We find ourselves at a crossroads where the principles of fairness and fiscal responsibility stand at odds with the allure of sweeping student loan forgiveness. The Biden administration’s ambitious plan to erase student debt, while undoubtedly appealing to many, raises profound questions about the nature of responsibility and equity in our society.
Let us not forget the values upon which this great nation was built. From its inception, America has championed the virtues of hard work, diligence, and personal responsibility. These are not mere platitudes but the very foundation upon which our society thrives. It is a principle deeply ingrained in Americans that one reaps what they sow, and that success is born out of dedication and perseverance.
Yet, in the clamor for student loan forgiveness, we risk diluting these values. Forgiving student debt on a massive scale sends a troubling message—that fiscal responsibility can be forsaken and that personal choices can be absolved of their consequences. Such a notion runs counter to the very essence of accountability.
Consider the plight of those who pursued alternative paths, eschewing the traditional route of higher education in favor of the trades or military service. These individuals made sacrifices, often foregoing the allure of college campuses and the promise of white-collar careers. They did not seek handouts or expect others to shoulder their burdens. Instead, they embraced the virtues of hard work and self-reliance. It is unjust to expect these individuals to bear the burden of paying off academic loans for those who may have made less prudent decisions when choosing their degree paths.
Also consider the situation of those who worked their way through college and saved diligently to graduate with no student debt or responsibly paid off their loans. These individuals made significant sacrifices, balancing demanding jobs with their academic responsibilities and often forgoing leisure and social activities to manage their finances prudently. They demonstrated immense dedication and discipline, ensuring their education did not become a financial burden. Their efforts reflect a commitment to personal responsibility and financial stewardship, contributing to their personal growth and stability without relying on external financial assistance.
While the pursuit of higher education is unquestionably valuable, it is not the only path to success nor the only avenue deserving of support. A history degree, for example, may serve as an excellent foundation for careers in academia or museum curation. However, it is not necessarily in high demand across the broader spectrum of the 21st-century job market. Unlike fields such as engineering or computer science, there are no “history factories” churning out employment opportunities in abundance. Considering this reality, the question arises: why should taxpayers bear the burden of forgiving loans for degrees with limited economic viability? This question strikes at the heart of the debate surrounding student loan forgiveness.
On one hand, there is a compelling argument to be made for targeting relief towards borrowers who face genuine financial hardship or who have been victims of predatory lending practices. Such individuals may have pursued degrees in good faith, only to find themselves burdened by insurmountable debt in an unforgiving job market.
On the other hand, indiscriminate loan forgiveness risks perpetuating a system in which personal responsibility is sidelined in favor of government intervention. It begs the question of where to draw the line between compassion and fiscal prudence. To indiscriminately forgive student debt without considering the sacrifices of those who chose alternative paths is to perpetuate an injustice. It undermines the contributions of those who have dedicated their lives to serving their country, mastering essential trades, or working and saving their way through college.
In crafting solutions to address the student debt issue, we must ensure that we do not penalize those who have already made significant sacrifices in service to their communities and nation. Instead, we must strive for fairness and equity, recognizing the contributions of all members of society and ensuring that relief efforts are targeted towards those in genuine need while upholding the principles of accountability and responsibility.
Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr. is an attorney who resides in Stevensville.
Bill Anderson says
President Joe Biden is simply pandering to people with student loans for electoral support. It is a very sad attempt by a doddering old man to find votes at the literal and figurative expense, of the remainder of society about whom he doesn’t give a damn. Why would he care one iots about the sacrifices made by others who either did not seek loans to obtain a higher education, have paid off their loans, ordecided to serve in the military services? He doesn’t and he richly deserves to be replaced in office by whoever wins the election in November.
Deirdre LaMotte says
Fact: President Joe Biden wakes up everyday to
work for all Americans, not just the billionaire class
that the GOP is indebted to. If this helps struggling people, good. Cancellation followed by intentional investments to make higher education affordable is good for the overall education and wealth of the nation.
Bill Barron says
You are correct in your criticism of blanket student loan forgiveness. First, it suggests to young, often first-time borrowers, that loan contracts are meaningless and that debt is not an obligation to be taken seriously. How many of these people will learn the hard way that in the real world of car loans, credit cards and mortgages that there is no amnesty and that credit scores matter.
Second, it paints those borrowers who have diligently paid off their loans as “suckers”. And it encourages future student borrowers to game the system, expecting their debt to be eventually forgiven by presidential fiat or some other beneficent magic.
Third, most of the benefits will go to people of means who need no help making payments; 65% of student debt is owed by those earning more than the national average income; only 12% of the debt is owed by the lowest quartile of earners and, for those who cannot make payments, there is already a program in place to relieve their obligations. It’s called the Income Driven Repayment Plan (IDR). It forgives all future interest if the borrower can’t keep up with scheduled payments so the balance never increases. Any remaining loan balance is completely forgiven after 20 years; 10 years if the balance is $12,000 or below. Of course, borrowers must apply for the benefit…How cruel! Does it seem reasonable that a family of two borrowers earning $250,000 annually should get this $20,000 taxpayer largesse; $40,000 if they were both on Pell grants? Whose crazy idea was that?
Fourth, and clearly the greatest threat to the US economy, is the inflationary impact of a sudden windfall in the pockets of borrower/consumers without a corresponding increase in the supply of stuff to buy. This, of course is the same fault found in all the President’s aggressive giveaway programs. His tone-deafness to the serious consequences of his inflationary actions suggests that he never understood Econ 101 or, more likely, that he is simply pandering to voters. Everyone loves free stuff.
At the bottom of this issue is the steady, lethal rise in tuition and board faced by students at nearly every college and university in the country. Perhaps Congress should consider a non-partisan examination of those secondary education institutions that receive taxpayer money in any form to understand the architecture that causes costs to rise so much more sharply than consumer prices. I’m not sure that a solution would arise from such a study but it would be useful to know where the pathogens are.
Deirdre LaMotte says
Student debt cancellation is a targeted, progressive policy that would benefit those struggling the most. While
wealthier borrowers make larger monthly payments outright, student debt as a share of income is higher for
lower income borrowers. Additionally, partially due to sky-high interest rates and misleading forbearance
policies, most borrowers still owed more than half of what they borrowed for college even 12 years after
enrolling, with Black students being the sole group that owed more than what they borrowed after 12 years.
Therefore, lower income borrowers, especially Black borrowers, would benefit immensely from debt
cancellation.
We were lucky to pay for our children’s education; most are not. And we never thought ourselves as “suckers”. We thought our family blessed.
Thank God we have a President, much like Roosevelt, who cares about those who need assistance.