Two weeks ago, many of you read something we ran about how Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor put out a proposal to cut the federal deficit — one which included cuts to federally subsidized school loans. More than 60 of you shared it with your friends on Facebook.
Cantor’s was one of several proposals in response to U.S. President Barack Obama’s request to raise the federal debt limit. Such a request (to raise the debt ceiling) has been approved routinely over the years, but a new batch of extremely conservative “Tea Party Republicans” insisted either against raising the ceiling entirely or for including spending cuts in a vote to raise the ceiling.
In response to this, Washington has been stuck in a stalemate as House Republicans and Senate Democrats square off on the key issues they’ve been addressing in a passive-aggressive manner for years.
On Sunday night, major networks reported that the houses of Congress and Obama had struck a deal that would allow an increase in the debt ceiling.
The debate reached beyond representatives and senators voting on petty bills they know will not pass the other house of Congress. Governors sent in their opinions, other nations sounded off negatively and Obama vocally staked his presidency on making sure that a deal to raise the debt ceiling doesn’t cut spending too much without raising revenue.
It makes sense that such a debate is happening now, with our national debt eclipsing $14 trillion. It makes sense that both sides are speaking in such grand terms — that the moderates like Mr. Obama and House Speaker John Boehner are calling for compromise and shared sacrifice, the extremists refusing to accept negotiations.
Simply put, it makes sense that such a debate is happening, because to be honest, it hasn’t happened in quite a while. Not really. The philosophical differences between the parties haven’t been so on display, so at odds, since at least before Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America in 1994.
But I hope that the result of this week’s deliberations do not force us into default and do not harm things like subsidized college loans.
In most cases, I enjoy it when debates have clashes. Throughout high school I did debate and speech, and we were always held responsible to show where our sides clashed and why our side was better. To this day, when I go back and judge one of these debates, I insist that the high schoolers sparring show me conflict if they want my vote.
So normally, I would totally be on the side of those praising what has happened. Both sides have put forth their arguments with real-world consequences, showing why they are different, and usually I am totally in support of lawmakers not feeling like they have to compromise to pass legislation. Usually.
But in this case, there has been a deadline, August 2. Tuesday. And as the talking heads of cable news continue to surmise, these two sides have been simply refusing to listen to what polls are continuing to reveal.
The Americans polled have consistently shown interest in a policy that both cuts spending and raises revenues (through both closing tax loop-holes and raising taxes). But above all else, they want Congress to raise the debt ceiling on time so there is not a threat of default.
In my mind this is because it is not wise to damage important student programs like the Pell Grants and federally subsidized loans while considering upper tax brackets too costly to mess with.
These programs are vital, because they ensure that our generation is not priced out of school and we can drive more innovation — one of the most direct examples of federal dollars working as a stimulus. And using them (or defaulting, or Medicare, etc.) as a playing card in the debate is irresponsible. Both sides have done it, both sides are fully responsible for the gridlock we are stuck in
But if I may speak on behalf of the students that I know, please don’t dangle our financial aid over the cliff as a way to get out of debt.