accumulated by college students." We know that Christie and all the others have a lot to say about terrorism, much of it wrong - but what do they have to say to the many, many Americans, including lots of Republicans, who are standing up at town halls and asking them what they would do about student debt?
The video the Clinton campaign released with her plan contains a good line: "Higher education should be a right - not a privilege for those who can afford it."
Rebuilding our higher education system so that everyone who wants one can get a post-high school education - debt-free - can be a winning issue in the 2016 election. But we must work hard to keep it on the front burner as a very important part of the economic debate.
"The very institution that is supposed to keep district residents safe is now allowing ICE to jeopardize the safety and lives of hardworking immigrants and their families," said one local labor leader.
The ACLU and a local branch of one of the nation's largest labor unions were among those who condemned Thursday's order by Washington, DC's police chief authorizing greater cooperation with federal forces sent by President Donald Trump to target and arrest undocumented immigrants in the sanctuary city.
Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela Smith issued an executive order directing MPD officers to assist federal forces including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in sharing information about people in situations including traffic stops. The directive does not apply to people already in MPD custody. The order also allows MPD to provide transportation for federal immigration agencies and people they've detained.
While Trump called the order a "great step," immigrant defenders slammed the move.
"Now our police department is going to be complicit and be reporting our own people to ICE?" DC Councilmember Janeese Lewis George (D-Ward 4) said. "We have values in this city. Coordination and cooperation means we become a part of the regime."
ACLU DC executive director Monica Hopkins said in a statement that "DC police chief's new order inviting collaboration with ICE is dangerous and unnecessary."
"Immigration enforcement is not the role of local police—and when law enforcement aligns itself with ICE, it fosters fear among DC residents, regardless of citizenship status," Hopkins continued. "Our police should serve the people of DC, not ICE's deportation machine."
"As the federal government scales up Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, including mass deportations, we see how local law enforcement face pressure to participate," she added. "Federal courts across the country have found both ICE and local agencies liable for unconstitutional detentions under ICE detainers. Police departments that choose to carry out the federal government's business risk losing the trust they need to keep communities safe."
Understanding your rights can help you stay calm and advocate for yourself if approached by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or police. 🧵
[image or embed]
— ACLU of the District of Columbia (@aclu-dc.bsky.social) August 11, 2025 at 7:30 AM
Jaime Contreras, executive vice president and Latino caucus chair of 32BJ SEIU, a local Service Employees International Union branch, said, "It should horrify everyone that DC's police chief has just laid out the welcoming mat for the Trump administration to continue its wave of terror throughout our city."
"The very institution that is supposed to keep district residents safe is now allowing ICE to jeopardize the safety and lives of hardworking immigrants and their families," Contreras continued. "Their complicity is dangerous enough but helping to enforce Trump's tactics and procedures are a violation of the values of DC residents."
"DC needs a chief who will not cave to this administration's fear tactics aimed at silencing anyone who speaks out against injustice," Contreras added. "We call for an immediate end to these rogue attacks that deny basic due process, separates families, and wrongly deports hardworking immigrants and their families."
The condemnation—and local protests—came as dozens of immigrants have been detained this week as government forces occupy and fan out across the city following Trump's deployment of National Guard troops and federalization of the MPD. The president dubiously declared a public safety emergency on Monday, invoking Section 740 of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act. Trump also said that he would ask the Republican-controlled Congress to authorize an extension of his federal takeover beyond the 30 days allowed under Section 740.
Washington, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser—a Democrat who calls the occupying agencies "our federal partners"—has quietly sought to overturn the capital's Sanctuary Values Amendment Act of 2020, which prohibits MPD from releasing detained individuals to ICE or inquiring about their legal status. The law also limits city officials' cooperation with immigration agencies, including by restricting information sharing regarding individuals in MPD custody.
While the DC Council recently blocked Bowser's attempt to slip legislation repealing the sanctuary policy into her proposed 2026 budget, Congress has the power to modify or even overturn Washington laws under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973. In June, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed Rep. Clay Higgins' (R-La.) District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act, which would repeal Washington's sanctuary policies and compel compliance with requests from the Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE. The Senate is currently considering the bill.
Trump's crackdown has also targeted Washington's unhoused population, with MPD conducting sweeps of encampments around the city.
"There's definitely a lot of chaos, fear, and confusion," Amber Harding, executive director of the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, told CNN Thursday.
David Beatty, an unhoused man living in an encampment near the Kennedy Center that Trump threateningly singled out last week, was among the victims of a Thursday sweep.
Beatty told USA Today that Trump "is targeting and persecuting us," adding that "he wants to take our freedom away."
Nearly two-thirds of Americans said they disapprove of the Trump administration slashing the Social Security Administration workforce.
As the US marked the 90th anniversary of one of its most broadly popular public programs, Social Security, on Thursday, President Donald Trump marked the occasion by claiming at an Oval Office event that his administration has saved the retirees' safety net from "fraud" perpetrated by undocumented immigrants—but new polling showed that Trump's approach to the Social Security Administration is among his most unpopular agenda items.
The progressive think tank Data for Progress asked 1,176 likely voters about eight key Trump administration agenda items, including pushing for staffing cuts at the Social Security Administration; signing the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is projected to raise the cost of living for millions as people will be shut out of food assistance and Medicaid; and firing tens of thousands of federal workers—and found that some of Americans' biggest concerns are about the fate of the agency that SSA chief Frank Bisignano has pledged to make "digital-first."
Sixty-three percent of respondents said they oppose the proposed layoffs of about 7,000 SSA staffers, or about 12% of its workforce—which, as progressives including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have warned, have led to longer wait times for beneficiaries who rely on their monthly earned Social Security checks to pay for groceries, housing, medications, and other essentials.
Forty-five percent of people surveyed said they were "very concerned" about the cuts.
Only the Trump administration's decision not to release files related to the Jeffrey Epstein case was more opposed by respondents, with 65% saying they disapproved of the failure to disclose the documents, which involve the financier and convicted sex offender who was a known friend of the president. But fewer voters—about 39%—said they were "very concerned" about the files.
Among "persuadable voters"—those who said they were as likely to vote for candidates from either major political party in upcoming elections—70% said they opposed the cuts to Social Security.
The staffing cuts have forced Social Security field offices across the country to close, and as Sanders said Wednesday as he introduced the Keep Billionaires Out of Social Security Act, the 1-800 number beneficiaries have to call to receive their benefits "is a mess," with staffers overwhelmed due to the loss of more than 4,000 employees so far.
As Common Dreams reported in July, another policy change this month is expected to leave senior citizens and beneficiaries with disabilities unable to perform routine tasks related to their benefits over the phone, as they have for decades—forcing them to rely on a complicated online verification process.
Late last month, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent admitted that despite repeated claims from Trump that he won't attempt to privatize Social Security, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act offers a "backdoor way" for Republicans to do just that.
The law's inclusion of tax-deferred investment accounts called "Trump accounts" that will be available to US citizen children starting next July could allow the GOP to privatize the program as it has hoped to for decades.
"Right now, the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are quietly creating problems for Social Security so they can later hand it off to their private equity buddies," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) on Thursday.
Marking the program's 90th anniversary, Sanders touted his Keep Billionaires Out of Social Security Act.
"This legislation would reverse all of the cuts that the Trump administration has made to the Social Security Administration," said Sanders. "It would make it easier, not harder, for seniors and people with disabilities to receive the benefits they have earned over the phone."
"Each and every year, some 30,000 people die—they die while waiting for their Social Security benefits to be approved," said Sanders. "And Trump's cuts will make this terrible situation even worse. We cannot and must not allow that to happen."
"Voters have made their feelings clear," said the leader of Justice Democrats. "The majority do not see themselves in this party and do not believe in its leaders or many of its representatives."
A top progressive leader has given her prescription for how the Democratic Party can begin to retake power from US President Donald Trump: Ousting "corporate-funded" candidates.
Justice Democrats executive director Alexandra Rojas wrote Thursday in The Guardian that, "If the Democratic Party wants to win back power in 2028," its members need to begin to redefine themselves in the 2026 midterms.
"Voters have made their feelings clear, a majority do not see themselves in this party and do not believe in its leaders or many of its representatives," Rojas said. "They need a new generation of leaders with fresh faces and bold ideas, unbought by corporate super [political action committees] and billionaire donors, to give them a new path and vision to believe in."
Despite Trump's increasing unpopularity, a Gallup poll from July 31 found that the Democratic Party still has record-low approval across the country.
Rojas called for "working-class, progressive primary challenges to the overwhelming number of corporate Democratic incumbents who have rightfully been dubbed as do-nothing electeds."
According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in June, nearly two-thirds of self-identified Democrats said they desired new leadership, with many believing that the party did not share top priorities, like universal healthcare, affordable childcare, and higher taxes on the rich.
Young voters were especially dissatisfied with the current state of the party and were much less likely to believe the party shared their priorities.
Democrats have made some moves to address their "gerontocracy" problem—switching out the moribund then-President Joe Biden with Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race and swapping out longtime House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) for the younger Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.).
But Rojas says a face-lift for the party is not enough. They also need fresh ideas.
"Voters are also not simply seeking to replace their aging corporate shill representatives with younger corporate shills," she said. "More of the same from a younger generation is still more of the same."
Outside of a "small handful of outspoken progressives," she said the party has often been too eager to kowtow to Trump and tow the line of billionaire donors.
"Too many Democratic groups, and even some that call themselves progressive, are encouraging candidates' silence in the face of lobbies like [the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee] (AIPAC) and crypto's multimillion-dollar threats," she said.
A Public Citizen report found that in 2024, Democratic candidates and aligned PACs received millions of dollars from crypto firms like Coinbase, Ripple, and Andreesen Horowitz.
According to OpenSecrets, 58% of the 212 Democrats elected to the House in 2024—135 of them—received money from AIPAC, with an average contribution of $117,334. In the Senate, 17 Democrats who won their elections received donations—$195,015 on average.
The two top Democrats in Congress—Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—both have long histories of support from AIPAC, and embraced crypto with open arms after the industry flooded the 2024 campaign with cash.
"Too often, we hear from candidates and members who claim they are with us on the policy, but can't speak out on it because AIPAC or crypto will spend against them," Rojas said. "Silence is cowardice, and cowardice inspires no one."
Rojas noted Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), who was elected in 2022 despite an onslaught of attacks from AIPAC and who has since gone on to introduce legislation to ban super PACs from federal elections, as an example of this model's success.
"The path to more Democratic victories," Rojas said, "is not around, behind, and under these lobbies, but it's right through them, taking them head-on and ridding them from our politics once and for all."