Scott Liddicoat

There’s a lot to dislike about Biden’s (so-called) student loan forgiveness program.  Here’s a sampling:

• You paid off your college debt, didn’t take on college debt, or went to a non-qualifying kind of school.
• You have, or have had, other debts equally (or more) difficult to repay.
• A bad precedent has been set.  Students will be encouraged to take on even more college debt.  Colleges will be encouraged to raise their tuition further.
• This program adds to the federal debt.
• Adding to the debt, this program will drive high inflation even higher.
• This is a bailout for rich kids, or at least for students who can expect much higher lifetime earnings than many other people.
• I shouldn’t be required to pay other people’s voluntarily contracted debts.

Given enough time, I could probably add to this list.

Of course, these dislikes have gone up against arguments from the other side.  Student loan forgiveness is “life-changing.”  It will “boost the economy.”  It will “close wealth gaps” and “promote educational justice.”  Given enough time, I could probably add to this list too.

Approaching the issue this way—arguing one side against the other—reminds me of a story I heard long ago that has always stuck with me.  Around my home I like to plant impatiens.  But one year a neighbor comes over, digs them up, and plants petunias instead.  Naturally, a dispute occurs. 

But if I’m not careful, we end up arguing the relative merits of impatiens versus petunias.  Of course, the real issue is one of principle.

The property is mine.  I make the decisions about what happens on my property.

So it is with student loan forgiveness.  To argue the issue on a foundation of its relative merits and faults is entirely useless.  Student loan forgiveness by executive order is not constitutional on its face.** 

That’s the principle upon which the argument should rest.  It’s.  Just.  That.  Simple.   It’s why we have a constitution in the first place.  In plain words, our Constitution specifies the three branches of our national government, defines their roles, and describes what they are permitted to do.  Student loan forgiveness by presidential order doesn’t even come close to qualifying under our constitution.

It’s a nice day.  I think I’ll go outside to water my impatiens.

Scott Liddicoat

________________________

** Only congress may appropriate money.  The president may only recommend appropriations for congressional consideration.  From The Constitution of the United States:

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7:  No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of [ congressional ] Appropriations made by Law…

Article 2, Section 3, He [ the president ] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient…

“What Constitutional power does Biden have to take John Q. Public’s money and pay Jane Q. Public’s school loans? Why not her mortgage? Why not her car loan? How did the college-educated caste become the lucky ones? When and how does this stop? This nonsense not only defies the US Constitution – it defies common sense! And, if President Biden is doing this under the auspices of the federal government, what redress does John Q. Public have other than to take the fight to the federal judiciary?” – Rich Heidel