The obvious point about “free” government services is that they aren’t really free; they’re paid for by taxpayers, not consumers. Under what circumstances is that appropriate?
Making public services free to consumers makes sense if one or both of the following conditions exist:
1. Use of the services at one point or another is close to universal; or
2. Members of the general public who do not use the services themselves nonetheless benefit substantially in some way from their availability.
Health care is an obvious example of #1; public primary and secondary school is an example of #2. Primary and secondary schooling is mandatory, and the public benefits from it in a wide variety of ways, so asking the taxpayers to fund it is not much of a reach.
Does “free” public college meet either of these standards? Not #1, for sure; a large percentage of the population does not go to college. I don’t think the value added to society by making college free even to people who can otherwise afford it is sufficient to meet the second test, either. However, it is at least a somewhat debatable point, given the ongoing shift to a knowledge-based economy, and the argument for the Sanders plan hinges on it.
What about extinguishing existing debt for education? That will be the subject of my next post.