I don't think he's quibbling with the intent of the program, which is what you're defending. He's objecting to the implementation. What if the program had prov

I don't think he's quibbling with the intent of the program, which is what you're defending. He's objecting to the implementation. What if the program had provided an on-time payment bonus (say $500 per payment) on each payment made by people in a qualifying job? The financing of the program would have been continual, so no 10-year budget time bomb. The loan forgiveness would be fixed rather than 100%, encouraging borrowers to borrow responsibly. And it would still accomplish the goal of encouraging people to work in those kinds of jobs. And, more importantly to the man in the article, the loan balance would be front and center, so he would have realized there was a problem immediately when he didn't see it going down fast enough.