SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
I want to live in a country where talented people from poor families can still go to college. (Photo: Shutterstock)
Trump Wants to Cancel Student Loan Forgiveness for Public Servants
A broken promise to teachers and nonprofit workers.
Feb 19, 2020
Before sharing my opinions about Trump's recent proposal to cut student loan forgiveness, let me explain my own situation.
In my 20s, I was fresh out of college with a business degree and worked in software for a few years. In my 30s, I went to graduate school for sociology. I'm single and I had no family support. So I took out student loans.
I made the decision to take student loans carefully. It's a risk, because you might not graduate and then you'll be left with thousands of dollars to pay back.
If you want to run the government like a profit-maximizing business, maybe cutting loan forgiveness makes sense.
There were two mitigating factors that led me to go for it. First, you can opt for income-based repayment. Under that option, your loan payments are tied to your income. If you're broke, your payments are small. If you're rich, you pay more. That seems fair.
Second, if you work in the public sector or at a non-profit organization, your loans are forgiven after 10 years of repayment. (If not, they are forgiven after 20 years.)
I'm a little more than a year away from graduation. After seven years of graduate school, if I'm lucky, I'll get a job that pays less than I made in software in my 20s. And then I'll pay back loans for a decade.
I'll be 50 years old when my loans are forgiven. It will affect my ability to buy a home, start a family, or save for retirement. I chose that.
Yet Trump has proposed cutting loan forgiveness for people who work in non-profit or government jobs for ten years. For students like me who already took out loans, it's reneging on a promise.
If you want to run the government like a profit-maximizing business, maybe cutting loan forgiveness makes sense. But there are good reasons why the government should not be run like a business.
Businesses are run to maximize the profits of their shareholders. Any benefits to their customers or the wider public are incidental. The government should benefit all of us.
A healthy society is one with social mobility, where a talented, hardworking person born into poverty can rise above their class. Unless you're a star athlete, education is the key to getting ahead. Education is not equally accessible to all.
Students from low-income families with college aspirations are already at a disadvantage for a long list of reasons. Sociologist Sara Goldrick-Rab studies how the current financial aid system is skewed against the poor. For example, she finds that aid packages underestimate the actual cost of attending school, and assume that children don't contribute financially to their parents (which many low income students do).
Loans aren't ideal. Any measures that could allow students to graduate without crippling debt would be better. But they are something. They allow some students who could not otherwise afford it to get a college education. They promote social mobility.
I want to live in a country where talented people from poor families can still go to college. I think that makes our country better -- not just in an idealistic way because of lofty morals, but in a real, tangible way that I believe we will all gain from.
I don't think we are better when the rich stay rich because Aunt Becky can buy her kids' way into college without them earning it, while a genius born to poor parents can't. I think we all do better when talented people born into poor families can realize their full potential, enriching our society for all of us.
Loan forgiveness isn't the magic bullet to achieving a perfect meritocracy, but it's something. And it's not a giveaway of free money -- it's an investment in a better society.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This column was distributed by OtherWords.
Jill Richardson
Jill Richardson is pursuing a PhD in sociology at UW-Madison, where she studies natural resources and the environment.
Before sharing my opinions about Trump's recent proposal to cut student loan forgiveness, let me explain my own situation.
In my 20s, I was fresh out of college with a business degree and worked in software for a few years. In my 30s, I went to graduate school for sociology. I'm single and I had no family support. So I took out student loans.
I made the decision to take student loans carefully. It's a risk, because you might not graduate and then you'll be left with thousands of dollars to pay back.
If you want to run the government like a profit-maximizing business, maybe cutting loan forgiveness makes sense.
There were two mitigating factors that led me to go for it. First, you can opt for income-based repayment. Under that option, your loan payments are tied to your income. If you're broke, your payments are small. If you're rich, you pay more. That seems fair.
Second, if you work in the public sector or at a non-profit organization, your loans are forgiven after 10 years of repayment. (If not, they are forgiven after 20 years.)
I'm a little more than a year away from graduation. After seven years of graduate school, if I'm lucky, I'll get a job that pays less than I made in software in my 20s. And then I'll pay back loans for a decade.
I'll be 50 years old when my loans are forgiven. It will affect my ability to buy a home, start a family, or save for retirement. I chose that.
Yet Trump has proposed cutting loan forgiveness for people who work in non-profit or government jobs for ten years. For students like me who already took out loans, it's reneging on a promise.
If you want to run the government like a profit-maximizing business, maybe cutting loan forgiveness makes sense. But there are good reasons why the government should not be run like a business.
Businesses are run to maximize the profits of their shareholders. Any benefits to their customers or the wider public are incidental. The government should benefit all of us.
A healthy society is one with social mobility, where a talented, hardworking person born into poverty can rise above their class. Unless you're a star athlete, education is the key to getting ahead. Education is not equally accessible to all.
Students from low-income families with college aspirations are already at a disadvantage for a long list of reasons. Sociologist Sara Goldrick-Rab studies how the current financial aid system is skewed against the poor. For example, she finds that aid packages underestimate the actual cost of attending school, and assume that children don't contribute financially to their parents (which many low income students do).
Loans aren't ideal. Any measures that could allow students to graduate without crippling debt would be better. But they are something. They allow some students who could not otherwise afford it to get a college education. They promote social mobility.
I want to live in a country where talented people from poor families can still go to college. I think that makes our country better -- not just in an idealistic way because of lofty morals, but in a real, tangible way that I believe we will all gain from.
I don't think we are better when the rich stay rich because Aunt Becky can buy her kids' way into college without them earning it, while a genius born to poor parents can't. I think we all do better when talented people born into poor families can realize their full potential, enriching our society for all of us.
Loan forgiveness isn't the magic bullet to achieving a perfect meritocracy, but it's something. And it's not a giveaway of free money -- it's an investment in a better society.
Jill Richardson
Jill Richardson is pursuing a PhD in sociology at UW-Madison, where she studies natural resources and the environment.
Before sharing my opinions about Trump's recent proposal to cut student loan forgiveness, let me explain my own situation.
In my 20s, I was fresh out of college with a business degree and worked in software for a few years. In my 30s, I went to graduate school for sociology. I'm single and I had no family support. So I took out student loans.
I made the decision to take student loans carefully. It's a risk, because you might not graduate and then you'll be left with thousands of dollars to pay back.
If you want to run the government like a profit-maximizing business, maybe cutting loan forgiveness makes sense.
There were two mitigating factors that led me to go for it. First, you can opt for income-based repayment. Under that option, your loan payments are tied to your income. If you're broke, your payments are small. If you're rich, you pay more. That seems fair.
Second, if you work in the public sector or at a non-profit organization, your loans are forgiven after 10 years of repayment. (If not, they are forgiven after 20 years.)
I'm a little more than a year away from graduation. After seven years of graduate school, if I'm lucky, I'll get a job that pays less than I made in software in my 20s. And then I'll pay back loans for a decade.
I'll be 50 years old when my loans are forgiven. It will affect my ability to buy a home, start a family, or save for retirement. I chose that.
Yet Trump has proposed cutting loan forgiveness for people who work in non-profit or government jobs for ten years. For students like me who already took out loans, it's reneging on a promise.
If you want to run the government like a profit-maximizing business, maybe cutting loan forgiveness makes sense. But there are good reasons why the government should not be run like a business.
Businesses are run to maximize the profits of their shareholders. Any benefits to their customers or the wider public are incidental. The government should benefit all of us.
A healthy society is one with social mobility, where a talented, hardworking person born into poverty can rise above their class. Unless you're a star athlete, education is the key to getting ahead. Education is not equally accessible to all.
Students from low-income families with college aspirations are already at a disadvantage for a long list of reasons. Sociologist Sara Goldrick-Rab studies how the current financial aid system is skewed against the poor. For example, she finds that aid packages underestimate the actual cost of attending school, and assume that children don't contribute financially to their parents (which many low income students do).
Loans aren't ideal. Any measures that could allow students to graduate without crippling debt would be better. But they are something. They allow some students who could not otherwise afford it to get a college education. They promote social mobility.
I want to live in a country where talented people from poor families can still go to college. I think that makes our country better -- not just in an idealistic way because of lofty morals, but in a real, tangible way that I believe we will all gain from.
I don't think we are better when the rich stay rich because Aunt Becky can buy her kids' way into college without them earning it, while a genius born to poor parents can't. I think we all do better when talented people born into poor families can realize their full potential, enriching our society for all of us.
Loan forgiveness isn't the magic bullet to achieving a perfect meritocracy, but it's something. And it's not a giveaway of free money -- it's an investment in a better society.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.