Responsible funding needed to restore promise
Tweet
Promises aren’t made to be broken, and Gov. Jennifer Granholm apparently would like to make sure the Michigan Promise Scholarship doesn’t go down in history as one of her broken guarantees.
During her eighth and final State of the State address Wednesday, the governor made clear her intentions to restore the scholarship, after it was cut in the 2009-10 fiscal year, to help close Michigan’s $2.8 billion budget deficit. The cut left about 8,200 in-state MSU students without the funds promised to them from the state.
Although many students might be excited about the possibility of the Promise’s return, the announcement shouldn’t be met with too much enthusiasm. Yes, Granholm intends to bring it back, but it shouldn’t be forgotten that the scholarship also was in the 2009-10 budget proposal before it was slashed in November 2009.
Last fall, MSU’s Office of Financial Aid was able to offset the loss of the Michigan Promise Scholarship with $7.9 million of federal stimulus money in the form of one-time $500 grants to students. MSU’s efforts to assist where the state failed deserve commendation, but it’s not the university’s role to continue to provide students with state-promised funds.
With the state in a similar financial situation as last year, it might have trouble finding the $160 million it would take to reinstate the Michigan Promise Scholarship. Granholm said her budget proposal would “identify a creative way to pay for it,” but state residents likely won’t know what that is until her budget proposal is released Thursday. We’re very curious what this “creative way” is, and we expect many state residents’ reactions to her plan will depend on how she wants to pay for the Promise.
Still, the state should do everything in its power to ensure this scholarship returns. Students were promised money for college if they stayed in state and should receive those funds they earned and were guaranteed. If the state has a way to allocate $160 million to the scholarship fund, then they should do so, but the Legislature can’t continue to spend money it doesn’t have. If in the unfortunate situation arises where Granholm and other lawmakers can’t find the money, the Promise should not be reinstated.
A complete judgment cannot be made about Granholm’s statement until her budget proposal has been released. Without knowing how the state intends to come up with the cash, the restoration of the Michigan Promise Scholarship can’t be praised just yet.
The fact that Granholm has come out and stated her intentions to restore the program is a good sign. The award was promised to in-state students, and they should receive the money, but only if it truly fits in the state’s budget.
As long as the scholarship is funded in a fiscally responsible way that is not putting an undue burden on Michigan residents, this promise is one that should be kept.
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
Terrence S. Kiolbassa
(02/07/10 9:51pm)Report
A person getting a scholarship should never be viewed as a burden. They are the ones who will pay the bills of tommorrow.
If burden identification is important the issue is then willyhis group pay tommorrows bills?
Mike
(02/07/10 10:42pm)Report
The problem is that these types of scholarships raise the cost of tuition. If every student is able to borrow money or receives scholarships to meet college tuition, there is no downward pressure on prices. Therefore, the schools will be able to raise tuition every year instead of lowering it as they would have to in a competitive environment. If we are going to offer scholarships, then they need to be tied to tuition caps. We are only subsidizing expensive educational systems that should not be so expensive.
OldTimer
(02/08/10 1:58am)Report
I can easily recall one major MSU donor (to Engineering, not rah-rah sports) who was the first of his family to attend college. Mom was a waitress, dad was a janitor … without the free-ride academic scholarship from MSU, he faced a limited future.
You use his patents (in computer graphics and materials science) on a daily basis. But, more to the point of this article, his “free ride” has been returned to MSU a thousand times over.
Such people do exist. It’s not merely a one-way money grab by some children of the welfare state.
MyBloodIsGreen
(02/08/10 7:49am)Report
A PROMISE is a promise. Period. The Legislature was remiss in funding an item that, in effect, was a reward for performance. Isn’t this how they now want to pay teachers??? If I were a high school junior, I would perform to the best of my ability on the ACT portion of the Michigan Merit Exam. All other parts I would bubble random answers, perhaps in the form of a rude gesture!
Chom
(02/08/10 11:37am)Report
The free market solves everything, duh! That’s why our private health care system has worse infant mortality rates than Cuba. Oh, it’s because non-productive members of society stick the bill to the hospitals, right? Those non-productive people should just be shipped to an island, somewhere like Haiti.
Mike
(02/08/10 3:33pm)Report
While that is off topic, it is important to note that our “private” health care system will be financed by more taxpayer dollars than private sector dollars sometime between now and 2012. I would hardly consider it a free market.
And I’m not arguing for or against taxpayer funded scholarships or federal government student loan guarantees. It is important, however, to note that increasing tuition is a result of these policies and tuition caps should be explored if we decide to subsidize public universities. Ranting about the free market does little to constructively add to the discussion.
hey mybloodisgreen.
(02/08/10 4:23pm)Report
You are correct. A promise is a promise. A promise is meaningless. It is not enforceable!
MyBloodIs Green
(02/09/10 7:47am)Report
In my world, a promise is like a handshake agreement. Good as gold.
Amy
(02/09/10 3:32pm)Report
“That’s why our private health care system has worse infant mortality rates than Cuba.”
Congrats, you’re an idiot. US infant mortality rates are so high because we have the technology to try to save babies that would otherwise have been dead at birth. Go look up some real world health stats and you’ll see that a lot of the infants that contribute to US infant mortality are premies and compromised infants that we heroically try to save but cannot. In Cuba those same infants would be stillborn and not count towards infant mortality.
Signed,
Your local RN
Ben
(02/14/10 12:09pm)Report
I completely understand that the money isn’t there and that things need to be cut. It is the way that the Michigan Promise was cut that is the issue.
If students had been given notice that this would be the last year for the promise and that it wouldn’t be renewed, then fine, students would have been able to plan accordingly.
Thats not what happened though, shortly before school started (and bills were due) students were notified that they were not getting the money.
Many students that I know work during the summer and allocate money saved toward college.
Once the summer draws to an end this is set in stone, and the money that is saved is saved while considering outside funding such as the Michigan Promise.
Suddenly taking it away before the bills are due is just plain wrong. Students typically don’t have $4000 in extra cash laying around, and assuming the parents will be able to pay it is a wrong assumption too, especially since many pay for college themselves.
It’s no different that having bills at the end of the month, and going to receive your paycheck, and your boss decides not to give you a paycheck this month because the company is short on money.
I am by no means trying to imply that students are entitled to handouts, the analogy is meant to construe that receiving a paycheck is compensation to the worker that was promise. As the Michigan promise was compensation for going to college in Michigan. The compensation was planned on and student’s budgets depended on it.
And before someone says that working part time during school to attempt to compensate for it is an acceptable option… it’s not. Considering working say 12 hours a week around classes for $8.50 / hour will only bring in about $2,448 BEFORE being eaten away by taxes. Not even close to what is needed.