Have been recalling lately how I paid for college. Items in the news, you know. Basically, my parents bankrolled my college education. I recall having a campus job washing dishes in the cafeteria a couple times per month. That was good for a trivial amount of pocket money. I also took out a loan for the relatively small portion of the big bill my parents didn't cover. I think maybe they thought it was important I have "skin in the game." Anyway, it was the kind of loan where you get the money, and you don't start paying it back till you're done with school and working. Then, you pay like on a mortgage, and interest accrues on the unpaid principle. When that day came, my dad gave me the money to pay off the loan, and he stepped into the shoes of my creditor—nice for me, as his interest rate was zero. Even nicer: after I'd been paying him awhile, he told me one day to forget about it, which until now I mostly did.
My parents weren't rich—middle class tending toward affluent, at best. I think they were able to save a tidy sum for my college (and my sister's) because, one, they placed a high value on education—just as something good in itself, without reference to any goal of "getting ahead"—and, two, by inclination and upbringing they preferred to live modestly. Also, college didn't cost as much in the 1970s. I think I remember that in my sophomore year the cost of tuition, room and board at my college was $4050. The year before it had been under $4000, and it never reached $5000 while I was there. Today, it's $63,110.
Probably you can see where I'm going with this. All things considered, I probably shouldn't be the one to bitch my guts out about the federal government forgiving $10,000 of student loan debt for people who lacked the advantages described above. It's true that loan forgiveness does not address the underlying problem of high college costs. But I wonder whether this argument doesn't turn against the people making it. Especially at public colleges and universities, a leading factor in rising costs is that they are not funded as generously by taxpayers as they were 40 years ago. The schools therefore cut programs and pass along costs to students, who take out loans and fall into debt at 20. The people who complain bitterly about loan forgiveness are the same ones vehemently opposed to what they regard as "lavish spending" on higher education. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that what they're actually against is people of modest means attaining a college education.
Unless, of course, they're good at sportzing. No one complains about taxpayers footing the college bill for good sportzers. You can read here about how the government allows affluent people to save for college while simultaneously reducing their tax bill. No one seems bitter about that, either.
Biden owes Americans an explanation on why a truck driver who didn't go to college is now responsible for the student loans of a rich lawyer.
— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) August 24, 2022
And it does not tend to diminish my support for a policy initiative when I notice that those in opposition, including US senators, have no better tactic than to lie about it. Since "rich lawyers" earn more than $125k/year, they are barred from having their loans forgiven under the plan.
Comments