Hillary Clinton’s college-tuition plan is perfectly in line with her general economic outlook. That means it would move the country even closer to European-style socialism by raising taxes, punishing businesses that move overseas and, perhaps most disastrous of all, planning a massive government takeover of much of US higher education.

There’s no denying the dangerous situation that has emerged as a result of rising tuition rates and skyrocketing student-loan debt levels. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, total student debt has reached $1.19 trillion, surpassing auto-loan debt and nearly double national credit-card debt.

The average college graduate in 2015 owed at least $35,000 in student-loan debt, and many parents are also on the hook for huge amounts of education-related debt, especially since students are only able to borrow in their own name a very limited amount from the government during their undergraduate years. Their parents, on the other hand, are often loaned as much money as needed for the cost of college.

Clinton, who is hoping to maximize her support from younger voters, says the way to resolve these problems is to essentially socialize much of higher education.

According to Clinton’s campaign Web site, by 2021, “families with income up to $125,000 will pay no tuition at in-state four-year public colleges and universities. And from the beginning, every student from a family making $85,000 a year or less will be able to go to an in-state four-year public college or university without paying tuition.”

Clinton would also make all community colleges completely tuition-free and slash interest rates for student loans provided by the government, “so the government never profits from college student loans.”

These policies would be a radical transformation of US higher education from a quasi-free-market system to a government-centered, bureaucrat-controlled mess that would cost the nation trillions of dollars it doesn’t have.

Clinton says her plan is feasible because under her administration, “Everyone will do their part.” More specifically, “States will have to step up and invest in higher education, and colleges and universities will be held accountable for the success of their students and for controlling tuition costs.”

In other words, because government would be paying for most of the costs, it would get to decide how colleges operate and what “success” looks like. And states would be mandated to pay even more for their students’ education.

Of course, exactly how cash-strapped states are going to be expected to accomplish this remains a mystery, but it’s a safe bet most of the funding will end up coming from the federal government by way of higher taxes, printing money and/or borrowing from foreign governments.

This plan is more than just a little reckless; it would become, like ObamaCare, an absolute disaster.

What makes all this particularly egregious is that the federal government is the party most responsible for the current student-loan-debt nightmare. From 1963 to 1992, the average annual combined cost of a full-time undergraduate’s tuition, mandatory fees and room and board for students attending four-year colleges increased (in inflation-adjusted dollars) from $1,286 to $8,758.

Since 1993, when Bill Clinton became president and phased in his plan for the government to act as a direct student-loan lender, the average cost has jumped to $25,409, an increase of 190 percent.

Much of the cost hike is due to the fact that schools no longer have to worry about making college affordable, because they know the federal government will give almost any amount of money to students or their parents to cover college costs. Natural market forces have been effectively removed from the equation.

Hillary Clinton argues she’ll put a stop to unnecessary price increases, presumably through regulation, but President Obama made the same promise, and costs have exploded by more than 24 percent since he took office, even as the economy struggled — in large part because Obama also expanded the government’s role in student-loan lending.

It’s a vicious cycle Hillary says she’ll continue.

Clinton’s plan to socialize education will lead to unsustainable cost increases, insurmountable debt and, perhaps most importantly, it will give tremendous power to the government to force colleges to do as it pleases. Sounds like good deal for Clinton and the Democrats and a bad deal for everyone else.

Justin Haskins is executive editor of The Heartland Institute.