In a recent column, Representative Randy Feenstra opposed any form of student loan cancellation, arguing, “If student loans and their accompanying interest payments can simply be erased, people who have already paid off their debts are punished for their frugality and responsibility. That’s just wrong.”
Rep. Feenstra equates awarding a benefit to one group with punishment of another group who did not receive that benefit. Following this logic, any legislation or policy that offers specific benefits for a group is “just wrong,” as it punishes those who did not receive an equal benefit. Rep. Feenstra knows well, however, that one of the roles of representing a constituency is advocating on behalf of their interests. He has, for example, advocated regularly for policies that benefit only farmers and small business owners facing difficult situations. The logic he applies to student loan cancellation appears incongruent with how he operates (rightly so) as a representative of his district.
I also believe that Representative Feenstra might be short-sighted in his approach to student loan cancellation. There are numerous institutions of higher education in District 4, alongside many young families and students entering college with hopes to purchase homes, participate in their local communities, and raise children with bright futures ahead of them. Addressing the rapidly increasing costs of higher education—as well as canceling significant amounts of debt for many borrowers--would be incredibly helpful to many and would free up resources to further support the economy, their families, and our communities.
For most young people, the choices for what to do after high school are limited, and the costs of college have dramatically increased. When Rep. Feenstra attended Dordt College as a freshman in 1987, tuition was $5,320. For the upcoming school year, Dordt lists their direct cost of tuition at $37,050. Adjusted for inflation, Dordt costs about $22,500 more today than it did in 1987. These costs create significant economic anxiety for borrowers entering the post-high school landscape, yet the outcomes for those completing a bachelor’s degree are vastly stronger than their peers who don’t earn a college degree.
According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, bachelor’s degree holders’ median salary was $24,000 more a year than high school degree holders. Over a lifetime, the difference is staggering. The Social Security Administration finds that: “After controlling for key socio-demographic variables that influence earnings and the probability of college completion, the differences in lifetime earnings by educational attainment are reduced, but still substantial…Regression estimates show that men with bachelor's degrees would earn $655,000 more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates. Women with a bachelor's degrees would earn $450,000 more in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates.” Overall, college is the still the single best option for high school graduates economically and has massive implications even for long-term quality of life.
Annie Case and Angus Deaton cite data in their NYT Guest Essay “Without a College Degree, Life in America is Staggeringly Shorter,” that displays that college grads live just under ten years longer than those who do not receive a college degree. Ultimately, the case is clear: for college-aged people, getting a bachelor’s degree is predominantly the best option post-high school.
Rather than berating young people seeking economic relief in the interest of buying homes, getting married, and starting families, Rep. Feenstra should propose legislation that addresses the rising costs of higher education, better supports individuals seeking alternatives to higher education, closes the gaps in lifetime earnings and quality of life, and ultimately empowers young people to live a flourishing life.
It’s clear that the student loan crisis is a crisis. It started long before President Biden and will only continue without some form of action. We can debate whether President Biden’s actions to address this crisis are an example of federal or executive overreach, an attempt to gain politically, or are too narrow in scope to help enough people, including those who did not attend college. Cheap arguments, lame softballs at the President, and attempts to help students understand what they already know about the cost of an education will not suffice in the face of the dilemma of rapidly rising costs and economic anxiety versus the reward of significant economic benefits. Ultimately, we may not have to choose between personal responsibility and the government helping people with specific issues related to our specific time. Perhaps through the help we garner to those in need, we might empower them to live fruitfully, responsibly, and accountably.