It was never going to be “free” — but now it appears that President Obama’s plan for community colleges will be about 50 percent more not-free than it was advertised to be.

“This week a couple of legislators and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan released the draft legislation of the proposed ‘free community college’ plan Barack Obama introduced in January,” Reason magazine reports. “Probably the most important detail is that the federal government itself now estimates the cost of providing a ‘free’ community college education jumping from $60 billion to $90 billion.”

The feds would only pick up part of those costs, by the way; states and colleges would have to fund the rest.

There are some fundamental flaws with the plan. First, as Reason points out, it would incentivize mediocrity. It would reward colleges financially for “keeping students on board and giving them good grades, even if they aren’t learning anything or are ultimately incapable of handling college-level material.”

And the plan would incentivize administrative bloat — both by instituting any number of new federal hoops colleges must jump through, and also by rewarding “reforms” that mostly have to do with lengthy reports sent off to Washington.

But here’s an even bigger problem. The plan would divert massive amounts of federal student aid from students who need it to those who don’t.

Right now, students who need help with college costs get it through the need-based Pell Grant program.

“The maximum amount of a Pell Grant award today is just under $6,000 a year,” the Washington Post explains. “Average community college tuition is approximately $4,000, not including the cost of additional fees, books, transportation, food, child care (if applicable) and other expenditures. The president’s proposed America’s College Promise is of no added value to our least privileged students. They are already eligible for free tuition at community colleges via the current Pell Grant program. Thus the president’s plan would primarily subsidize the community college tuition of more well-off students.”

College students have a term for the financial assistance they receive over and above what they need for tuition, books and fees. They call it beer money.

But back to the Post’s analysis.

“Why design a funding system that explicitly subsidizes one segment of higher education at the expense of another?” the Post asks. “Instead of a paternalistic proposal, we need a college access plan that allows students to choose the institution that best meets their needs and goals. An even greater investment in the Pell Grant program, from increased funding to account for increasing levels of wealth and income inequality and expanded eligibility, would provide all students with better access to community colleges and better access to nonprofit four-year colleges as well.”

Of course, sending more federal money to institutions of higher education isn’t going to help bring costs down — which is what students really need.

Many of the presidential candidates are floating their own ideas for bringing down college costs.

Some, such as Hillary Clinton, expand on the president’s plan.

But that’s the wrong approach, and it’s far from free.