There Is No Reason for Anyone Else to Pay Your Student-Loan Debt

T he strangest thing happened to a friend of mine on the night of his 18th birthday. There he was, lying in bed after an evening of celebration and revelry, when, all of a sudden, a strong and insistent man broke in through the window of his apartment, kidnapped him, and forced him to take out $70,000 in student loans. Alarmingly, the saga didn’t end there. Despite my friend’s urgent protestations, this man personally escorted him to his college matriculation, sat with him while he chose his classes, and then spent four years ensuring that he not only attended them, but benefited from them as much as was practically possible. And here’s the worst part: Despite having put my friend through this rotten ordeal, this dastardly man has steadfastly refused to transfer responsibility for the loans to the good ol’ American taxpayer. Can you believe it?

I joke, of course. But I’m afraid that this is how the people who demand that the “federal government” must pay off their student debts are beginning to sound to the average American: as spoiled, selfish, delusional, buck-passing grifters, who spend their days searching for reasons to balance their budgets on the backs of the less fortunate. “Cancel my debts!” they shout. And the rest of us ask, “Er, why?”

The core problem the loan-forgiveness advocates have is that their cause is motivated by nothing more noble than a desire to have more money. The movement’s more skilled supporters attempt to abstract this away a little, naturally — “If I didn’t have to pay my loans,” they say, “I’d have more money to spend on consumer products, which would have a beneficial macroeconomic effect”; “If I didn’t have to repay my loans, I could get on the property ladder”; “If I didn’t have my loans to pay, I would be less anxious about money” — but, as is abundantly obvious to everyone on the outside, these are ultimately just different ways of saying the same thing: “I would like to have more cash.”

Anyone can do this. If I didn’t have to pay my mortgage, I’d have more money to spend on consumer products, which would have a beneficial macroeconomic effect. Ipso facto, the federal government should pay my mortgage. If my plumber didn’t have to make the payments on the F-150 he uses to transport his equipment, he would be more readily able to buy a home. Ipso facto, the federal government should pay off his truck.

“Ah,” cry the loan-forgivers, “But that’s different!” Is it, though? Why? It seems pretty simple to me. I benefit from my home; I should pay it off. The plumber benefits from his truck; he should pay it off. Students benefit from college; they should pay it off. “Yes,” comes the response. “But taking out loans is the only way to pay for college, which is so expensive!” Okay, and the same is true of housing and of cars. “But education is a human right!” Well, even if we accept that, by that way of thinking, so are housing and transportation. “But college is less affordable than it used to be, thanks to an unholy combination of federal subsidies and strict controls on supply!” May I introduce you to the real-estate market? “But my going to college is good for everyone!” No, it’s really, really not.

Recently, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez griped about her own loans. “I’m 32 years old now,” she said. “I have over $17,000 in student-loan debt, and I didn’t go to graduate school because I knew that getting another degree would drown me in debt that I would never be able to surpass. This is unacceptable.” Why? Which part of this, exactly, is “unacceptable”? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has debts because Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took on debts in order to pay for the education that she received — an education that has landed her a plum job in Congress. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t have more debt than she would have had if she’d borrowed more than she did, because, aware of the tradeoffs, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez demurred. I cannot see the problem. Are we really supposed to believe that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s having some more letters next to her name would be of such extraordinary benefit to the nation at large that the rest of us should gratefully pony up and pay for it? Give me a break.

If there is anything “unacceptable” about Ocasio-Cortez’s situation, it is that she seems genuinely to believe that she is a victim. As a member of Congress, Ocasio-Cortez makes $175,000 per year, and as has been widely reported, she is doing sufficiently well to have bought herself a Tesla. And good for her! In all sincerity, I wish her great riches and happiness. But that she would even consider asking for help in repaying the $17,000 worth of debt from which she’s already benefited considerably? That is obscene.

Just pay your bills, slackers. Everyone else has to.