Thursday, Dec. 8, 2005 | 7:22 a.m.
From 1984 to 1990 a Seattle man named James Lockhart financed his attendance at four colleges with $80,000 in federal student loans. Lockhart never graduated, never subsequently landed steady employment and never paid back the loans. Heart problems and diabetes had befallen him by 1999, saddling him with enormous bills for medications.
Lockhart turned to Social Security, which provided him $874 in monthly disability checks until he became eligible for slightly higher benefits when he turned 65 two years ago. Living in public housing and claiming to need every penny of his checks, he went to court in 2002 when the federal government began extracting 15 percent (about $130) from each of his monthly checks. This was the government's only way of collecting on his delinquent student loans.
His case was based on contradictory federal provisions. One seemed to exempt him from Social Security garnishments if the federal government hadn't acted within 10 years of his loans becoming delinquent. Two others, however, passed by Congress in 1991 and 1996, differed.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. It ruled Wednesday that Congress had indeed abolished the 10-year limitation. The ruling was not as harsh as it sounds. Lockhart, and others with documented hardships, can appeal to the Education Department to have their loans forgiven.
We support the high court's finding. Many people deliberately default on their student loans, for no good reason, while they are still young. By the time they begin receiving federal benefits, much more than 10 years will have passed since they defaulted.
A 10-year limit on debt collection would cost the government billions, jeopardizing the loan program for future generations.
In the case of most student loans, the expression, "Pay me now, or pay me later," is highly appropriate.
archive
