今年秋天，大约有1600万本科生将进入大学。几乎四分之三他们中的许多人将没有足够的钱——通过现金、助学金、奖学金甚至学生贷款——来支付那一年的全部费用。如果特朗普政府如愿以偿，这个鸿沟可能会变得更大。

本周，政府发布了其预算请求在接下来的一年里，白宫每年都会要求国会做出一系列的政策改变和拨款决定，而这些政策改变和拨款决定经常被立法者忽视，有时甚至是截然相反的。但是预算仍然很重要。这是总统优先事项的正式声明。在这种情况下，这些优先事项与长期有害的保守言论联系在一起，指责学生和他们的家庭“过度借贷”。

正如共和党议员和特朗普政府官员所说的那样，过去十年学生债务急剧增加的根本原因更多地与学生及其家庭承担“过度”贷款有关，而不是与过高的大学学费有关。政府提议的政策将允许财政援助管理者单方面决定“过度”借贷意味着什么，并降低学生贷款限额。他们还将允许大学要求繁重的年度贷款咨询，并对本科生家长和研究生借款人的贷款设定新的、更低的上限。

除了这些政策，教育部长贝特西·德沃斯还采取了其他措施来阻止学生贷款——比如“贷款”年度学生贷款确认书“那会的需要所有学生在申请新贷款前都要证明他们知道自己的累积贷款债务。

推动这些政策的居高临下的假设是学生和家庭需要更多关于通过金融知识“更好的决策”的信息。特朗普政府正试图控制学生花费其经常不足的联邦援助资金的方式，因为担心他们可能会将这些资金用于“无意义”的支出，如住房和食品。

为高等教育贷款并不是糟糕的财务决策的结果；这是学生和家庭因学费和生活费上涨而面临的日益严重的价格问题的结果。1979年，一名学生可能有用相当于支付学费的兼职暑期工作。现在，即使全职工作半年也不够支付学费——更不用说生活费了。

尽管超过三分之二的大学生借贷的金额仅相当于他们必须支付的学费和杂费，但大约三分之一他们上学时不得不借更多的钱来支付基本生活必需品。除了一些令人畏缩的支出，没有真正的证据表明学生是为了“无聊”的支出而借款轶事。学生们正在寻求支付有效的费用，如住房、食物、书籍、用品和交通，这些都是学业成功所必需的。

尽管如此，特朗普政府和许多议员发现，将此归咎于学生更容易债务危机。

如果有什么不同的话，学生需要获得更多的钱，而不是更少。尽管没有证据表明学生们“过度借贷”，但有证据表明，学生们借他们在学校获得成功所需的东西比根本不借要好。

A研究马里兰大学和伊利诺伊大学的研究人员发现，接受贷款的社区学院学生比没有贷款的学生获得更多的学分和更好的成绩，他们更有可能转到四年制学校。他们在三年内获得副学士学位的可能性也是普通人的两倍。对大多数学生来说，带着债务毕业比根本不毕业好得多。

2016年12月9日，密歇根州大急流城，唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)看着贝琪·德沃斯(Betsy DeVos)在三角洲复杂竞技场演讲。

这就是为什么这些集中于武断地限制贷款和引入新的贷款咨询要求的提议如此令人担忧。原则上，这些想法有些道理；没有人希望借款人承担超过他们偿还能力的债务。但是切断获得联邦贷款援助的渠道——而不相应增加拨款或其他援助(例如，特朗普政府提出的预算不包括佩尔助学金最高限额的增加，并将取消另一个针对低收入学生的助学金项目)——是导致当前体系中不平等加剧的一个因素。

国会可能不会提供特朗普政府要求的大部分资金水平和政策变化。但是，任何人都不应该低估过度或滥用学生贷款的语言——以及为消除这些所谓的行为所做的相关努力——最终会伤害到最需要这些钱的学生。

雷切尔·菲什曼是新美国高等教育项目研究的副主任。克莱尔·麦肯是新美国高等教育项目联邦政策的副主任。

这篇文章中表达的观点是作者自己的。

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS WRONG. STUDENTS ARE NOT TO BLAME FOR STUDENT DEBT | OPINION

Around 16 million undergraduate students will enroll in college this fall. Nearly three in four of them will not have enough money—through cash, grants, scholarships and even student loans—to pay the full cost for that year. And if the Trump administration has its way, that chasm could grow even larger.

This week, the administration released its budget request for the upcoming year—an annual exercise in which the White House asks Congress for an array of policy changes and funding decisions that are often ignored, and sometimes diametrically opposed, by lawmakers. But the budget still matters. It is a formal declaration of the president's priorities. And in this case, those priorities are laced with long-standing and harmful conservative rhetoric that blames students and their families for "overborrowing."

As Republican lawmakers and Trump administration officials tell it, the root cause of the dramatic increase in student debt over the past decade has more to do with students and their families taking on "excessive" loans rather than the excessive price of college. The administration's proposed policies would allow financial aid administrators to decide unilaterally what "excessive" borrowing means and reduce students' loan limits. They would also allow colleges to require burdensome annual loan counseling and would set new, lower caps on loans taken out by parents of undergraduate students and by graduate student borrowers.

Those policies come on top of other efforts by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to discourage students from borrowing loans—like an "annual student loan acknowledgement" that will require all students to certify they know their cumulative loan debt before accessing a new loan.

The condescending assumption driving these policies is that what students and families need is more information about "better decision-making" through financial literacy. The Trump administration is trying to control the ways in which students spend their often insufficient federal aid dollars over fears that they might use the money for "frivolous" expenses, like housing and food.

Borrowing loans for higher education is not a result of poor financial decision-making; it is the result of the growing price problem students and families face from increasing tuition and living expenses. In 1979, a student could work what amounted to a part-time summer job to pay tuition costs. Now, even working full-time for half a year wouldn't cover tuition—let alone living costs.

While more than two-thirds of undergraduates borrow only as much (or less) than they must pay for tuition and fees, about a third have to borrow more to pay for basic necessities while they're in school. There is no real evidence that students are borrowing for "frivolous" expenses, aside from a few cringeworthy anecdotes. Students are seeking to pay for valid expenses, such as housing, food, books, supplies and transportation, which are necessary for academic success.

Still, the Trump administration and many lawmakers have found it easier to blame students for the debt crisis.

If anything, students need access to more money, not less. And while there is no evidence to suggest that students are "overborrowing," there is evidence to show that students are better off borrowing what they need to succeed in school than not borrowing at all.

A study from researchers at University of Maryland and University of Illinois found that community college students who were offered loans took more credits and had better grades than students who weren't offered any loans, and they were more likely to transfer to a four-year school. They were also twice as likely to graduate within three years with an associate degree. Graduating with debt is far better for most students than not graduating at all.

Donald Trump looks on as Betsy DeVos speaks at at the DeltaPlex Arena on December 9, 2016, in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

That's why these proposals focused on arbitrarily capping loans and introducing new counseling requirements to borrow are so concerning. In principle, these ideas make some sense; no one wants borrowers taking on more debt than they can manage to repay. But cutting off access to federal loan aid—without commensurately increasing grant or other aid (the proposed budget from the Trump administration included no increase to the Pell Grant maximum award and would eliminate another grant program for low-income students, for instance)—is a recipe for growing inequality in the current system.

Congress likely will not provide most of the funding levels and policy changes the Trump administration requests. But no one should underestimate how the language around excessive or abusive student loan borrowing—and associated efforts to quash those alleged behaviors—will wind up harming the very students who need these dollars most.

Rachel Fishman is the deputy director for research with New America's Higher Education Program. Clare McCann is the deputy director for federal policy with New America's Higher Education Program.

The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.