PSLF

• 9 years ago

By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK

What do you think about PSLF, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program? I haven’t heard much about it since it was established during George W. Bush’s time in office. I recently came across an op-ed column in my local newspaper here in Connecticut describing how it works.

The author was Tiffany Williams, who describes herself as an “idealist,” a woman from a working-class background who took out student loans to finance her $50,000 a year education at Columbia University’s graduate program in social work. That Williams is going into social work, rather seeking work in the corporate world, is why she thinks of herself as an idealist.

The problem Williams faced was paying off the loans. She found herself, while employed as a social worker, “living on credit cards and coupons and trying to cover rent and utilities for the 8-by-8-foot room” where she lived, just trying to “stay afloat.” Until, that is, she received an email from a friend, “a freshly minted idealist like me, with a link to a new federal program. It would forgive our remaining debt after we made 10 solid years of payments while employed in public service. It was available for future teachers, firefighters, librarians, or in our cases, social workers.”

Her friend was talking about PSLF, a program that she describes as one “that helps people like me who want to work at organizations that match our values — without forsaking our chance to buy homes, have kids, and plan for retirement.”

So Williams signed up. She “consolidated” her “debt with the federal government, and enrolled in an income-based repayment plan.” Her loan payments went down, with the prospect of her debt being completely forgiven at the end of her 10 years as a public servant.

What concerns Williams is that PSLF is “on the chopping block for repeal in the latest Republican budget.” She thinks that “a shame,” since “there are 43 million Americans living with more than $1 trillion in student debt,” who “need lifelines like this one. It ensures that promising young people who want to serve their neighbors are able to get an education and put it to good use.”

“Good use” apparently means not working for a capitalist enterprise.

What say you? At a time like this when the country is in such enormous debt, should the federal government be forgiving student loans? Especially when one considers how the colleges likely will react to such generosity from the taxpayers. You can picture the college guidance counselors making the pitch: “Don’t worry about how much we are increasing your tuition. Take out a loan. All you have to do is work 10 years for the government and the loan will be forgiven. Then, if you want to move on to some other more lucrative field, nothing will hold you back. You will be debt-free and with 10 years of work experience to show on your resume. It’s a win-win situation.”

It is time for Americans to ponder the implications of all this. It is becoming a matter that will concern us all. As I type these words, there are reports on the evening news that Hillary Clinton is going to propose “debt-free college educations.”

In an interview on CNBC May 6, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook stated, “What voters are looking for in this election is someone who’s going to be a champion for everyday people — for young people, that’s debt-free college.” We will have to wait for Hillary to give us the details of her proposal, but if she means forgiving everyone’s student loans, it would be one of the most costly entitlement programs ever envisioned. It would make the taxpayers responsible for paying the cost of every student’s college education, much as they currently cover the costs of elementary and high school.

But when did the cost of a government program ever stand in the way of liberals seeking to use the promise of “free stuff” to win votes? Perhaps Hillary’s endgame is the situation that prevails in much of Europe, where the cost of a college education is highly subsidized by the taxpayers.

The trade-off for the subsidized tuition in Europe is that admission to European universities is highly competitive; not every high school student is entitled to a university education paid for by the government. Perhaps Hillary will be able to come up with a more “democratic” approach in the United States, where we have become accustomed to college education for the masses.

The big question will be whether the blue-collar voters without college degrees and with children not going to college, who are a major segment of the Democratic base, will go along with the taxes required to educate college students in this manner. Then again, I may be underestimating Hillary. I can picture her on the stump earnestly seeking to convince us that the cost for debt-free college can be handled by taxes only “on the rich.”

But won’t it become obvious that the numbers for such a proposal don’t add up? It might not matter. We should always remember the advice Lyndon Baines Johnson is widely reported to have given to Democrats in the Congress during the debate over Medicare: “Whatever you do, don’t let them cost it out.” If the voters can be led to focus only on the noble objective of a proposed piece of legislation, and not on how much it will raise taxes, it is hard to stop the noble endeavor from barreling down the tracks.

Also, what about Williams’ premise that working for the government in public service is “idealistic” because it “helps people” and serves the community more than working in private enterprise? Is that true? Do government workers do more for their fellow men and women than, for instance, entrepreneurs who create large numbers of jobs that move people into the middle class?

Does a social worker, teacher, or librarian do more for the community than the people who fix cars, computers, and build houses? Has Bill Clinton done more for mankind than the scientists working on cancer cures for private pharmaceutical companies? Why should a social worker’s student loans be forgiven, but not those of a petroleum engineer working to free the United States from the grip of OPEC? Not easy questions, in my opinion. We welcome our readers’ responses.

+ + +

Readers are invited to submit comments and questions about this and other educational issues. The e-mail address for First Teachers is fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net, and the mailing address is P.O. Box 15, Wallingford, CT 06492.