There's also the possibility that "cutting college costs" could mean both trimming waste and reducing the price for students. When it comes to waste, I would look to those reducing those expenses that don't directly deliver the educational experience first. Professors would be the last in line to be targeted. But they are being targeted and costs are rising, which leads to another issue. IMO there is also a conflation here about what a "college education" is. The college experience itself has transformed in the last two decades, and I think there are strong arguments that what students are paying for now isn't what they were paying for 20 years ago. What are the costs that lead to near double-digit increases in tuition year on year? Surely they aren't due to increases in professor salaries, and the number of adjunct faculty has only increased. I'm not sure there's much evidence that current students are better educated as a result of these increased costs.

And as for bearing the costs, it is more complicated than only shifting the costs. Financial aid might help an individual student, but the availability of financial aid enables tuition rates overall to increase, just as these ease in getting a large mortgage lead to the housing bubble. What worries me, is that student debt written now will lead to economic stagnation for a long time to come. Thus, even if costs aren't shifted from students to tax-payers, we all might pay for it indirectly anyway. Personally, I would like to see actual costs come down more than I would like to see the burden shifted, or new financial aid mechanisms.

I'm typically liberal in my politics, and I guess I am saying: "Cut the cost of college, not the amount that the student bears." IMO one problem underpinning this conflated "liberal stance" on college costs that is presented, is that liberals don't want faculty to be targeted. However, it's pretty clear that faculty aren't part of this increase in costs. Faculty are being targeted, and yet costs continue to rise.