The most recent efforts at student loan forgiveness have been found unconstitutional by federal courts, which rejected arguments the spending was authorized by laws passed in 2003 and in 1965.

If the Biden administration had taken this approach from the beginning, we likely would be more open to skepticism that the two federal courts are correct. Instead, stymied in the legislature, the White House tried much more expansive executive action that the Supreme Court — correctly — overturned.

We agree with the nature of the proposals of both U.S. Rep. Glenn Thompson, R-Howard and U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Braddock, that student debt relief should be more narrowly targeted. Student loan relief should aim to have the most positive economic benefit for the nation as a whole while adding the least burden onto our already excessive deficits and national debt.

And, as we more strongly feel and have editorialized before, student debt relief should be transparently debated by our legislators before they compromise on a more nuanced set of, at best, incremental policies.

The White House’s proverbial “plan B,” which thankfully two federal judges appointed by Democratic administrations have ended, is to more narrowly target relief so it can — maybe, perhaps, if you squint just right — legally fit within past laws — laws that in their decades of existence had never been so contorted to include this initiative.

We hope the Biden administration accepts this rebuke, and we hope our lawmakers, Republican and Democratic, can begin a realistic discussion on the problems with the financial burden of education confronting the families they represent.