|
May 28, 2012 - No. 78 Charest's Bogus Self-Serving "50 Cents a Day" Argument The Social Responsibility to Educate Our Youth  More than 200,000 demonstrate in Montreal on May 22, 2012: "I am socially responsible and against the hike!" "Education -- for the collective good!" Charest's
Bogus
Self-Serving
"50
Cents
a Day" Argument Charest's Bogus Self-Serving "50 Cents a Day" Argument The Social Responsibility to Educate Our YouthEvery society has the responsibility to educate its youth. If not, how can the people and their society survive? The ways and means of this responsibility are found in the material conditions of each society. As society becomes more social, complex and developed in terms of its organization and productive forces, the transfer of knowledge to the youth must become more social, public and organized to reflect society's material conditions and overcome the difficulties of further developing public education and the society as a whole. Our modern society and its members are charged with the social responsibility to ensure that all young people are educated to their potential so that they become capable of defending society's existing knowledge and developing it further so as to assist in solving our political, economic and social problems and opening a path forward. Previous societies of petty scattered production faced difficulties in educating their youth as they mainly depended on the efforts of extended families, guilds and religious organizations which restricted learning to their particular expertise or dogma. This meant that breakthroughs in knowledge, especially in science and the productivity of work often became lost in isolation or buried under the strict rules of production imposed by the ruling privileged class and religious elite. When the people rose up and broke the grip of the aristocracy and religious elite over the affairs of state, they opened up a path where science, the productivity of work and transfer of knowledge to the youth through public education could become powerful tools to improve the lives of the people and raise society to new heights.
Within this neoliberal agenda, Charest and others are imposing barriers on public education and the unfettered transfer of knowledge to our youth. His proposed tuition fee increases are another weapon to twist public education into serving private monopoly interests. His attack on public education and refusal to negotiate with students has inevitably led him to a "special law" to assault the democratic rights of all. These attacks on public right and the general interests of society are retrogressive and reveal a trait amongst the present ruling elite in Quebec and Canada's provinces to reintroduce remnants of the former oppressive regime based on aristocratic class privilege and the suffocating control of a religious elite. Our society cannot tolerate or survive such a tendency towards restricting democratic rights and the transfer of knowledge to our youth to serve private monopoly interests such as the banking oligopoly that profits from student loans. Manipulating public education to suit the particular private interests of big business is similar to the former control of young minds and bodies by the aristocracy and religious establishment. A social very public society such as Quebec and Canada cannot survive when private interests dominate and manipulate politics and the public domain including the central public space of transferring knowledge to our youth. Jean Charest's crusade to impose more restrictions on public education through tuition fee increases reflects the aristocratic notion that society exists to serve private interests not public interest. This quest to turn the clock back to the politics of an earlier era of petty scattered production dominated by an aristocracy, colonial power and religious dogma is in total contradiction with the needs and social responsibilities of our modern society. Such moves will not work and cannot work for our present society is public and social and will collapse if private privileged interests dominate. The youth know instinctively in their hearts that education must be open to all and that our society will not survive if restrictions are placed on democratic rights and the transfer of knowledge. The working class knows this instinctively as well but the ruling elite who favour class privilege, exploitation and religious obscurantism has put blinders on people through constant propaganda and backward measures such as individual taxation that create doubt as to how society can organize and fund the public transfer of knowledge.
Society and its members are firmly facing the political power of Charest. So too this must be done to face the political power of Harper and the provincial premiers to deprive the people of their democratic right to advance society. Through organized resistance to what is unjust, the people must keep advancing their own vision for society. They must do so in a manner which deprives the likes of Charest and Harper of their power to attack democratic rights and block society from fulfilling its duties to organize in a comprehensive public manner the unfettered transfer of knowledge to our youth to serve the public interest and the general interests of society. The working class and its allies must make sure public right and interest trump private monopoly right and interests because the anti-social wrecking agenda of the rich and their political representatives is unsustainable. Under its weight societies cannot survive. They will implode or explode in one way or another. Our youth have the right to the unrestricted transfer of knowledge from the previous generation and the duty to study and reach their potential and contribute to further developing society's knowledge. The people have the democratic duty and right to organize and fight to defend the public interest and advance society. No
to the Tuition Fee Increases and "Special Law"! Monopolies and Their Governments Are the Entitled, Not Quebec Students
  "Education is a right! Or is it for governments to profit?"; "A university is not a company. Oligarchs, we've had enough!" The monopoly media, including Alberta's Edmonton Journal and Calgary Herald, continue to turn out a steady stream of disinformation to undermine the just struggle of the Quebec students for the right to education, against higher tuition fees and Charest's war measure law, and for the right to resist and organize. One devious attack involves denouncing the students for their so-called sense of entitlement, by which is meant that the students have the temerity to actually demand that their right to education, which is theirs by virtue of being human, be provided with a guarantee. One typical Edmonton Journal columnist ranted from his bully pulpit on May 19: "Call them student activists if you want. I call them spoiled brats... These are vandals and anarchists who embrace the culture of victimization -- much like the sovereigntists in the Parti Québécois and the Bloc Québécois. Their epic sense of entitlement runs so deep, they can't stomach the thought of any hikes in what are -- by a country mile -- the lowest post-secondary tuition fees in Canada." Having slandered and attacked the Quebec students for their "sense of entitlement," as well as the millions of Quebeckers who support the right of the Quebec nation to self-determination, the same columnist then goes on to attack the people of Greece on the same basis: "In a way, the nonsense in Quebec echoes what's happening in Greece, where an equally well-entrenched culture of entitlement and a widespread aversion to honest toil has pushed the country to the edge of disaster. Greeks have lived beyond their means for decades." Of course the columnist makes no mention of the Greek oligarchs, like the shipping and other magnates, and foreign financiers who have accumulated billion dollar fortunes on the backs of the Greek workers with the connivance of the state and who are the cause of the Greek crisis. He also does not mention that with the austerity measures the Greek people have lost some 60 per cent of their purchasing power or that for the first time since the Second World War they suffer hunger and malnutrition. Then, as if that is not enough, the same columnist launches an even wilder attack against all the "citizens in other debt-ridden European countries, from Spain to Portugal to Ireland, [who] are now demanding their own get-out-of-jail-free cards." So who is it that is really entitled? Is it the Quebec students who are fighting for their right to education, the people of Quebec who support the right of Quebec to self-determination, and the people of Greece and other European countries who are fighting for all their rights against monopoly dictate and the so-called austerity measures dictated by the IMF and World Bank which will destroy their lives? Or is it the monopolies and their representatives in government, like Harper, who are the real "entitled" ones, since they are the ones who constantly dictate to everyone, lord it over the people, and treat all the resources and labour of entire countries as their own personal property to do with as they choose? It is no coincidence that the same attacks concerning a mythical "sense of entitlement" are also launched against the workers by the monopolies. In January 2012, Chrysler Group CEO Sergio Marchionne stated that the present wage, benefit and pension structure at Chrysler is an "outdated entitlement notion." According to Marchionne, wages, benefits and pensions are not legitimate claims on the value that workers produce but "outdated entitlements." What slander! And worse, he has coupled these demands with threats to close factories if autoworkers do not capitulate to Chrysler's demands for concessions. King Stephen Harper is drunk with the arrogance of his own entitlement as prime minister of Canada. This is mainly expressed through his continuing enforcement of his "royal prerogatives" and those of his ministers. When defending the "entitlement" of his Minister Bev Oda to cut off funding to the Kairos organization on political grounds, Harper told the House of Commons on February 15: "It is not the decision of appointed officials, it is not the entitlement of outside organizations. It is a decision of the minister to make sure that taxpayers' dollars are used effectively for foreign aid and that is what she has done." Ministerial prerogative was inserted into the system of so-called responsible government to make sure that power always remains in the hands of the ruling class representing the propertied interests and that governments have a way of enforcing this power without their decisions being declared ultra vires -- outside the constitution. Sovereignty is not vested in the people but in the crown, which today means the monopolies which control the economy and the affairs of state. With King Stephen quoting his entitlements at every turn, the House of Commons has become impotent, while he and his entourage get away with the most reactionary decisions possible on every front. The notion of "entitlement" was dredged up by the government of British Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher, which wrecked British society in the service of the monopolies, in order to obscure that people have rights by virtue of being human and that those rights must be provided with a guarantee. Thatcher stated on October 31, 1987: "Too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it.... They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society.... People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations." Entitlement, or a "sense of entitlement," as defined in the Thatcherian sense, means essentially "an unrealistic, unmerited or inappropriate expectation." Thus, the right to education becomes the entitlement to education, suggesting that it is unrealistic, unmerited, and inappropriate to expect that the right to education be provided with a guarantee. The same goes for the right to health care and so on. If such were really the case, then obviously a renewed society would be required! Tarring the Quebec students with the brush of "entitlement" is an attack on the very notion of society and a call to return to the law of the jungle, where the largest monopolies, who are the very ones enriched by higher tuition fees and student indebtedness and protected by Charest's war measure law, continue to exercise their "entitlement" to dictate to everyone. It must not pass!
"50 Cents a Day" Equals Over $100 Million More in Student Interest Payments to the Banks
From the other side of the equation, for the banks that furnish the student loans and profit from the tuition increase, the gain is not inconsequential. Using the government's own figures, the tuition increases eventually become an extra burden on students of $1,778 per year driving more and more students into the clutches of the banks. Even before the proposed tuition increase over 65 per cent of Quebec students upon completion of their post-secondary studies are saddled with a $14,000 or more student debt. Those students with debts are obviously already in need so how will they manage the extra $1,778? More likely than not they will have to add the increase to the yearly amount they already borrow. For some, this could become the "straw that breaks the camel's back" in terms of getting a post-secondary education or not, forcing them to drop out. Charest's flippant comment of "50 cents a day" dismisses this probability out of hand. The big banks in Quebec are up to their necks in this attack on education, as they are the ones that students are forced to go to cap in hand to borrow money. The added tuition fee totalling $1,778 or "50 cents a day" times (X) the total number of student borrowers over the next 15 years, let's say 50,000 for the sake of argument, translates into a possible increase in interest payments of over $100 million bled from former students not to speak of the amount the government must fork over to the banks. Also, the Quebec government guarantees this student borrowing so no risk is taken by the banks. The government even pays the interest on the loans while students are at college until they have to take over that depressing duty upon finishing their schooling. The government website makes the following comment: "While you are studying, the government pays the interest on your student loan. "Don't forget that you will always be responsible for your loan, despite the loan guarantee provided by the Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport. If you do not repay your financial institution, the Ministère will honour its guarantee [but will come after you for repayment even garnishing your wages]." Let's make some general assumptions to expose the "50 cents a day" as something more important than Charest's cavalier comment suggests. Let's assume the interest rate will remain low at 3.5% for the foreseeable future, which is highly unlikely. Let's use the $14,000 loan as the example, representing the 65 per cent of all students who upon finishing school are saddled with loans of that amount or greater. We will not calculate the interest paid by the government to the banks during the period students are still at school, which is considerable, but will begin the calculation when the former student begins to pay back the loan, which includes interest plus principal. First calculation: $14,000 at 3.5% interest (using National Bank loan repayment calculator) Let's assume a repayment period of 15 years although this varies considerably according to an arrangement worked out between the bank and debtor. Monthly repayments after leaving school are $99.91 for 180 months.
Total cost of loan to former student: $14,000 principal plus (+) $3,983.81 interest = $17,983.81 Proposed total tuition increase per year according to Charest plan when fully implemented: $1,778 Let's assume this increase must be borrowed in full because the students are already borrowing to make ends meet. Let's add the increase on to the original $14,000 over a period of study of four years: $1,778 times (X) 4 = $7,112 + $14,000 = $21,112 With Charest's "50 cents a day" increase the total loan to be repaid now becomes: $14,000 + $7,112 = $21,112 The new repayment amount for the $21,112 student loan at 3.5% interest (assuming interest rates remain at these historical lows, which is highly unlikely) becomes the following. If we keep the repayment at $100 per month after finishing school, the repayment period increases to 329 months or over 27 years, with an interest payment of over $11,000 but this option would not be allowed. If we keep the repayment period of 15 years after finishing school, we have to increase dramatically the monthly repayment amount. The monthly payment must increase from $100 per month to $150.66 per month for 180 months. Total cost of loan to former student becomes: $21,112 principal plus (+) $6,007.58 interest = $27,119.58 Let's assume that the number of students paying back their loans at any time is around 50,000. The interest alone to the banks upon repayment for those 50,000 loans at the Charest proposed increased amount for tuition would be = 50,000 times (X) $6,007.58 = $300,379,000. Prior to the "50 cents a day" tuition fee increase, the total interest to the banks for 50,000 student loans over the given period would be $199,190,500: 50,000 times (X) $3,983.81 = $199,190,500. The amount of interest to be paid after the "50 cents a day" tuition increase rises dramatically. With the tuition fee increase, the amount of interest paid to the banks expands from $199,190,500 to $300,379,000 in our example. (This does not take into account the many more students who will now have to borrow to pay the tuition and make ends meet or any interest rate hike.) The pay-the-rich amount in interest going to the banks with the "50 cents a day" tuition fee jumps by $101,188,500. This is not a frivolous amount to be ripped from the students and paid to the banks. And this amount does not include the ongoing increased amount of interest the government pays while students are still at school. No to the
Pay-the-Rich Tuition Increase! ***Eligible banks profiting from government guaranteed student loans in Quebec: - Desjardins caisse
50 Cents a Day?
In the conflict with college and university students, the Liberal government certainly has a flair for formulas. Following the presentation of the government's offer to the students [on May 5], [then] Education Minister Line Beauchamp told the media that it was not worth risking the school session for an "annual increase of 50 cents a day," an amount which, at first glance, seems quite small. As a professor of mathematics at the University of Sherbrooke, I am concerned by the government's "creative" use of mathematics to validate its point of view. How did they arrive at their famous "50 cents a day" from the Minister's proposed increases? To achieve this, it is necessary to use several tricks to make the $1,778 increase over seven years look smaller. First, the Ministry used a classic car salesman's trick -- advertise weekly payments instead of monthly payments -- after all, a $49 a week payment for a new car looks a lot more affordable than a $212 a month payment.[1] The government goes even further, presenting the hike in daily payments to make the increase appear even less than it really is. Next, it is important to understand that it is not a total increase of "50 cents a day," but that this is renewed each year. The "50 cents a day" therefore becomes "$1 more a day" the second year, "$1.50 more in 2014," so on and so forth until it becomes "$3.50 more a day" in seven years. In the government's communications, the repetitive nature of the increase also seems to fade more and more when using the argument of "50 cents a day." At the government's presentation of its measures on April 27, they again used the mathematically correct term of "50 cents a day."[2] But in an April 30 interview, Minister Beauchamp only mentioned the "50 cents a day" formula,[3] ("The bill is smaller, it is only 50 cents a day.") which is even more likely to create confusion because it is repeated annual increase and not the total cost. Finally, it is interesting to note that with a 50 cent a day increase, it would take 508 days in a year to attain a $254 annual increase (paying 50 cents a day, 508 payments would be necessary to arrive at $254 (508 X 0.50 = 254), equivalent to the annual increase). In its calculations, the Ministry takes into consideration a possible tax refund of a bit less than 30 per cent on the above amount. Without this deduction, at the end of the seventh year, the daily increase looks closer to $4.87 per day (1778 / 365 = 4.87). What would be the impact of the proposed increase on a student who undertakes a four-year bachelor degree, in fall 2015, when the better part of the increase will be effective? The total cost of tuition fees for the four years would amount to $14,260,[4] or $5,588 more than before the increase. It is thus important not to interpret Minister Beauchamp's formula as an increase of 50 cents a day. By putting aside 50 cents a day, it would take 30 years and seven months to attain the difference of $5,588 (11,176 days X 0.50 = $5588; 11,176 days equals 30.6 years). Even considering the possible tax return as Minister Beauchamp does, it would take more than 21 years before reaching the amount of the increase by putting aside 50 cents a day. The real cost that future students would assume is more bitter than the "50 cents a day" formula. Of course, these calculations don't consider modifications to the loans and bursaries program, which is a relatively small factor in the government's explanations. These modifications respond to a more complex logic and cannot be summed up in just a few words. Perhaps the government would be wise to present the figures and the total impact of its offer in a concrete and transparent manner instead of trying to sum it up in a confusing formula. Notes 1. In this calculation, one
must consider that a month
is more than four weeks. Thus, a $49 a week payment corresponds to
$2548 per year ($49 X 52). By dividing this amount in 12 one arrives at
$212 a month. * Laurent Theis, Ph.D Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Sherbrooke
(Translated from original French by TML Daily)
U.S. Student Debt Estimated at One Trillion DollarsIn 2009, outstanding student loans in the United States reached $867 billion. The default rate on those loans jumped two per cent from the preceding year to become 8.9 per cent. Experts at the U.S. Federal Reserve estimate that net new student loans will have pushed the total to one trillion dollars by this year. According to the College Board, federal guaranteed loans account for 77 per cent of all education loans. The interest rate for government guaranteed loans is currently 3.4 per cent. Yahoo news reports, "Senate Republicans blocked a vote [May 15] on a bill that would have extended the current low interest rate on Stafford [federal government guaranteed] student loans... If Congress fails to pass such an extension by July, the rates will double. Some experts worry that there is a student loan bubble that will collapse when many of those who borrowed money for education cannot find work, causing default rates to skyrocket." Within the same report, certain economists argue that tuition fees, which propel student borrowing upward, have been exposed as an unsustainable form of funding post secondary education and an alternative must be found. The average total debt per student upon graduation has become equal to the average total before tax income expected for the first year of employment in almost every vocation. If the average debt load goes any higher, it will become impossible to repay at existing income levels for graduates even if they immediately find a job in their particular field. If interest rates rise, this will compound the problem. Any lag in finding employment increases the possibility of default. In 2009, outstanding student loans and the default rate were highest amongst three common forms of personal loans. Outstanding student loans - $867 billion Default rate - 8.9 per cent Outstanding auto loans - $734 billion Default rate - 2.5 per cent Outstanding credit card debt - $704 billion Default rate - 7 per cent Average U.S. university tuition fees Private Institutions (High Cost) $ 35,000 Private Institutions (Low Cost) $ 18,000 State Institutions (High Cost) $ 25,000 State Institutions (Low Cost) $ 12,000 The report says the average annual cost of attending a year of undergraduate college today is more than $20,000 -- a seven per cent annual increase over three decades, well above the rate of inflation. The annual current cost of a higher degree at a public university costs around $15,000, while private schools top the list at $30,000 and up. Quebec, U.S. and Canadian students are all under attack within the global anti-social offensive. The Quebec student struggle to slow down the assault on the right to education by maintaining a freeze on tuition fees is entirely just. Students and the working class should engage in similar struggles in their jurisdictions according to the material conditions. To compare Canadian, U.S. and Quebec tuition fees and use the comparison to suggest one group is better off and should not defend their interests is to accept the anti-social offensive and give up any defence of rights and a pro-social alternative. The struggle of Quebec students should inspire students everywhere to assess the objective conditions created by rising tuition fees and student loans. They are anti-social means to funnel money to the big banks and block any forward motion towards a lawful guarantee of the right to education for all. (U.S. Federal Reserve, U.S. Department of Education, Yahoo News, College Board, www.investigatinganwers.com) Unfolding Events Government and Students Associations to Meet
|
Charest, Harper and the
premiers of Canada's provinces represent a
bulwark of class privilege determined to wreck society and stop the
march towards democratic reform based on the rights of the people. They
are consolidating the political rule of private monopoly right and
interests and the control of global
monopolies over the people's public resources, assets and productive
forces.
People are coming forward to
confront their hesitancy
and doubts,
follow the good instincts of the youth, and stand with them in this
struggle. The problems of organizing and funding the public transfer of
knowledge to the youth can be resolved when the public will is behind
such a project which is why it is
necessary to keep putting the full weight of the society behind the
demand of the youth for an Estates General over which they can exercise
control. This is how they can channel the necessary power to exercise
control over the political decisions which affect their lives. 
The Charest government trivializes
the tuition fee
increase saying it amounts to only "50 cents a day." Charest turns it
into a cheap advertising gimmick of disinformation similar to many ads
on TV that flog products for mere pennies a day. Under the hoax that
the tuition increase is so trivial as to be beneath
his dignity and presumed magnificence, Charest hopes to escape the
image of a despot who refuses to negotiate with his student subjects.
But the increase is not a minor matter to students, their parents and
those who believe that Quebec society must meet its modern social
responsibilities and guarantee the right to
education. The "50 cents a day" for students struggling to make ends
meet and for the thousands of students requiring loans, the tuition
increase is yet another pay-the-rich assault on Quebec society.
