While I understand that the transition from high school to college is literally life-changing, many students are entering college without any ability to live on their own. I see kids who are constantly on the phone with their parents, make daily trips back to their hometowns, and cocoon themselves from any new experiences on campus. To some small degree you have to appreciate why employers don’t want to give these people jobs once they graduate. The ability to think on your own and solve problems as they arise is critical to being successful in today’s world.

Anyway, the point of this entry is how taking a year off between high school and college might have always been a good idea for some students, but it might be a good idea for all students given some pending legislation. As the New York Times reports:

Last month, President Obama proposed what some experts called the most sweeping changes in federal college aid programs in decades. But even if Congress approves the new and expanded programs, they will not take effect until July 2010.

So here is a heretical idea for this year’s high school seniors: Take a year off and go out and do something else. Then, when it is available, see if you can take advantage of that aid money — more fixed-rate student loans and bigger grants to the poorest students.

Brilliant! This is a great idea that has many unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences. First, those who take next year off to develop themselves as human beings will be better prepared for the rigors of college life. Second, colleges will be forced to re-evaluate their expenses and whether or not they offer a valuable service given the realities of today’s market. And last but not least, you have the actual intended effect of the recommendation above – take a year off and wait until more subsidy dollars flow to your educational pursuits.

If coordinated correctly, this idea could initiate a great shift in the higher education system.

I know that the price of tuition is higher than ever, which is why if you are willing to volunteer in your neighborhood or give back to your community or serve your country, we will make sure that you can afford a higher education. And to encourage a renewed spirit of national service for this and future generations, I ask this Congress to send me the bipartisan legislation that bears the name of Senator Orrin Hatch as well as an American who has never stopped asking what he can do for his country – Senator Edward Kennedy.

You know – that’s a very inspiring thought and a good idea. I wonder about how realistic it is in action, though. For example, what will the cost be to the government if High School Student A volunteers X amount of hours in his or her hometown and thus meets the requirements of this program? Will the government pay all of their tuition at a public school? Half? A quarter? What is the number that makes college affordable for a student?

Further, what happens if High School Student B – who is from a better off family than Student A – does the same amount (or more) of volunteering than Student A? Since Student B is from a well-to-do family, then does he or she get anything for their community service? The same end was achieved – citizens served their community. Right?

And what happens when High School Student C needs another 50 hours of community service by the deadline date to qualify for whatever this grant money will be? Are we to believe that if Student C’s family knows people who know people that they won’t write-up false letters showing all of the service hours that Student C volunteered?

I don’t want to sound like a negative guy on this proposal, but it seems like it’s a bit too nebulous right now. I’m all for college affordability so long as 1) it is a program with no discrimination (income included), and 2) it’s fiscally responsible. We didn’t get that information last night. Other than that, I thought the President’s speech sounded more like a campaign speech than anything else, but I had no major fundamental problems with it.

Now, Councilman Gerald Briscione is looking into ways to relieve borough property owners. “We did the revaluation at the top of the market, but we were forced to,” said Briscione, noting that the state orders such measures and the county Board of Taxation enforces it.

Briscione said he did an analysis of property sales from November 2008 through the middle of January, and found the overwhelming majority of properties listed for sale were now assessed at 163 percent of market value.

During a time when people are looking for immediate tax relief and “change,” is there a better way to deliver it than at the local level? Coucilman Briscione understands what his constituents have to deal with better than anyone at the national or even state levels of government, so why not undertake immediate change right now? The article went on to talk about how the township is considering holding off on revaluing the properties until this summer to see if the real estate market stabilizes.

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the problem is with the real estate market in the first place! The market was in a bubble because prices were inflated – dramatically inflated. Apparently values were inflated some 63% in Oceanport, but the percentages vary around the nation. Due to this inflation, many people woke up one morning to the harsh reality that the home they live in is NOT worth what they were led to believe. In other words, even if the market stabilizes, the value of these properties is not going to shoot up 63%!

The best path forward in Oceanport is to do the revaluations and put this issue to bed. If that doesn’t happen, then I have to imagine that there will be a flood of tax appeals coming in the near future.