Or what else are we to assume from the caterwauling that has greeted the federal social policy paper? The government proposes to cut welfare spending and squeeze seasonal workers off pogey, but the item that attracts the most fury is a mild change in the way we fund universities. In that grand Canadian tradition of compassion, the poor and the unemployed were all but trampled under in the rush to denounce any suggestion that middle-class students might pay more for their education. The Canadian Federation of Students went so far as to threaten a strike: according to federation president Guy Caron, if the federal proposals are not withdrawn, thousands of students will skip classes.

In the popular version, the federal government is slashing transfers to the provinces for higher education. This will force the provinces to cut grants to universities, who will in turn have no choice but to raise tuition fees. Universities will thus become the preserve of the rich. Given the prevailing winds of outrage, it's probably no use pointing out that none of this is true. What Ottawa is really proposing is to divert current provincial transfers into a system of universal, income-contingent loans to students. The same amount of money goes into the system. It just travels a different route.

For that matter, just because the feds give less cash to the provinces doesn't automatically mean tuition fees have to rise. At $2-billion, these transfers represent about 1 per cent of total provincial revenues. If education is the priority all governments claim, they can cut spending elsewhere to make up the shortfall. In any case, if fees do rise, that's what the new loans are for.

That, it seems, is not enough. Any number of students have been quoted complaining they will be burdened with debt after school with no guarantee of a job. Even Saint Jean de Chretien was assailed in New Brunswick last week by placard-wielding student protesters. One sign read: "$40,000 debt for a BA". (Will think for food.)

Anyone this dim just possibly should not be going to university in the first place. Read the blessed document: The loans are income-contingent. That is, how much you pay back depends on what you earn. If you don't make anything, you don't pay anything. A lot of people who are aghast at the thought of borrowing to pay for their education - and we're still only talking about students paying a fraction of the full cost - would think nothing of borrowing the same amount to buy a car. If you know of a bank that will let you vary the payments on a car according to your income, call me.

Which is to say, these aren't really loans at all: They're equity. There's a reason companies like to issue stock, instead of debt. Loans have to be repaid, regardless of cash flow. But dividends are paid only as a share of earnings. In effect, under an income-contingent loan system, the government buys an equity stake in your "human capital." Education is, after all, an investment, in which both society and the individual have an interest. The student plainly reaps most of the benefit. But society also gains from assuring its citizens equality of opportunity: another meaning of equity.

As investments go, moreover, this is one of the best. Let's say your education costs $40,000. Suppose over a 40-year career your degree adds $50,000 to your average annual income. The total payoff is $2-million, for an average annual return on investment of more than 10 per cent per annum. Having staked you the seed money, all the government asks is that you share some of the profits with it. And if the asset (you) doesn't pay dividends, if you can't find a job or don't earn very much, the government bears all the risk. Spread over a large population, such a plan can be designed so that, on average and over time, the taxpayers get their money back.

It's worth comparing the federal proposal to the current system of student loans. At present, loans are made based on income before graduation, which invites messy questions about whether or not the student can draw on his parents' income. After graduation, however, income is ignored: students really are often left with piles of debt they can't pay. But with an income-contingent loan system, that order is reversed. Anyone can get a loan upfront, regardless of income; ability to pay only enters the equation when it should: when it's time to pay. It doesn't take a college degree to understand this makes education more accessible, not less.