A few weeks ago, a friend of mine wrote President Biden to share his thoughts on the pros and cons of student loan forgiveness. The friend, an expert in the field, wrote a detailed letter outlining several reasons why blanket loan forgiveness, $50,000 per borrower as proposed by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), is not a promising idea. My friend received a response that indicated that The White House would keep his comments in mind.
That is it? The White House said they will keep my friend’s ideas in mind. In truth, they will do nothing of the sort. My friend’s letter was opened, read by a staff member (likely a volunteer), identified as relating to student loans, and then scheduled for a form-letter response. The letter itself, I am confident, was not forwarded to the domestic policy staff, the Department of Education, or anyone else.
I expect my friend will receive solicitations for political contributions from the President, the Democratic party and from various Democratic candidates. By seeking to discourage the President from adopting a policy that he believes is a grave mistake, he will be rewarded with several years’ worth of junk mail. And if my friend shared his phone number or email address, he will get spammed as well.
In case you are curious, my friend told President Biden that blanket loan forgiveness not only involves granting significant benefits to many people who do not need them, but also will lead current and future student loan borrowers to expect that their loans, like those made in the last 10 years, will be forgiven. My friend also noted that forgiving loans does nothing to address the larger problem–the exorbitant cost of a college education.
My friend’s experience with President Biden typifies a problem with our government today. Our elected representatives all too often do not pursue the best policies, instead championing the policies they think will get them elected or re-elected. That is why Republicans want to “build the wall” rather than support a humane and rational border policy. It’s why candidates run on “banning” Critical Race Theory and propose things like abolishing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms as a means of protecting Second Amendment rights.
Today’s politicians, in most cases, are too dependent on campaign contributions and “earned media” to waste time listening to ordinary citizens, even citizens with expertise relevant to the issues at hand. That is why typical Congressional representatives spend more time at fundraisers, or raising money on the phone, than they do reading constituent correspondence.
There is no easy solution to the reality that today’s elected representatives are not representing regular citizens very well. As they say, money talks. Because it costs so much to get elected and re-elected to Congress, those with money get the attention. That is why on many days there are more lobbyists roaming the halls of Congress than constituents seeking meetings with their representatives in search of help on an issue or problem.
In recent decades, many ideas have been offered to make government work again. One is public financing of elections. My problem is that I do not want to see a penny of my tax dollars go to any candidate who disagrees with me. A second idea is to limit the total amount of money that can be spent on a primary or general election. This idea is attractive, but recent history of campaign financing suggests that both political parties will find means to circumvent the limits by using “independent political action committees” or running ads that purport to be about an issue but are targeted for or against a particular candidate.
I am not sure any of these approaches will fix the problem caused by our elected representatives not representing us. The only solution, or, better said, the best solution, would be for citizens to better understand how the government is supposed to work and insist that their representatives do their jobs. This would mean citizens demanding that representatives quit pandering for money, stop dancing with every lobbyist that stops by their offices, and start focusing on the voters they are supposed to represent.
For many representatives, my proposed solution would mean political defeat. Representatives who walk away from today’s monied interests will walk away from the resources they need to stay in Congress. That is a tragedy. I worry about our future. Our most pressing issues demand more attention, and we as a nation deserve better representation.
J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.
Gerry Early says
Once again, and as usual Mr. Dean’s comments are right on the money. Unfortunately, I think the system is now so money-based that its shortcomings cannot be resolved. Fortunately, I am almost 85 and so won’t be around to see he awful resuls.
John Dean says
Thank you for your kind words. I remain hopeful that the poison of money in politics will be seen as something necessitating fundamental reform.
Stephen Schaare says
Mr. Dean, Thank you for not mentioning the “orange menace”(your words).
Otherwise, Good Morning! Welcome to the adult world.
My best-Steve
Stephen Schaare says
Mr. Dean, The surprise and disappointment you expressed at your friend’s suggestions failing to receive even cursory review from the Biden administration reminds me of your fear of the “end of democracy ” at the hands of Trump.
Is this not the very same thing? Though in micro, as opposed to the macro of Jan 6.
The voice of the people(your friend) swept into the “circular file” with the uncaring sweep of an autocratic leader.
I see ” The end of Democracy ” ( your words ).
Please think on this.
Thank you-Steve