Newsletter #63
On Student Loan Anxiety
Isn’t it odd that “cream of the crop” and the “upper crust” are intended as compliments? Are we talking about baking or people?
Why So Anxious?
Axios recently reported on the anxiety and consternation associated with the fate of President Biden’s student loan debt relief plan. The Supreme Court recently heard arguments concerning the constitutionality of Biden’s plan, which prompted the aforementioned coverage.
Before focusing on the article, let me offer a general statement about the student loan situation in our country.
Any serious person who looks honestly at the situation must acknowledge that we have some kind of problem on our hands. Around 13% of Americans have student loans. As of January this year, the average federal student loan debt per borrower was $37,667. The total student loan debt in the U.S. is $1.74 trillion. By comparison, this is higher than the total GDP of Australia, Russia, or Canada [1].
What type of problem this constitutes, who’s to blame (and to what degree), and what to do about it is where some of us would part ways.
Aside: In my own view, I’m sympathetic to the argument that the federal government largely created this mess (through several bad policies over the last several decades), and therefore, has some obligation to clean it up. Where I’m not prepared to go, however, is to endorse large-scale, debt forgiveness schemes—proposed and implemented by an irresponsible, feckless, federal government.
In short, corrections should be made to existing federal student loan programs. I’m also open to considering debt forgiveness plans for some borrowers, provided incentives are tied to strategic economic and occupational needs. Beyond that, people who signed on the dotted line should assume responsibility to pay back what they’ve borrowed.
I hesitated to even offer that aside, knowing that there are several layers to this topic. But I offer that as a preamble since we often offer simplistic solutions for complex problems. What I’m much more interested in, at the moment, are the assumptions embedded in the mainstream reporting on the issue. Back to the article.
Erin Doherty summarizes the stakes as seen by many borrowers whom she interviewed. An overarching sentiment is that people are especially anxious and uncertain of their future. They feel that their lives are on hold, constrained by the outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling next spring. Thus, the key phrase in the article is “borrowers on edge.”
I know that most conservatives like me have doubted the constitutionality of this plan for the outset. This question, of course, is being determined by the justices now.
Many of us also haven’t been able to avoid noticing how this relief scheme disproportionately benefits higher-income earning families, as well as those entering professions with higher-earning potential. To this point, hear the sentiments of Ryan Rudolph, a Pell Grant Recipient and Duke master’s student: “I feel a bit anxious. Depending on which way the pendulum swings, [it] could mean being able to pay off my debt in five years or … paying it off in 10.”
I was stunned that the author even dared use such an inane example. Here’s someone bright enough to access a Duke master’s program (while living down the road in not-too-shabby Chapel Hill). In most cases, such a degree significantly heightens his future earning potential. And he’s worried about taking 10 years instead of five?
Admittedly, my own biases come through here as I reflect on Mr. Rudolph. I borrowed a lot of money to attend Duke, and it took me right at ten years to pay it off. Yet, it has opened many doors for me. Can’t someone just be grateful for the opportunity (and for having been able to get a Pell Grant)? Instead, he says, “It’s not fun understanding your financial future, … hanging in the balance and not knowing, having to deal with that uncertainty.”
Rudolph is bright enough to have become a graduate student at a top-25 institution, but is still under the impression that the federal government is responsible to create certainty for his future after he already decided to commit to the certainty of repaying loans. Here lies an assumption that once someone takes control of his life and charts a course, but regrets a decision, someone else must fix it.
Or worse yet, perhaps the political promise of debt relief (made in the 2020 presidential campaign by multiple candidates) caused borrowers to imagine a different future, and falsely construct a life plan based on such a promise.
Interestingly, Rudolph is quoted as saying that he is “saving as much as possible” so he can “weather the storm if the plan is struck down.” That just sounds like good old-fashioned financial restraint and prudence, yet it’s expressed as an unfortunate concession, not a necessary and normal part of adult financial life.
We also learn of Shanna, an unemployed resident in Alexandria, Virginia, hoping to co-own a home with her wife in the future. Put aside Shanna’s relationship choices, though those certainly have a bearing on one’s financial condition. She lives in one of the most affluent (and fastest growing) suburbs of Washington, D.C. She lives in the midst of an economy filled with job openings that employers cannot fill. But one can’t help but envision her sitting around, anxious over what some people in black robes will announce in the spring.
The story doesn’t say much about Shanna’s day to day life, but I’d like to know more about her and folks like her. What will you do with your anxiety? How will you take ownership over your decisions, past and present? Yes, President Biden’s plan, if allowed to stand, would give you the “leeway to make big financial moves” that have been delayed. But what if you end up having to pay your loans back, just as it was stated on the forms you filled out?
Getting into Perspective
A newsletter like this could sound like the stereotypical, sour-grapes type of argument: “Jackson borrowed some money and paid it back. Now he expects everyone else to have to play by the same rules for all time, regardless of the circumstance.” Earnestly, I want to reassure readers that my views on this topic are more nuanced than that.
Yes, in the flesh, one could easily get on one’s high horse and act as though they are the model for how to take responsibility for one’s life. However, most assuredly, I realize (and so should we all) how our parents, grandparents, friends, fellow church members, and peers have shaped and contribute to our education and future plans. We’ve had help along the way. Certainly, we are at times helped by government policies, and harmed by others. We need to try to account fully for our own experience, and the experiences of others. We need to recognize the contingency of our present financial and social realities, while recognizing God’s sovereignty.
As wrong as he was about so many things, President Obama was partly correct when he infamously said, “You didn’t build that.” It made for a great campaign talking point for the Romney campaign to wield against him later. And it was clearly an overstatement in the way Obama expressed it. Politics is like that, you know. However, it is true that no man is an island. And we’re impacted by false messaging, bad policies, changing economic situations (whether positively or negatively), and the decisions of our parents. Christians need to be able to take these truths on board in their efforts to empathize with people. If you struggle with mercy, this is a good time to lean in and acknowledge some details you may be overlooking.
I think it’s entirely possible to chew gum and walk at the same time when it comes to this issue. We need to reckon with the realities of trying to require people to be responsible for their decisions. (After all, you can’t have a just society if people are obsessed over rights while ignoring responsibilities.) Simultaneously, we can try to help people recalibrate their expectations of politicians and governments. Perhaps in entrusting too much responsibility to them today, we give them the very tools they need to disappoint us tomorrow.
Such a dynamic isn’t entirely unlike the way that excited church members can put too much confidence in charismatic or persuasive leaders. They end up outsourcing responsibility for their spiritual growth and health to the performance of a few, skilled people on Sundays, and later they wonder why they’re so dry and empty on Tuesday. Does the pastoral staff have real obligations to the flock? Absolutely. Does the flock have real obligations to each other, and to their own families? Absolutely. We have to hold these two truths in tension, and see how they actually reinforce each other.
Similarly, in the student loan crisis conversation, there has to be a way for lawmakers, lenders, and borrowers to be honest about the fact that everyone has a role in the discussion. Focusing on one at the exclusion of others will end up breeding more irresponsibility, and leave us worse off than we already are.
[1] Credit to FinMasters for compiling this data.
Go Deeper:
Conversations With Coleman: Drowning In Debt With Josh Mitchell on Apple Podcasts
Follow-Up:
In my last newsletter I penned a few thoughts about George Eldon Ladd’s contributions to the way that modern evangelicals understand the Kingdom. Just this week I happened upon this installment of “Ask Pastor John [Piper]” over at Desiring God. In it, Piper—a former student of Ladd’s—briefly summarizes his thoughts on Ladd’s legacy.
Currently Reading:
Catch-up week
Quote of the Week:
When asked to define a woman, Ketanji Brown Jackson famously replied that she “was not a biologist.” Now she was not being interviewed to determine whether she might be eligible for early release from an asylum, but was rather being questioned in Congress because she had been nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States. She was nominated to a position of extraordinarily high responsibility, and she was sworn in despite the unbelievable lameness of that answer. And a society that appoints people like that to the highest court in the land is a society that deserves everything it is going to get—good and hard.
Please allow me to walk you through this. Someone who doesn’t know what a woman is has to be someone who also doesn’t know what a girl is. And if someone doesn’t know what a girl is, such a person also doesn’t know what boys and girls are. If they don’t know what boys and girls are, this means they don’t know what the image of God in man is—because the Word defines that image for us. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27). God created us in His image, male and female. Someone who doesn’t understand that doesn’t know what a human being is.