The original name for Pell Grants was the Basic Education Opportunity Grant. It was just that - the basic grant to provide access to education for low income families. The formula for awarding Pell Grants takes into consideration not only income, but also the cost of college, family size and the number in college, so technically, a middle-class family with two students at more expensive colleges may be eligible. While that scenario is a real possibility, the Pell Grant is still primarily focused on its roots as the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant aimed at lower income families.

The higher education program that is truly focused on the middle-class is the Ford Direct Loan program. Where the Pell Grant is an allocated program, the loan program is an entitlement. If the argument for maintaining Pell at its current level was to preserve middle-class benefits, it’s ironic that benefits in the loan program (subsidized interest for graduate students and on-time repayment benefits) ended up being cut.

So one would hope that they preserved the Pell Grant for the best of all reasons: It was the right thing to do. Pell Grants, along with all student aid programs, are a rational investment in our workforce that improves our competitiveness as a nation. It is an investment in our people, because as the founding fathers knew, a democracy can only survive with a well-educated citizenry.

As we are in the bizarre debate as to which anatomical parts of our body politic we can afford to lose, I suggest the brain should be the last to go.

Quite simply, Pell Grants are not supposed to be for the middle class. As the U.S. Department of Education's website makes clear, Pell is supposed to be for "low-income undergraduate and certain postbaccalaureate students."

So why characterize Pell as a benefit for the middle class? Because lots of people consider themselves to be in that group -- which federal politicians rarely define -- and policymakers want their votes.

Unfortunately, as Rep. George Miller (D-CA) recently demonstrated, saying Pell is intended for the middle class also makes it a valuable weapon in waging class warfare.

“Pell is the reason they are able to go to college and get ahead,” Miller said in response to congressional Republicans purportedly looking to trim the program as part of debt reduction. “It’s a shameful excuse and an attack on middle class families.”

Other than their usefulness in browbeating those who'd dare propose education cuts, Pell Grants are, at best, of limited value. Yes, they are needed by some people to go to college, but that’s because they are largely built into college prices. Basically, give me a dollar more to pay for school and my college will charge me another buck.

Of course it's not just Pell that influences prices – there are lots of other sources of aid, and colleges confront numerous variables that affect their costs -- but subsidize something and prices will go up. And boy, do they go up in higher education!

One last consideration is crucial but rarely mentioned. One of the great political benefits of Pell is that to recipients it’s free dough -- no need to pay it back. That lets politicians play Santa Claus, not the mean banker who sinisterly comes after you to return student-loan money, plus interest. But keep in mind what, in most cases, college is ultimately for: to enable attendees to greatly increase their earnings. In light of that, how can politicians justify simply giving away money from taxpayers? Quick answer: They can’t.

Were you or I to do that it would be called "stealing." When government does it, apparently, it's called “helping the middle-class."

As the data indicate, Pell Grants are a benefit for the poor, not the middle class. Yet, by thinking of Pell Grants as a benefit for the middle class, members of Congress can pretend that there is a rational system in place for providing and financing higher education in this country. There isn’t.

The poor can qualify for Pell Grants, the very wealthy can pay $25,000 - 50,000 per year for college costs out-of-pocket and everyone in between must go into significant debt. Put another way, college graduates whose parents are poor or very wealthy can start their careers debt free; college graduates whose parents are middle class must start their careers with a crippling debt.

College students are not responsible for their parents’ income levels and there is no sound public policy rationale for why some college graduates should receive a debt-free education while others get a debt-ridden education.