“The student loan crisis,”  Sabrina Cereceres writes at The Nation, “is a national emergency, and the time to act is now.”

Cereceres makes a good case that the student debt situation in the United States is indeed a crisis. “Crisis” is defined in the 1913 edition of Webster’s Dictionary as the decisive moment or turning point in a matter. Things will go one way, or they’ll go another.

A lot of people (around 40 million) owe a lot of money (close to $2 trillion) on student loans. Those loans will be repaid, or they won’t be. The numbers are big enough and intractable enough that the resolving them clearly involves mass penury, some kind of forgiveness scheme, or a combination of both.

It is not, however, an emergency.

Back to good ol’ Webster‘s: An “emergency” is a “sudden or unexpected appearance; an unforeseen occurrence; a sudden occasion.”

The student debt crisis has been brewing for decades, so it’s far from “sudden.”

Nor was the crisis “unforeseen” by anyone who bothered to pay attention.

In 1965, when the current system of government-guaranteed student loans became law (after eight years of a less universal system), fewer than six million students enrolled in college. Last year, that number was nearly 18 million.

Yes, population has doubled — but enrollment has tripled, even though the US population is getting older and birthrates are down (that is, there are fewer young people graduating from high school).

Why? Because the government made it easy to borrow money for college, while creating a culture of “you really have to do this” around getting a degree instead of taking a job that a high school education prepared one for.

Over that time, the costs of going to college have far out-paced inflation.

Why? Because when demand rises versus supply, prices go up — especially when the government guarantees payment.

And why is a college degree no longer a guarantee of big bucks in the job market? Because when supply rises versus demand, prices (in this case wages) go down, or at least stagnate.

When every 18-year-old in the country gets hectored relentlessly to go to college, more are going to do so — especially when Uncle Sugar’s standing there pretending to be a financially helpful friend.

And when that now-22-year-old’s bachelor’s degree nets him or her a job tending bar or managing a convenience store instead of a tenured faculty position or a gig designing spaceships, repayment can be difficult.

Anyone who didn’t see this crisis coming wasn’t looking. It’s no more  an “emergency” than the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

My own two-part recommendation on how to handle this entirely predictable, non-emergency, crisis:

First, make student loans eligible for discharge in bankruptcy. They’re far more appropriate for that avenue than a lot of other bad situations people find themselves in.

Second, get government out of the student loan business specifically and the education business in general.

But yes, SOMETHING has to be done. And something surely will be done.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Politics,” political consultant Bill Miller told (reminded?) us in 1991, “is show business for ugly people.”

The last couple of weeks of a presidential election cycle always put that timeless truth on steroids, especially but not only when one of the candidates is a billionaire former “reality TV” star whose idea of closing the deal is having himself filmed looking befuddled by the process of donning an apron (someone else eventually tied it for him) before glad-handing a few carefully selected “customers” at a (closed) McDonald’s  in a desperate attempt to generate “regular guy” vibes.

That candidate’s major party opponent could have used a few weeks of intensive training with a drama coach to help her move beyond carefully curated answers to softball questions and cackles on cue.

If Kamala Harris manages to come off as ever so slightly less cognitively impaired than Donald Trump, she also comes off as a great deal more boring.

The whole show would represent a ratings bomb if we didn’t let it get under our skins and sell itself as far more important than it really is.

So, a reminder: Outside the political circus tent, the real world still exists.

As an anarchist, one thing I like to point out to friends who still maintain an attachment to the whole idea of political government is that the biggest parts of most of our lives are already separated from that idea.

On a day-to-day basis, how much does it REALLY matter, to your life and how you live it, who the president is or which party controls Congress?

Does Donald Trump tell you what to eat for breakfast?

Does Kamala Harris whisper recommendations in your ear for bets on next week’s football games?

Do you care what the Speaker of the House thinks about music, or which dramedy the Senate Majority Leader can’t wait to see?

Do you love your partner, parents, or children any more or less because some politician lectured you on the matter?

For better or worse, I chose a career related to politics several decades ago. Most of you didn’t.

Most of you are factory workers, fry cooks, engineers, truck drivers, etc., 40 hours a week or more (I’ve been the first two myself).

Most of you are parents, children, siblings, partners, etc. 24/7/365, no matter which politician occupies which office.

If you can’t bring yourself to turn away from and stop staring at the combination train wreck / dumpster fire that we know as politics, at least make sure you don’t forget those other things.

They’re far more important and, really, far more interesting.

The current show will end. Unfortunately, it always gets rebooted. Whether you watch, and how intently, is up to you.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

The last few weeks (sometimes the last few months) of a presidential election cycle always leave me feeling somewhat burnt out. As a political columnist, I prefer to focus on events, policy, and principles rather than on the horse race. I’m really not very invested in which “major party” politician lies convincingly enough, to enough voters, to get hold of the One Ring and attempt (with little success, thankfully) to rule us all for the next four years.

Unfortunately, a political columnist lives and dies by the news cycle, that news cycle dominates the last few weeks, and at this point even stories about other subjects tend to turn back to their possible election effects. That leaves me without very much of interest to write about unless I want to talk nuts and bolts politics.

Fortunately, one of the hats I wear other than political columnist is election outcome predictor, and I’m fairly good at it. I’ve correctly predicted the winner, and the outcomes in 48 of the 50 states, three presidential elections in a row now.

So let’s do this. My prediction (issued on September 21) is:

Kamala Harris: 319 electoral votes, Donald Trump 219.

At the time of that prediction, my main focus was on “who’s in the driver’s seat?” Harris was scoring field goals and plodding toward victory while Trump kept making long “Hail Mary” passes hoping for touchdowns and failing to complete. That remains the case.

At this point, it would take a heck of an “October surprise” to change the trajectory. We’re down to two closely related factors.

The first factor is turnout. Most voters have decided who they like best. It’s all about getting those voters to actually fill out ballots. Harris enjoys the support of a long-existing, very successful Get Out the Vote machine. Trump handed his turnout operation to an outside group with little experience and it showed, although Elon Musk is trying to help out with tens of millions of dollars for last-minute direct mail and door-knocking.

The second factor, which tends to reduce Musk’s ability to impact things, is early voting.

As of October 18, according to the University of Florida’s Election Lab, more than 12 million Americans had already voted and another 56 million mail ballots had been requested (many of which are likely already on their way back via the Postal Service).

To the extent that those votes can be tracked by party registration, Democrats have cast more than half again as many early votes as Republicans. Early voting is heaviest in the “swing states” where relatively few votes will likely determine the outcome.

A vote in the hand may not be worth two in the bush, but it’s worth more than one.  Election Day votes may never happen due to flat tires, emergency trips out of town, etc. Early votes aren’t in the bush, they’re in the bank.

Harris has momentum. Trump’s stuck with inertia.

So there you have it — my writer’s-burnout-induced human sacrifice to this year’s election news cycle gods. You’re welcome.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY