Critics of the President’s State of the Union address noted it did little to promote bipartisanship. Yet, it has already stimulated bipartisan agreement on one of the President’s education proposals.
In the State of the Union, President Obama proposed free community college:
“I am sending this Congress a bold new plan to lower the cost of community college—to zero.
…Whoever you are, this plan is your chance to graduate ready for the new economy, without a load of debt. Understand, you’ve got to earn it—you’ve got to keep your grades up and graduate on time. Tennessee, a state with Republican leadership, and Chicago, a city with Democratic leadership, are showing that free community college is possible. I want to spread that idea all across America, so that two years of college becomes as free and universal in America as high school is today.”
One detail that failed to make it into the State of the Union address: The funding for the program would come by effectively killing the 529 college savings accounts, that exempt earnings from taxation if used for educational expenses.
This fact stimulated bipartisanship, albeit not the kind the President anticipated. As Jonathan Weisman (New York Times) explains:
President Obama, facing angry reprisals from parents and from lawmakers of both parties, will drop his proposal to effectively end the popular college savings accounts known as 529s, but will keep an expanded tuition tax credit at the center of his college access plan, White House officials said Tuesday.
The decision came just hours after Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio demanded that the proposal be withdrawn from the president’s budget, due out Monday, “for the sake of middle-class families.” But the call for the White House to relent also came from top Democrats, including Representatives Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader, and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the ranking member of the Budget Committee.
Although this means of funding the community college proposal seemed particularly tone deaf, it does illustrate that bipartisanship is possible when protecting tax expenditures. Imagine if reformers focused on even larger tax expenditures (e.g. the $212 billion exclusion of employer-provided health insurance, the $176 billion expenditures for pensions and 401(k)s, or the $101 billion deduction of mortgage interest)? A new era of bipartisanship might bloom.
Related: See Josh Kraushaar in National Journal for an interesting piece on the SOTU and the implications for Hillary Clinton 2016.