Here lies my concern with any sort of government-sponsored program in the US: once it becomes policy, any discussion that involves cutting, limiting, or removing expenditures becomes an ethical argument against the group benefiting from the programs. Here's another spin on this: subsidies to graduate students are bankrupting the United States. This article isolates a single decision, politicizes it, and demonizes anyone who isn't in favor of keeping the program as-is. But here's the kicker - they don't offer a solution or an alternative. The US has an unsustainable level of deficit spending, and we can either increase taxes, cut spending, or some combination of both. The article doesn't even offer an alternative, or explore the underlying justifications for why they opted to cut these benefits, which further emphasizes the point. We don't live in a world of limitless resources - every dollar we spend on X is one fewer dollar we can spend on Y. This type of narrowly-focused journalism isn't productive, and has made me more cautious of politicians who want to implement policies that cost money, but don't talk about how they're going to get the funds.
Just as a full disclosure, I'm actually in favor of the deductions/exemptions, and I'd rather see reductions in government administrative staff, entitlements, and military contractors. But I'm not naive - cuts need to be made, and as recent news has shown, increasing taxes isn't always as cut-and-dry as it needs to be due to the various loopholes. The most egalitarian solution would be a flat percentage-based cut across all programs, and some form of flat percentage-based increase in taxes, but instead of gaining bi-partisan support, it would probably just piss off everyone. This is probably why I'm a better accountant than politician - because people want to do what they feel like doing, irrespective of whether or not it's the right thing to do.