Biden doesn't support student debt cancellation...and he's right
On Feb. 16th President Biden gave a townhall. He answered several questions, but the one that seems to be getting the most attention was his answer on whether or not he would cancel $50,000 of student debt. President Biden answered this question with an unequivocal “no.”
He responded that he can’t do that. Many argue that he can, but more importantly his proposal was that instead of canceling $50,000 worth of student loan debt, the money should go into other progressive priorities such as making community college and even state universities free to attend. For this he is being attacked by the so-called Progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Though they might be well intentioned, they are attacking him from a Conservative point of view.
Let me clarify. At first it may seem to many that canceling $50,000 dollars of student loan debt is something that is positive for all. However, facts are mixed on who that might benefit the most. According to education data about 44% of college graduates currently go to four year college, while another 23% go to two year institutions. This leaves 33% of high school graduates who do not attend college at all. Given national high school graduation rates (84.6%) The majority of students entering high school do not go to four year colleges.
As a result, the majority of citizens do not accumulate high education debt. I realize there are some big gaps in my numbers here. Approximately 67% of graduates do go to 2 or 4 year universities and many of them do not complete college, but are saddled with student loan debt.
However, given that the average student loan debt is $32,731, canceling $50,000 dollars worth of student loan debt looks like overkill. Canceling that amount of debt or really any plan to cancel student loan debt is going to naturally help people who are in the upper middle classes. People who are carrying that amount of debt are generally health professionals, legal professionals, educational leaders, or leaders in other fields. Therefore, in aggregate this plan would actually put more money back in the pockets of the people who need it the least. As is common with many political issues, the group that is clamoring for it the loudest, (well- educated college graduates) also stand to gain the most from it. But this particular measure would not decrease income inequality, it would actually increase it by putting more money in the hands of people who have it.
Interestingly, what President Biden has proposed instead of canceling student debt is where true Progressives should be. He has said instead of spending money canceling student debt, the government should take that money to invest in making community college free. This is a proposal that would increase access for all Americans and the people who cannot afford college would benefit the most from it. This is what Progressives purport to stand for.
This highlights the need for critical thinking in the political process that can only be derived from extended dialogue from at least two political parties. In the absence of a sensible Republican party, the Democratic party is now arguing with itself about education priorities. The sad part about this is the so-called Progressives are arguing for the Conservative policy, while the alleged middle of the road Democrat is arguing for the Progressive policy.
If America had two political parties who were engaged in earnest policy making they might be able to agree that student loan debt and wider access to higher education are related issues. They might then be able to agree that while America has a lot of money it only has a certain amount of money to spend on either of these two issues. Next, they might be able to recognize that each perspective has value and perhaps they could even refrain from demonizing each other. Finally, they might agree on a compromise. Say $10,000 or $20,000 for canceling student loan debt and the rest for reducing the cost of community colleges. This result would be aimed at assisting people who attended college for the least amount of time, while making community college more accessible for people in lower income brackets.