November 19, 2009
Many people all over the country have adopted the president’s motto of “change” or “change we can believe in.” I am by no means opposed to mixing things up here and there, but some of the ways this whole “change” idea has trickled down from Washington are nowhere close to change that I can believe in. A recent article in the Boise State University student newspaper, The Arbiter, had the president of the university, Bob Kustra, spouting some interesting redistribution of wealth ideas. Here is the link to the article through the university newspaper’s website—>robin hood.
To quote Mr. Kustra, “What do we do? We take from those who can afford it and redistribute to those who need it. We do it quietly as public institutions and without fanfare.” (emphasis added) This quote alone is wrong on so many levels I can’t imagine such a high profile individual making such a statement.
Kustra went on to say, “If we increase tuition by double digits, it must be returned to need-based students.” I’m wondering how Mr. Kustra could possibly justify simply taking from the ‘haves’ and giving to the ‘have-nots.’
I think we need to understand the breadth of the damage that is being caused by adopting this philosophy. On the surface it seems like we are punishing those students that can pay full tuition and rewarding those that cannot, but as the following quote from Howard W. Hunter states we are creating a lose – lose situation, “Both have lost their freedom. Those who “have,” lost their freedom to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they desire. Those who “have not,” lost their freedom because they did not earn what they received. They got “something for nothing,” and they will neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift.”