With the rising costs of tuition, mounting student debt, and Gov. Matt Bevin’s hefty proposed UK budget cuts, many issues surrounding higher education are on the table for this year’s election cycle.

Among Republicans, Marco Rubio led the discussion about higher education in November when he garnered attention for saying, “We need more welders and less philosophers.”

Rubio has also argued that income-based repayment loans would be better for students, but he has yet to prove this claim.

For Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, student loans are an issue because the economy is weak. With better employment opportunities, students will be able to take care of their loans.

Donald Trump’s campaign has been scant on details, especially concerning higher education. Trump did give at least one detail for his policy platform: cut the Department of Education “way, way, way down.”

The Democratic candidates, on the other hand, will likely strengthen the Department of Education with their more robust proposals.

Martin O’Malley describes his goals with fewer details than Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, only naming his proposals without a clear path.

Both Sanders and Clinton put forward full plans for providing higher education, and the real crux of their difference is in funding.

Sanders would fund his plan through a tax on Wall Street speculations. He hosts an article on his website from economists with the Political Economy Research Institute as support of his plan’s viability.

Clinton, being more ambiguous, says her plan will be fully paid for “by limiting certain tax expenditures for high-income taxpayers.” Furthermore, she wants income-based repayment, like what Rubio proposes, as an option for students.

Overall, Rubio, Sanders and Clinton have the clearest visions, and Sanders makes the best argument.

[email protected]