In an unsurprising turn of events, President Joe Biden and his Democratic compatriots have abandoned their high-flown plans to absolve the student debt of nearly 30 million Americans. This marks a disappointing, yet expected finale to their rocky tenure as they prepare to leave the White House come January 20. Offering up grandiose promises of debt forgiveness during his 2020 campaign, Biden aimed to ease the financial burden of the country’s young and educated population. Regrettably, these promises will ultimately dissipate as Biden steps down from the Oval Office in early 2025, thanks to relentless legal disputes, delays, and a clear defeat in the presidential race that make any continuation of his supposed plans highly unlikely.
In typical political maneuvering, shelving these plans also disallows the incoming Republican administration any chance to amend or reform what was once the ambition of Biden’s policy. Yes, they have managed to circumvent the so-far theoretical modifications of the Republicans, but at the cost of the very people they claimed to help. Such are the machinations of politics that keep the hopeful in check and the establishment in power.
So, let us explore, what were the two student debt forgiveness plans that have now been consigned to the footnotes of history? The first one, unoriginally named ‘Plan B’, was an ambitious goal of mass debt forgiveness and relief. It proposed to offer up to $10,000 for the majority of borrowers, a proposal that was promptly nixed by the Supreme Court.
The plan was devised mainly to rescue those borrowers whose loan balances had ballooned over time due to unchecked interest accumulation. In an ironic twist of fate, it was also intended to help those borrowers who fell victim to schools that failed to meet federal standards. Presumably, Biden and the Democrats thought this would conveniently forget the failings of the government’s own higher education system.
Details of the plan also indicated special provisions for individuals who took out loans 20-25 years ago and those who already qualified for forgiveness. Now that the plans are shelved, these people, who Biden claimed to be his primary concern during his campaign, will remain encumbered by their college debt as they head into their retirement years.
The second plan offered a ray of hope for individuals grappling with personal or financial hardships. Conceived as an automatic relief scheme, the plan would have used certain indicators to highlight the hardships of these individuals, albeit conveniently ignoring the socio-economic problems that perhaps led to these hardships in the first place.
The plan took into account factors such as low income, other debt burdens, eligibility for other government programs, and individuals coping with or living with disabilities. It seemed a well-thought-out scheme on the surface, only if they would not end up as empty promises like so many others.
Certainly, at first glance, these plans might have appeared commendable. Yet we all know how it ended: with these grand designs cast aside, unable to withstand the scrutiny of time and the realities of governing. It seems promising easy solutions to complex problems during electoral races is easier than actually delivering them.
In retrospect, perhaps it was never the plan that was flawed, but the leadership delivering it. Hiding behind promises of relief and forgiveness, the Democrats under Biden seemed more interested in gaining votes than in executing substantial policy changes that would have nominally benefitted the American people.
This pattern is nothing new. The Democrats have a long history of suggesting grand plans, promising monumental changes, and positioning themselves as champions for the struggling everyday American. Yet, when push comes to shove, the delivery falls short, and the grandiose promises turn into hollow rhetoric.
The shelving of the student debt forgiveness program is just another piece of evidence illustrating this established pattern. Wide-scale reform and relief remain elusive under the Biden administration, and the grand promises of campaign season have, once again, failed to convert into substantial policy change.
This failure points to a broader issue in the Democratic Party’s approach. They appear to focus too much energy on the appearance of change rather than deep, substantial reform. In contrast, while the conservatives might be portrayed as less generous or compassionate in their policy proposals, they seem to be more grounded in their vision and more realistic in their policy goals.
In the end, the anticipated policy reforms and promised ‘rescue’ plans fall by the wayside under the crushing weight of political expediency and legality. Shockingly – or perhaps not – the Democrats and Biden give ground, leaving the stage for another set of politicians to promise and not deliver.
So the promise of relief, the vision of a less financially burdensome existence for tens of millions of American students is extinguished. The noble goal of giving everyone a fair shot at higher education has faded once again. Under the overwhelming narrative of ‘We Can’t,’ the American students must once again bear the weight of their debts, trapped in a cycle they had hoped would be broken.
As Biden’s tenure draws to a close, one cannot help but consider this dismal failure representative of the Democrats’ broader approach to governance. It is one thing to promise the world during campaign season; it is quite another to make these dreams a reality when in power. Perhaps it’s time we held our leaders accountable for their grand promises and started demanding real, tangible change.