Then stop subsidizing it!  Ed Garvey apparently thinks that if we don't throw more grants, low interest student loans (that may or may not get paid back), and all sorts of other taxpayer dollars at the problem, then we're all heartless bastards:

Under the new budget, in-state tuition to the UW will rise 6.8% but who cares? Let them borrow, take a third job, pay high interest, and learn to deal with debt. Think of the increase as a leaning moment.

These students don't attend fundraisers so why should the legislators care about tuition when they can pour money into new highways? Hey! Road builders pay! Students don't!

Let's get a couple basics about economics out of the way right now.  First the simple things.  When a resource (i.e. college) is limited, then there are exactly two ways to control access to (ration) that resource.

1. Increase the cost required to get the resource (higher prices).
2. Increase the time required to get the resource (wait in line).

Let's look at a few examples of this in action.  During the 70's, when gasoline became scarce, the government in all it's wisdom decided to implement price controls.  The result?  Shortages and rationing lines for gasoline.  That's because everyone could still afford gas, and so they tried to get it.  But acquiring a limited resource always has to cost you something.  It will always either cost you dollars, or your time.  30 years later, Microsoft made the same mistake at Christmas.  They had produced a limited number of XBox 360's, but demanded that retailers not increase the price.  The result?  Long lines at stores, high prices on eBay, and waiting lists.

In general, the United States has preferred option 1.  We increase the price on limited resources, instead of increasing the time it takes to get it.  Socialist governments generally prefer option 2.  Prime examples of this would be the long lines for food, and waiting lists to get cars.  The main issue with this choice is that it puts people in a pickle when they need something immediately.  If the price is more than you can afford right now, but you still need the resource, you can borrow the money.  However, if you ration using option 2, there is nothing you can do, since you can't borrow more time.  That's why socialists governments with strict price controls generally aren't successful.

The problem with subsidizing the cost of college is that it doesn't actually control the cost of college.  All it does is give students money to pay whatever the college says it costs.  And there is the rub.  By giving money away to people who wouldn't have been able to afford college before, what you've now done is made that resource more scarce.  After all, grant programs generally don't also come with a corresponding increase in the number of slots open to students at any particular school.

Universities now have a choice to make.  They can tighten their standards for entry (but that only goes so far), or they can increase the price of tuition.  In other words, every increase in subsidy will result in a corresponding increase in tuition.  So Ed... given all this... exactly how will more subsidies do anything to make college cheaper?