Apparently, if you’ve ever received federal assistance, you can’t condemn any other sort of government aid initiative, no matter how ridiculous it is.
That’s the only way to make sense of the White House’s sarcastic Twitter campaign from Friday; it compared the cancellation of student loans to the cancellation of the Paycheck Protection Program.
It was just one of a thousand tweets from liberals earlier in the week, drawing parallels between student loan forgiveness and PPP loan forgiveness.
It’s easy to mistakenly think the forgiveness policies for these two types of loans are equivalent if you are neither a company owner, nor a policy expert.
Congressman Vern Buchanan had over $2.3 million in PPP loans forgiven.https://t.co/bXpwJlWRm4
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 25, 2022
PPP ≠ Student Loans
There are a hundred different ways in which they are incomparable. PPP debts, more significantly, were intended to be written off.
The federal government disguised these grants as forgivable loans on the condition they are utilized for employee wages.
In addition, this sum represented compensation for the government’s role in causing business closures.
The third reason is PPP has congressional approval. The gap between the two systems is so wide, it would take hundreds of paragraphs to cover it.
PPP funds are not comparable to student loan forgiveness; the only similarity between the two initiatives is they are both provided by the federal government. That’s literally the only thing they have in common.
The government made it illegal for your business to be open, authorized payments to keep you out of bankruptcy, and then dunked on your ass for accepting them. Owned. https://t.co/xlVkF4T73a
— Foster (@foster_type) August 25, 2022
This is why the White House’s whole argument when pushing PPP assistance as student debt forgiveness opponents boils down to “You previously accepted government benefits, so stop talking about other people accepting government aid.”
Not only does this make no sense, but it also makes no attempt to do so. It has far-reaching, devastating effects. It’s also a compelling case for drastically reducing government size and abolishing social protections.
Do you think vets who benefited from VA treatment, but voted against Wall Street bailouts were hypocrites? In response to an opponent of ethanol subsidies, would Biden ever say, “You received thousands in FEMA help after Katrina?”
Perhaps he would. Maybe Biden and company don’t care if some recipients of public help are more deserving than others. It’s clear the Biden administration doesn’t care if a certain aid program is specifically approved by Congress or if it’s simply an administrative whim.
Evidently, they think the White House may tell anyone to “shut your mouth” if they question a government program as long as they give them money.
Put in that context, it’s easier to see why people are always looking for new ways for the government to become involved in their lives.
Getting everyone on the dole, even if it means cutting off their accessibility to nongovernment money first, gives you greater power to order them around.
They are saying, “We’ll help pay for your electric vehicle, but you have to be quiet about it.”
“We’ll help you out financially with your harvests if you promise never to criticize us again. We will help you buy a house on the condition that you share our views on every issue.”
The only rational reaction is to limit government involvement in as many spheres as possible, so we retain the freedom to criticize it. In general, such a viewpoint would be absurd, but given Biden’s actions, it seems justified.This article appeared in NewsHouse and has been published here with permission.