Means testing benefits the rich more than the poor and panders to high-dollar

donors
Day ‘19
Meagan Day, The Jacobin, “Why We Need Free College for Everyone — Even Rich
People” 7-10-19, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/07/free-college-tuition-bernie-sanders-means-
testing-universal-social-programs

Instead Clinton advocated increasing public financial aid and adjusting eligibility
requirements, making college easier to attend for a subset of low-income students
but continuing to extract tuition from those who don’t meet specific criteria. This
policy approach, known as means testing, is cherished by moderates in the
Democratic Party. (Republicans, for their part, are less inclined to nuance and are
known to aggressively assail social programs wherever possible.)
But despite appearances, Democrats’ attraction to means testing is not rooted in a
firm commitment to maximum equality. Plainly put, they like means testing because
targeted social programs cost less public money than universal social programs.
Means testing allows them to limit taxes on their ruling-class donor base while still
superficially appeasing their working-class voter base. Means testing is an
expression of establishment Democrats’ timid middle-ground politics, and their
opposition to free college is no different.
Now universal tuition-free public college is back in the spotlight, with Sanders
running for president again and joined by fellow proponent Elizabeth Warren. And
Clinton’s rationale has made a comeback, too, this time most clearly articulated by
presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg. Buttigieg has added a twist to the argument:
people who go to college come from wealthier families, so to make public college
free would be to publicly subsidize the already privileged. Nevermind that steep
tuition is an obvious explanation for this state of affairs to begin with.
Like Clinton, Buttigieg prefers means-tested financial aid and spins his aversion to
universal social programs as inequality-conscious policy. But the political center’s
purported concern about subsidizing the rich is sleight of hand. Means testing isn’t
about advocating for the poor against the rich: it’s a time-honored method of
placating both at once, ultimately at the expense of the former. The only way to fight
for the interests of the working-class majority against those of the wealthy minority
is to build universal social programs that can withstand attacks for decades to come.

Funding college tuition through taxation ensures the rich will pay more for college
than the poor
Day ‘19
Meagan Day, The Jacobin, “Why We Need Free College for Everyone — Even Rich
People” 7-10-19, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/07/free-college-tuition-bernie-sanders-means-
testing-universal-social-programs

For one thing, the centrist account elides the fact that Sanders’s and now Warren’s
plans are funded through progressive taxation. In both of these scenarios, the
people paying the most for free public college for everyone are the rich. The
difference is that the payment takes the form of collective taxes over the course of a
lifetime, not individual tuition costs over the course of a few years. Were he to
attend a public college, Donald Trump’s son Barron wouldn’t be charged tuition, but
he wouldn’t exactly attend for free, either. His family would pay extra, year after
year, for the existence of a robust public higher-education system.
But Barron Trump will probably not attend a public university at all. The affluent
are much more likely to send their kids to elite private colleges, as Donald Trump
did with all four of his older children. So in a future where public colleges are
tuition-free and funded by progressive taxes, the rich are going to do one of two
things: pay higher taxes and send their kids to the same public colleges as everyone
else, or pay higher taxes and pay private tuition on top of that to keep their kids in
elite environments.