With only a few weeks remaining before the 2024 presidential election, an announcement came from President Joe Biden. He declared a further reduction of student debt by another $4.5 billion. The most recent revelation was made on a Thursday, emphasizing that this round of cutbacks benefits over 60,000 public service professionals.
President Biden pointed out that this added wave of debt obliteration escalates the total figure of Americans receiving student debt dissolution under his administration over the one million mark. The core of our society and our nation is composed of public service workers. We’re referring to the teachers, nurses, firefighters, and numerous others who establish their careers around serving others.
They had been given promises of student loan forgiveness after a decade of public service, coupled with an equal period of payments towards the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. Unfortunately, the federal government’s commitment to this promise fell short on delivering. Before this current administration, a mere 7,000 individuals had been granted forgiveness under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.
Biden’s approach towards student loan forgiveness has encountered a turbulent journey in the judicial system. In August, the Supreme Court dismissed an attempt by the administration to eliminate an injunction made by an appellate court. This injunction had previously placed a restriction on their plan which sought to exempt the incomes of student loan beneficiaries from their repayment obligations.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court had rejected Biden’s student loan forgiveness scheme in 2023. However, despite this, Biden seemed to turn a blind eye to the ruling. Earlier in April, Biden made another announcement pursuing the path of loan forgiveness, targeting debt incurred by over 30 million borrowers.
The term ‘forgiveness’ however, doesn’t simply vanish the loans, but rather it displays a pass-the-baton act to taxpayers. These taxpayers are then coerced into settling the bill for those who attended college. Many such individuals are currently enjoying successful careers as doctors and lawyers.
There is, however, an inherent contradiction in the process. It places an unfair disadvantage on the working class, including many blue-collar workers who eke out a living on lower wages because they found college unaffordable. They decided to live responsibly, staying within their limits, avoiding unnecessary expenditure, and accepting a simpler lifestyle as a consequence.
These are the very individuals who made the decision not to opt for college, not incurring a loan, and thereby not leaving themselves with a burden subsequently written off. The irony is that they could have pursued a college education, taken on the loan, and never had to worry about repayment. It begs the question of whether student loan forgiveness is inadvertently promoting imprudence while punishing prudence.
Moreover, the fallout from this cancellation impacts those who managed to pay back their loans. It disrupts the legally binding contracts that these students agreed to, fundamentally questioning the nature of the agreement they had signed.
There’s an important principle to remember – if you’ve incurred student debt, it was likely a well-informed decision. You committed yourself to a legal obligation. You put your signature on that dotted line, knowing well what you were getting into.
As such, the question arises regarding the ethical and logical perspective of allowing a third party to interfere. The said third party is potentially in a position to invalidate your commitments and disregard your promises. It seems to run contrary to the basic premise of taking responsibility for decisions made.
One could argue that the narrative around student loans and their subsequent ‘forgiveness’ needs a more comprehensive analysis. It should not only consider the students who have been given loans, but also those who have paid back their loans, those who decided not to take them, and the taxpayers who ultimately shoulder the burden.
The debate around the student loan forgiveness program serves as an indication that a more balanced, fair, and responsible approach may be needed. This requires a solution that not only honours the commitments from all parties involved but also protects the interests of taxpayers while promoting an educational system that is accessible and affordable for all.