They say language is the Little Round Top of debate, and whoever holds it holds the high ground. The other side just marches into shrapnel. Which is why abortion-rights outfits long ago started using Pro Choice, and abortion opponents chose Pro Life. When you can get people talking your way, you can perhaps get them thinking your way.
This week's story about the Biden administration's plan to reduce, or even eliminate, student loan debt was interesting. Which may be why our news editors picked it for the front page. They know what's what.
Congressional Democrats told the papers that they hoped President Biden would follow through on promises to at least reduce student loans, because--note the language here--the law unfairly leaves too many borrowers stuck in repayment.
Stuck in repayment. Gee, we wonder how many homeowners are stuck in repayment with all those mortgages they took out years ago. Or the automobile owner who is still making car payments to the bank. As if they took out a loan to get a valuable asset and signed paperwork to repay the money as promised.
The administration has already proposed forgiving certain loans for fraud or permanent disability of the student. But the big idea being talked about includes "canceling" debt, another word that needs scare quotes.
For if the trillion dollars in debt that students and former students now owe is taken away from them, it will be put on the national credit card. And all taxpayers would be responsible in the form of a higher national debt.
This isn't even progressive, in the modern usage of the word. Because middle-class, and not just middle-class, former students would be passing off their education bills to every other American, many of whom didn't get the financial advantages of a college degree.
The papers say the major political parties are fighting over this proposal or that. Progressives want more debt canceled, either by executive order or through Congress. And others in Congress argue that schools with high debt default rates should be made to repay some of the money. There are as many college debt ideas as there are U.S. representatives and senators. Maybe more.
And while we understand that government must guarantee these loans in many cases, and that fraud does occur even at universities, and We the People often will take away financial burdens from those who cannot make ends meet for any number of reasons, there is still the idea--old-fashioned as it may be--that folks should be responsible for their promises. Including promises to pay back loans.
For example, why do so many people believe that these loan payments should be limited to, and based on, a former student's annual salary? Isn't that bass ackwards? The guy selling you the house or car might ask you in advance of your taking the loan how much you make, but he's not going to hand you the keys and ask later how much you can pay.
Nor will he tell you that you only need to pay your mortgage for 20 years, and the loan will be forgiven after that, no matter how much you still owe. Only when government lends money is that an option.
And, we wonder, not without reason, how many current students are borrowing the maximum amount, hoping that progressives will one day win in Congress and relieve them of their promise to repay?
There you go again, Mr. pointy-headed editorial writer. You have no heart.
Well, somebody should speak for the taxpayers who will ultimately pay these bills. And there is more to be said about the faithfulness to one's own promises. The previous several generations knew about obligation, especially when it comes to loans. And tried their best to make wise(r) choices about what they needed, and how much they'd be willing to pay for it in the future. What is the current generation learning about duty and accountability? And what will the next generation learn from them?
And speaking of the previous generation--specifically of the previous generation of student loan borrowers--is the government going to reimburse them for all the loans they did pay back?
If you think that a silly idea, and that nobody would demand such a thing of the American government, you haven't been paying attention. And if certain people in Congress thought it would buy a vote, you can imagine the idea could find itself on the front page.