It is bad enough that our society seems to promote a credit card-based shopping spree, but when the cost of attending college ends up requiring students to pay back more than they’ve made their entire lives (or might make within their first five to ten years of work), there’s a problem.

Enter the government, of course. While I could make some arguments against the entire idea of government aid (or at least loans) for college, I’ll leave that be, for now.

One form of financial aid that has been a popular topic during the presidential debates is Pell Grants. Having received a Pell Grant a few times myself, hearing that Romney intends to keep the program “growing” peaked my interest.

Based on the campaign so far, Romney has taken to his running mate Paul Ryan’s plan as proposed in Congress for fiscal year 2013. The main point of Ryan’s plan has been to change eligibility for receiving a Pell Grant and to lock the maximum grant amount at $5,500, while President Obama has maintained a position that would leave eligibility alone and allow for increases to the maximum grant amount.

According to the New America Foundation, both plans would lead to an increase in Congress’ appropriations for the Pell Grant program, something that appears to fall in line with Governor Romney’s assertion last Tuesday that he would keep “growing” the program if elected.

Of course, supporters of Obama have criticized Romney for saying that he will “refocus” Pell Grant money, and say that this would lead to a massive cut to the program that is terrible for everyone who ever wanted to think about going to college.

It has been widely said that the proposed changes to eligibility for receiving a Pell Grant under Paul Ryan’s plan, such as requiring students to be enrolled at least half time and lowering the qualifying income level for students to receive the maximum grant amount, would shrink the program. But, as pointed out by the New America Foundation again, congressional appropriation for the program would still increase $6-8 billion more “than what Congress typically provides through the appropriations process.”

President Obama’s plan also basically assumes Congress will appropriate more funds, but simply at a higher amount of funding with a wider eligibility net.

The next question is where the money will come from, since it is up to Congress to get the funding together. This means that funding will have to be cut elsewhere so it can be used for Pell Grants, which means more budget battles and a continuing unfortunate journey toward yet another fiscal cliff.

This puts the current net difference between the two plans at “Not much.”

As the New America Foundation has pointed out, real tradeoffs will need to be made to ensure actual fiscal solvency. Given Obama’s track record and the way liberals’ heads seem to explode at the idea of Paul Ryan’s budget plan, I’d put my money on a President Romney to accomplish something. In this case, I hope I’m correct.

Greg Sainer is a senior communication studies major. He can be reached at 581-2812 or [email protected].