In response to the article authored by Robert Tann on “Biden’s student debt relief plan met with mixed reactions,” I would offer a counterproposal. Often the absurdity of an idea is best illustrated by proposing one that is in the opposite direction.
Try this one on for size: A Republican president announces less than 90 days before an election that all NRA members are to receive $10,000 forgiveness on any truck loans. Furthermore, if one is an NRA member who has never gone to college, this president is especially “concerned.” For these folks, $20,000 forgiveness on any truck loans is now the plan.
Who will pay off these loans? Why the US taxpayer of course!
If my idea rankles some people, then you will realize just how ticked off I, and millions of other Americans are, with yet another political scheme by this presidential administration. It is beyond unfair on so many levels. It punishes those of us who have worked extra jobs, saved money, done without many things (restaurants, movies, vacations, new cars, etc) in order to pay for our kids’ college education. Let’s include those who have faithfully paid off their student loan debts. Finally, for those Americans who have chosen not to attend college and are now employed as plumbers, electricians, truckers, auto mechanics and hundreds of other essential occupations, this plan is especially cruel to them.
Ultimately, Biden’s plan will be challenged in court and at some point, struck down. In the meantime, the election will have been held and the political motives achieved. This is a disgusting bribery of the populace just prior to an election.
Lastly, I offer these constructive criticisms of Mr. Tann and CCM. By my count, the article contained 30 paragraphs. There were just two paragraphs that discussed the opposite side of the issue. Even then, it was expressed that perhaps the plan didn’t go far enough. This article should have included comments and rationale from others who oppose this idea and are amongst those Americans I described above. The fact that this article was so one-sided reveals Mr. Tann’s bias. The fact that the editor didn’t direct him to dig deeper into the story to present the other side reveals CCM’s bias. I am calling it out and asking you to work harder, work better and produce coverage that is balanced.