OK, I’ll weigh in on the loan forgiveness debate, knowingly subjecting myself to the abuse of those who disagree (just as I’ve witnessed those who agree with me abusing those who disagree. Why can’t we have civil discourse anymore? Why can we no longer discuss issues, and instead attack each other? Why must any disagreement deteriorate into a bout of juvenile sibling name-calling?)
I think I understand a lot of the resistance to President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. Basically, there’s a level of unfairness. I get that; and a part of me empathizes. I paid off my student loans; why does this generation get a free ride? Right? One counter argument is the inequity in the tax system, favoring the rich and the corporations. That also is unfair.
A significant number of legislators who oppose $20K student loan forgiveness have had $6-figure PPP loans forgiven. That’s unfair. I couldn’t have been forgiven my $28K automobile loan! There’s far too much unfairness going around, and it’s a valid complaint, and it impacts the entire left/right liberal/conservative spectrum, and I don’t have a better idea.
Some are severely burdened by huge high-interest student loans, while others (like me) have no serious problem paying them off. That also carries a level of unfairness—or at least inequity; nevertheless, the inequity is acknowledged and reflected in the indexing of the loan forgiveness to the income of the debtor.
Another inequity relates to race. Loans to black students carry a higher interest rate than loans to white students, while black college graduates earn significantly less income than white graduates in the same vocation. That’s unfair.
But here’s the thing: my confusion relates to the tremendous amount of SELECTIVITY regarding which unfair practices are criticized and which are acceptable. Case in point: Vouchers for charter schools are our tax dollars paying for private school education and used to pay private investors in those schools. But tax dollars to cover higher education is a plot by commies and socialists. [Side bar: the matter of selectivity—hypocrisy?—makes up a major difference between the left and right on virtually every issue, and selectivity may be the only bi-partisan element within our political system!]
A major oversight in the student loan forgiveness debate (I’ve not seen anyone from either side of the debate make this point) is that education is not solely the benefit of those who are being educated. There is ample documentation that a culture/nation benefits in direct proportion to an increased level of education within the population. Across the board, the fact is that individual financial benefit to a college graduate is much less today than it was a generation ago, while the cost of education has increased significantly. Documentable statistical trends show that American culture in general has diminished as the educational level had diminished.
I favor free public education through a four-year undergraduate degree or any trade or vocational certification. I favor it for the reason above: the whole nation benefits from a higher level of education within its population. And since the public—the whole nation—is the major beneficiary, it’s not unfair to expect the beneficiary—the public—to pay.
The issue for me is the transition. How do we get from our broken and declining education system to a free, high-level system like we see in so many other nations who have surpassed the United States in so many ways in the past generation? By “broken and declining” I mean the trend toward sectarian, partisan indoctrination instead of presenting all sides of every issue and teaching the discipline of critical thinking so educated people can make intelligent choices. What I suspect won’t be admitted by those who disagree is that when all sides are presented and critical thinking is applied, the documentable trend always moves toward a more liberal outcome. THAT, I suspect, is the tap root of the debate.
That’s the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.
Together in the Walk,
Jim
