For many high schoolers across the nation, sights set on certain colleges come with careful deliberation over that college’s price tag. Unfortunately, these price tags are hefty and, often, unreachable by individual financial means. Thus, many individuals utilize student loans from banks or other financial institutions with the expectation of full repayment on top of additional interest to the institution. The increasing popularity of student loans reflects a similar reality of growing levels of student debt. In fact, according to NerdWallet’s household debt study in 2021, the average individual with a bachelor’s degree had a debt of $28,950, whereas the average individual with a graduate degree had a debt of $71,000. And this debt only grows as the level of post-secondary education increases. These exorbitant numbers are estimated to be 92% greater than those from around 10 years ago. The harsh reality of student loans is that student loans are more tenacious and binding than other loans; once you take out the loan, regardless if you spend that money on education, there aren’t many exceptions in repaying the loan except for student debt loan cancellation. This vicious nature of student loan debt became a key emphasis in President Biden’s announcement on August 25th regarding his student debt proposal. As Biden would announce, his proposal would truncate student loan debt by $20,000. Despite the intended effects of the policy to alleviate student debt repayment, the perhaps not so unintended effects have garnered major controversy in the realm of politics. Indeed, seven majority republican states have mounted waves of legal opposition against their state’s implementation of the bill.

One such domain of conflict has been the media. A frequently discussed theme in various interviews and other outlets has been the seemingly unilateral use of executive power from Biden in the eyes of conservatives. In particular, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich stated in an NPR interview that “The president isn’t a king. He’s not an emperor. And if he does something unconstitutional…I’m going to hold him accountable.” Similarly, Representative Virginia Fox, R-N.C., assured to “fight to the bitter end against this illegal, abusive use of executive pen”, in a speech since transcribed across a multitude of media platforms.

Part of the change that will be brought upon by the signing of this act is the inclusion of all types of borrowers, with no consideration given to individuals in special scenarios. One such scenario might look like certain state laws taxing, through income, the amount taken off as debt relief. And if said debt relief is considered income by these state laws, individuals could cease to be considered for certain low-income welfare programs and benefits. In this way, participating in this risky debt relief plan could actually bear more detriments than benefits. However, proponents of the plan have made it a point to counteract these claims be elucidating that the debt relief is not as binding to an individual as actual debt would be, and thus, the individual can choose to forgo it.

Another argument frequently brought forth by conservatives is the failure to acknowledge and include individuals who have already paid off their student loan, whether it was simply through hard work and perseverance or through joining the military, which will usually lead to debt of up to $50,000 being forgiven. Such individuals don’t receive fair compensation for working hard to pay off their student loan debt. In fact, such a plan would provide less beneficial to those who have put time and effort into paying off their student loans than those who have not. Choosing to hold back on paying off student loan and instead using excess income elsewhere, despite the repayment of student loans being meant to be seen as a priority, would save far more money than prioritizing such debt repayment. In countering said claims, Democrats have prioritized the bill’s relief towards millions of low and middle-income Americans, and the fact that it would solve the inequalities present between low-income and high-income individuals, who utilize tax-loopholes to create exemptions.

In conclusion, it can be noted that a certain opportunity cost exists with policies in that the government and society’s resources are so finite that enacting one policy means forgoing the resources required for another. This ground is what spurs perpetual conflict in the realm of politics, as individuals on opposing ends of the political spectrum constantly fight over the feasibility of goals set by the other end’s goals. Thus, one of the administration’s most ambitious economic and social policies has been met with significant friction, demonstrating that we exist in a hotbed of a political climate in which it is rare for action to meet amicably in the middle.

 

 

Sources:

Cortellessa, Eric. “FACT Checking Criticisms of Biden’s Student Loans Plan.” Time, Time, 26 Aug. 2022, https://time.com/6208871/biden-student-loans-criticism-fact-check/.

 

Stein, Jeff, and Danielle Douglas-Gabriel. “GOP States Sue Biden Administration to Overturn Student Debt Relief.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 30 Sept. 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/09/29/republicans-student-loan-forgiveness-lawsuit/.

 

Turner, Cory. “A Look inside the Legal Battle to Stop Biden’s Student Loan Relief.” NPR, NPR, 30 Sept. 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/09/30/1126083883/bidens-plan-to-cancel-some-student-debt-turns-into-a-legal-fight.