It is said that in the arena of student loan forgiveness, opinions fly like caps at a graduation ceremony. Last Sunday, Victoria Hugo-Vidal (the Maine Millennial) advocated for President Biden’s debt pardoning while castigating Rep. Golden’s opposing stance. However, I find myself disagreeing on both fronts.

Regarding the debt forgiveness plan, simple economics disprove its efficacy. Debt forgiveness fails to reduce costs as borrowers simply adjust their cost expectations, allowing colleges to raise tuition more. To genuinely address college expenses, we should encourage alternatives like military service, trades, law enforcement, or even the postal service, all of which are currently experiencing severe labor shortages. This would reduce the overinflated demand for a degree, lowering costs in the long run.

The strongest argument for forgiveness is that rural Maine struggles to retain health professionals and teachers due to loan pressures. However, data from the National Center for Education shows Education and Health majors constitute only 21% of undergraduates. Prudent forgiveness for 21% does not merit forgiveness for all. More tailored options like H.R. 1757 or existing programs such as Perkins loan forgiveness better address this problem.

The impracticality of debt forgiveness aside, it is the end of Victoria’s column that truly gives away the game. Here, she argues that a college education is usually a class signifier, and explains the backlash against loan forgiveness as an angry reaction against upward class mobility. In doing so, she validates Rep. Golden’s assertion that going to college is a privilege, and that expecting those who did not have that privilege to help pay for it is wrong. The push for loan forgiveness, a policy which disproportionately benefits the privileged in society, is a textbook example of champagne socialism, and succinctly explains why Democrats have struggled to appeal to the non college educated demographic.

David C. Holt II

Rome