Bearing witness to the most reckless fiscal policies this nation has ever seen and facing the possibility of having to endure the implementation of a $1 trillion social security privatization plan, Washington leaders faced the difficult task of slashing budgets and cutting domestic programs in order to rescue this country from its largest federal deficit in history.

So who was the Bush administration’s and Congress’s choice for financial black-balling? College students.

In late December, the U.S. Congress silently sent an early Christmas present to students — more than $300 million in federal financial aid cuts, going into effect next fall — making the dismal state of federal financial aid resources, in conjunction with the rising costs of college, this nation’s true present financial crisis. The depletion of financial aid is part of a widespread cut in federal resources for higher education, including an $8.2 million reduction in work-study programs and provisions that put a ceiling on student loans. Sadly, the reason students need more financial aid is the very reason why they cannot receive more financial aid — with tuition and student fees increasing all over the country, more students qualify for need-based aid.

The Bush Administration’s solution?

Alter the formula that determines students’ eligibility for Pell Grants, the primary scholarship for low and mid-income individuals, ensuring that fewer students qualify for assistance. Under the new plan, 1.3 million students will receive smaller Pell Grants, while 89,000 will be deprived of any money at all. In the times of a struggling economy that makes more students eligible for aid, President Bush and Congressional leaders believe that students should be helped less, not more. It’s disappointing that the President, whose irresponsible tax policies continue to contribute to our massive debt, didn’t follow that same logic when considering tax relief for the rich.

To help compensate for the aid cuts, Mr. Bush proposed a “modest” increase in federally-funded Pell Grants for students by $100 a year for five years, which would increase the maximum aid from $4,050 today to $4,550 by 2010 — a mere 12 percent hike. Yet in the last four years alone, tuition and fees at public colleges have increased by an average of 35 percent — tuition at UW increased 18 percent just within the past year. $4,000 is grossly inadequate to afford the costs of most public universities, even for those who pay instate tuition. Community colleges, which are being asked to carry more of the higher-education burden, will be most severely affected by the loss of funding due to their large proportion of working students.

With college costs soaring, and the newest erosion of federally funded financial aid projected to force 220,000 young people out of college, it would seem that a college education is becoming one of financial privilege, not academic merit. Access to higher education is an extreme privilege, but it should be one determined by the depth of one’s mind — not the depth of one’s pockets. Supporters of the cuts argue that individual universities can make up the lost federal aid through school grants and loans. But with many public universities feeding off the bottom of state budgets, some may not be able to afford the costs of larger financial aid packages. Wisconsin, which continues to put UW at the bottom of funding priorities, is projected to be one of the hardest states hit by this new legislation.

The new Congressional initiative will save federal government around $300 million, but it doesn’t take an overabundance of creativity to figure out alternative ways the federal government can save that kind of money. Why not cancel last month’s extravagant inauguration parties, which would save a cool $40 million? Or maybe construct a more modest U.S. embassy in Iraq, saving some of the $2 billion approved for its construction?

Although the pitiful state of current federal and state government budgets requires compromise, we should never be willing to compromise the future of young Americans. If we are to compete with flourishing economies such as China, if we are going to close the income gap and increase class diversity on America’s campuses, if we are going to pull people out of poverty and provide opportunities, and if we don’t want universities to become exclusive clubs for the elite and the wealthy, then higher education must be affordable. Without accessible financial aid, that will never be the case.

But hey, forcing young Americans to find alternative ways to afford an education could do much to inflate the Army National Guard’s low recruitment numbers — and help political leaders coax more poor people to fight and die in their wars.

Adam Lichtenheld ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and international relations and is a member of the ASM Legislative Affairs Committee.