Does it make sense for the government to take taxes from the big majority of Americans who never managed to win college degrees in order to subsidize the pricey education of the fortunate few who get to attend top universities?
As Americans search for answers, it is increasingly clear that they cannot look toward Washington for leadership. Those who inhabit Washington can tinker with our economy for the next decade and it will do little to help you make ends meet, sell your home, find a better job or fill up your tank. In fact, it will probably make things worse.
This week, President Barack Obama has been warning students that without his intervention, interest rates for a federal student loan program will double to 6.8 percent July 1.
Sarah Palin was the first to recognize the problem: By participating in President Obama's signature education initiative, the Common Core Standards, Alaska would lose control over its own curriculum.
Obama has to get Jimmy Fallon to help him push his message with the young since they still have no jobs.
If you read through the Washington Monthly's list of Obama's top 50 accomplishments, you'll quickly understand why my brother, Rush, properly wanted him to fail.
In so-called "March in March" protests, thousands of students in California universities recently demonstrated in outrage over spiraling tuition costs.
Non-Revolving credit rose $11.8 billion in December. However, $8.8 billion of that is growth in federal government loans (which just happens to be where student loans are parked).
The question is not only if it’s worth it, but whether the left has, in effect, established a system that not only indoctrinates young Americans, but soaks them financially as well – and, incidentally, provides the ordained an exceedingly opulent lifestyle.
Rubio Ran Into Some Granite, Had Shaky Defense Against Christie in New Hampshire Debate | Matt Vespa