Pay as you leave

A legislator wants refunds from itinerant scholars

DYSPEPSIANA | James Krohe Jr.

I guess you could call it a roaming charge. State Sen. Chapin Rose, a Republican from over Mahomet way, has introduced a bill to reform the program that grants tuition aid at state colleges and universities to roughly 140,000 poor students. Mr. Rose would like those students to repay those grants if they leave Illinois within five years of graduation and take all that good Illinois l’arnin’ with them. “We can ill afford to make an investment in the future of a student of the magnitude . . . and then have that student move out of state and start paying taxes somewhere else as their working career begins,” Rose reportedly said.

My first reaction to the news was unease.

If the principle underlying his proposal is accepted, would not local school systems also have a claim on graduating students who choose not to stay in town and sustain the tax base? I was educated almost entirely at the expense of the taxpayers who supported School District 186 and Lincoln Library. I took that education with me when I moved to cities other than Springfield. Would I owe 186 a fine for having done so, as if I’d kept a library book too long? Would I get a credit for the stuff Springfield taught me that was wrong or for all that advanced algebra I never used?

Other states might not like the idea either.

Mr. Rose’s proposed remedy amounts to trade protectionism, and the inevitable result of erecting barriers to imports is a trade war. Might not other states tie a similar ball and chain to their own young to keep them from enriching Illinois? Might Michigan or Indiana or Georgia demand that the state of Illinois refund taxes paid to Springfield by non-natives who earn money here thanks to college degrees earned in and partially paid for by the taxpayers of those states?

My second reaction to the news was annoyance. What about migrant middle class college students who receive state higher education subsidies in the form of tax deductions for tuition costs? Heck, flat-rate tuition itself is a subsidy; the well-off pay a much smaller share of their income for that part of the cost of a public university education than do the poor. Demanding a payback for all these subsidies would save a great deal more money than squeezing poor students, but then I suspect that Mr. Rose’s proposal has less to do with saving money and increasing accountability than with punishing a despised constituency.

Demanding rebates on social investments from itinerant citizens isn’t a new idea. As I noted in 2013 (“Positive spillovers,” Jan. 17, 2013), Hungary had just required students receiving state-sponsored university places to remain in Hungary after graduation; the longer they studied at state expense, the longer they have to stay, up to 10 years. The concept is appealing, I admit. Business gets roughly $1.5 billion in subsidies from the state every year – four times more than the state gives to its needy college students – that are intended to generate jobs. I would like to see business corporations refund to the state job-creation incentives and other subsidies if they relocate out of state or if such help does not in fact boost jobs.

While I am unconvinced that the spending Mr. Rose targets is a problem, it is an issue. Since the early-ish 1800s, the state of Illinois spent money on public education on the assumption that by schooling its young, the state would improve not only their prospects but its own. One can argue that grads from, say, the U of I who expatriate themselves thus renege on this contract. Of course, you can also say that the state of Illinois, by the meanness of its support for schools, has reneged on that contract too. I’d love to see that case go to court.

Sadly, Mr. Rose is likely to learn that doing what is right and doing things right are seldom the same. I expect that recovering those grants would cost more than they are worth to the state, this being a rare case in which debtors will have already done a bunk before their debt falls due – assuming, of course, that the graduate miscreant is earning enough with her Illinois training to be able to repay her grant. Such a requirement would also likely prove to be a perverse incentive; sensible kids who wish to have unfettered career and life options would simply opt to not attend Illinois public colleges and universities.

In the 19th century it was assumed that what lifted the citizen lifted the state. Today, citizens are seen as a burden to the state, at least in the eyes of our Senator Roses. I recommend to him and his colleague the comment I’ve read in three or four places, to whit, If you want Illinois college money to stay in Illinois, make Illinois a state in which well-educated young people feel they have a future.

Contact James Krohe Jr. at [email protected].

Editor’s note

On Monday staff writer Bruce Rushton broke the story on illinoistimes.com that Vince DeMentri, anchor for WICS television news, had been involved in an election night bar fi ght at Hooters with Garrett Brnger, another reporter for the station. One of the combatants told police he had been bloodied when he fell from a barstool. Both men were subsequently dismissed from their employment at WICS. Of all the comments on the story posted at our website, we liked this one best: “The fi rst and only rule of a news team fi ght is to not touch the hair.” IT cartoonist Chris Britt’s take is on page 4. –Fletcher Farrar, editor and publisher