Are the people who bitterly defend the federal student loan program really as selfish and shortsighted as they sound?

Most students in the real world get jobs to help pay for college. Some dedicate themselves to diligent and laborious study so as to qualify for academic scholarships. Others commit the sin of being born to parents who work a lifetime so that when the ti me comes they can help pay for their children's education. A few may even, God forbid, go to banks for their loans.

But not the Federal Loaners. They take all of the cheap government money they can get their grubby hands on, and then whine like arrogant brats when reasonable politicians come along and suggest that the laws be changed to require the loans be paid off in a more timely fashion, or in some cases establish a paltry minimum GPA for students to maintain in order to keep their handouts.

I recently heard Newt Gingrich desperately attempting to explain to a group of "college students" that as the government continues to borrow money and balloon the deficit, consumer interest rates grow artificially high. This means, he explained, that af ter they graduate (if they graduate would have been more accurate) every time they buy a car or a house or anything else, they will be forced to pay thousands of dollars more in interest than would otherwise be necessary were the federal budget in balance .

That, of course, is absolutely true, as dictated by the laws of economics, but also completely irrelevant to this crowd. One could almost see the wheels spinning inside their collective heads. Federal Was-a-Student Car Program (FWSCP) ... Federal Used- to-be-a-Student Housing Program (FUSHP) ...

And, as they all will tell you, their education is an investment in the future of America that will pay a tenfold return, as we will all benefit and be enriched by their contribution to the country as educated peoples. In all candor, I think I would rath er invest in Whitewater.

Consider the vicious circle: 1) College is too expensive for average people to afford. 2) Everyone knows that a college education is crucial for any success in life (something which I suppose Bill Gates never learned). 3) Liberal politicians, knowin g that they can exploit 1 and 2, offer plenty of cheap money to frightened kids. 4) Colleges and universities know that frightened kids have cheap money, and plenty of it. 5) Colleges and universities raise tuition rates. 6) Repeat.

And one can apply the same model to any other industry where the government is involved and prices are overly inflated (see health care). Of course, common sense doesn't matter where liberalism is present.

A page on the Internet explained, in defending the student loan program, that about half of the revenue from tuition increases goes towards supporting student aid. Boy, I feel better. Kind of like getting a $20,000 Volkswagen with a $10,000 instant reba te.

Lest we forget, nobody is actually talking about abolishing the program (unfortunately). Just a few minor reforms. The cheap money will still be there for those who feel they are entitled to it (and can manage to keep a 2.0 in some instances). And the rest of us will continue to pay the cost.

I have seen some polls on the issue, and they are typically phrased something like, "If brilliant poor children really want to attend college, but they can't because they just don't have enough money, but they really want to, and at a minimal cost to taxp ayers the government could help them out, and in the long-run society as a whole would benefit immeasurably, and the world would be a brighter place to live in, would you favor or oppose cuts in student aid?" Not surprisingly, you end up with results lik e, 'Those opposing cuts - 99.99 percent; those in favor of cuts - .01 percent (Republican).' How about, "If colleges and universities could be encouraged to operate more efficiently, students compelled to become more self-reliant, and interest rates lowe red in reaction to deficit control, would you favor minor reforms in the student loan program?"

And if we cannot agree that the student loan program is in need of reform, perhaps we can at least agree that the government should attempt to pursue a non-discriminatory policy in the distribution of aid. I would suggest something along the lines of a S tudent Loan Program for People Who Aren't Really Students and Have No Intentions of Going to School Because They are Lazy and Don't Have Jobs Either (SLPPWARSHNI of GSBTLDHJE).

Oh, I forgot. We have Welfare.

Clinten Garrett is an economics freshman.