[req2]

Your argument seems poorly aimed, as I merely pointed out how poorly aimed the original comment was. I'll treat you as a top level post as a courtesy.

As you rightly acknowledge, "able" can hide a lot. I'm able to live several days without food, but it's hardly a thing to aim for. The article explicitly mentions "rich", and you should feel comfortable assuming that "rich" does not mean "middle-class". Failing that definition, consider "able" to be taken from "luxuries", rather than "necessities". You don't need to bring India into it. Sufficient?

You'll have to explain further how the poor are being used as a human shield here. Additionally, I'm not convinced that any protests based on increased tuitions will have an effect on government waste. It seems like effort better spent campaigning for reduced government waste (which is admittedly very likely a waste as well).

[psranga]

The poor are used a human shield because if the article had said something like:

  education is a good with almost-inelastic demand, hence
  we can raise prices arbitrarily and in addition
  eliminate government support for it :)

then they would not have been taken seriously.

Wrt "rich", other posts indicate that $70K/yr household income as the upper limit for financial aid in CA. That's hardly "rich".