Devastating higher ed
Gov. Corbett's attack on public education will have devastating consequences for our commonwealth. The governor's budget proposal slashes funding to public universities in half. Inevitably, the quality of education at these colleges will go down, while tuition will skyrocket.
The purpose of having public universities is to provide quality higher learning opportunities for all excelling students regardless of familial wealth. With Corbett's budget cuts, higher education will be completely unaffordable to lower- and middle-income families. How are young Pennsylvanians supposed to be competitive in a global marketplace without the opportunity for higher learning?
Perhaps one option is to turn to student loans. However, opportunities for federal loans with low interest rates quickly run out and students are forced to turn to high-interest loans from private banks. The banking industry surely loves Corbett's proposal, but how are young Pennsylvanians supposed to invest in the future and become homeowners after graduation when all of their income will be going toward paying back crippling debt?
Corbett brags about not taxing natural gas drillers in our state, but at what cost• The big winners in his budget proposal are the drilling companies and the banking industry. The big losers are lower- and middle-class Pennsylvania workers and their children.
It's clear who's most important to Corbett.
Stephen D. Hussar
The writer is a University of Pittsburgh alumnus.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- More answers, please
- Positive & healthy ...
- ... Or free-riding fad?
- Thanks for the coverage
- Goodell’s ‘pick-six’
- Russia, not Rice
- Sticker shock
- Muslims & discrimination
- Ferguson & contradictions
- Mitochondrial disease awareness