Investing in Education, What a Novel Concept


Andrew Leonard at Salon.com offers a compelling argument in favor of Obama’s economic stimulus plan to increase the amount of funds allocated to the Pell Grant – a financial aid program that gives out money for college to families who make under $50,000 a year – that even Republicans should get behind.

“…in contrast to tax cuts, the Pell Grants also serve a long-term interest: Increasing access to education. So in the long run, the country gets a more educated workforce, while in the short run, lower-income families find their own budgetary constraints loosened.”



  1. Pell Grants are the only way I could have gone to college.

    Pell just died too, what a great way to honor his legacy.

    Frankly, I think college should be free for those with the grades if their parents make less than $50,000. It should also be pro-rated for how many kids you have in school at one time.

    Also, during a bad economic time, people (like me) want to go back to school to improve their skills, but can’t without grants. It makes sense!

  2. I agree with you.

    At the same time, we need to be investing more in primary and secondary education. During a recession, the public school systems – which operate like a business (giving the administration bonuses while laying off teachers and outsourcing maintenance workers) – end up cutting out the most important cogs in the education machine: teachers and schools.

    LA is shutting down a number of schools because the system can’t afford to keep them running. It’s not like we have fewer students needing to be educated all of a sudden. It’s pathetic. And, as is the nature of a recession, the poorer areas are hit the hardest. There are already 30-plus kids jammed into that classroom, what’s ten more?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: