now reading: The Biggest College Scandal of All

'Basically, Bre-X was a shell of a company with almost nonexistent working capital,' said David Walsh (the real Kenny Wells) in a March 1997 interview. The Gold true story reveals that prior to his success with Bre-X, Walsh had declared personal bankruptcy in June 1992, $200,000 in debt. 'I decided to go into Indonesia, and that's where we. 6 Real Scandals Crazier Than Anything On 'House Of Cards'. House Of Cards, everyone's favorite political soap opera, won our hearts with its focus on a ruthless sociopath who plays a ruthless psychopath on a quest to become president of the United States. But while real politicians can certainly suck, they aren't out there murdering dogs. Apr 21, 2020 'The cost that we bore was probably about a hundred-million-dollar hit in lost revenue and real cost to this association in 2018 and 2019,' LaPierre said, according to a tape recorded by a source.

The seething anger Americans feel over the college admission scandal with wealthy and well-connected families using money, influence and cheating to bump their kids up in line so they get accepted into elite schools is well justified. Yet this scheme is small potatoes compared to the real scandal on college campuses from coast to coast. That scam is how much universities are charging families once they do get in.

College tuition, room-and-board costs can now exceed $50,000 to $70,000 a year. This is a massive financial hardship for the families that actually pay out of pocket the $200,000 to $300,000 tab for a four-year degree and for those who get loans. The debt for a 22-year-old graduate can easily exceed $100,000. Meanwhile, the size of the student loan debt nationwide has reached some $1.5 trillion.

As one solution, leading voices in the Democratic Party -- ranging from Sens. Bernie Sanders to Kamala Harris to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez -- are touting 'free college' or even more guaranteed student loans for families. The worst idea of all is student loan forgiveness of up to $1 trillion. This would only shift the costs of expensive colleges onto the back of taxpayers -- many of whom never even went to college.

There are two glaring problems with free college.

First, instituting free college tuition does nothing to incentivize college administrators to lower costs. Instead, it simply transfers the burden of paying for higher education from kids whose families have relatively high incomes to general taxpayers, many of whom didn't go to college at all. As education economist Richard Vedder of Ohio University has pointed out, free college would be one of the most regressive public policies of modern times.

Second, we know from other industries, such as health care, that the bigger the government role, the more costs escalate.

There is a much more equitable and practical solution to lowering the high cost of universities -- especially at the most expensive and elite schools. The federal government could incentivize colleges with high tuitions to lower its costs by tapping into its tax-deductible massive endowments.

It turns out that endowments have exactly the opposite effects on tuition that one might expect: The higher the endowment, the higher the tuition.

The feds have the leverage to reverse this.

The forthcoming 2019 oversight report of the U.S. Department of Education, conducted by nonprofit OpenTheBooks.com, discovered that 'the 25 colleges and universities with the largest endowments in the country reaped $6.9 billion in Department of Education [ED] funding despite holding a quarter-trillion in existing assets, collectively.'

The University of Notre Dame, Princeton, Yale, Harvard and other elite schools such as Duke and the University of Southern California can't make a plausible case for the need for billions of dollars annually in federal subsidies when these schools' bank accounts hold hundreds of millions -- and in many cases billions -- of dollars of funds.

Without any new gifts, most if not all Ivy League endowments could fund full-ride scholarships for all financially needy undergraduate students for the next half-century. With continued gifts to universities, tuition could practically be free to students forever without the endowments running dry.

The way to cut tuitions, starting with the most expensive colleges, is to require these schools to lower its tuition each year by 5-10% and make up the difference by either cutting costs (that's easy) or using endowments to subsidize the out-of-pocket costs paid by students and/or taxpayers.

We are not fans of price controls. But if universities are going to rely on taxpayers to subsidize its exorbitant costs, it makes sense for the public to hold these schools to the high standards it says it holds its students to. If the institution doesn't take federal money, it can do as it wishes.

Lower college tuitions are easily achievable for every family in America, and unlike our failed multi-billion-dollar student loan programs or populist slogans such as 'free college tuition,' this strategy won't cost taxpayers a dime.

Stephen Moore is a distinguished visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Related Topics: Student Loan Debt, College Tuition

Show commentsHide Comments

Money laundering can often be seen as a somewhat nebulous, victimless crime that doesn’t affect the everyday person. But Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit Guidance and Outreach Manager Dr Clara Borg Bonaci tells David Lindsay about how money laundering not only deprives government coffers of funds that could be used for the betterment of society, it also feeds serious predicate crimes such as the trafficking of drugs and arms, human smuggling and child sexual exploitation – ‘horribly destructive crimes that have an immense social cost’

Money laundering is often seen as a victimless crime that doesn’t necessarily affect the average person on the street. What are the ramifications of such practices on a wider scale? What are the hidden predicate crimes and what are their effects on the economy at large?

The truth is that the fight against money laundering and the funding of terrorism can be highly regulatory and involves the implementation of numerous laws, which makes it easier for us, and the entities we supervise, to sometimes forget or be disconnected from why we are actually doing it.

In its simplest form, money laundering is the process of placing funds that have been generated illegally into the financial system in such a way that they are disconnected from the criminal activity, so that even the identity of the person who conducted that crime is obfuscated and the funds cannot be immediately connected to the person or the crime.

When we speak of criminal activity, we are not necessarily talking about petty theft or shoplifting, we are talking about large sophisticated organised crime groups. The type of activities they carry out for a profit are serious crimes such as drug and arms trafficking, contract killing, human smuggling and trafficking, and child sexual exploitation.

All this is so horribly destructive and it has an immense social cost.

By fighting money laundering, we are making it harder for criminals to enjoy the proceeds of their crime. Once it’s harder to use these profits, in a way that allows criminals to be separated from their criminal activities, the risk-to-reward ratio is skewed, and that acts as a major deterrent.

Tax evasion is another predicate offence, and is often misunderstood to be more or less a victimless crime. When large businesses do not disclose the full extent of their income, they are cheating the state out of millions of euro in funds that are meant to be used to provide better services for its citizens.

As such, we need to realise that tax evasion is something that comes at a real cost to us.

Likewise, with corruption and bribery, public funds are not being used to provide the best services and infrastructure for the people. So money laundering has a cost for each and every one of us and we may not see it and we may not necessarily feel the impact directly on a personal level, but it is most certainly there and it is most certainly affecting us.

Why, apart from the legal repercussions, should subject persons feel obliged to report suspicious transactions?

Suspicious transaction reports, or STRs, are reports that obliged entities have to subm

Real Scandals Costs Money