On Wednesday the Supreme Court will listen to arguments as to whether or not the federal government can seize a portion of Social Security payments from individuals with delinquent federal student loans. James Lockhart filed the case after he was told that 15 percent of his Social Security payments would be used to offset $80,000 of his nearly 20-year-old student loans.

The case focuses on a pair of laws that send mixed messages as to whether Social Security payments are shielded by government’s collection efforts. According to Public Citizen Litigation Group, which is representing Lockhart, a federal appeals court has already ruled in another case that the government is prohibited by the Social Security Act and Debt Collection Act from offsetting Social Security payments to repay student loans that are more than 10 years old.

Though the deduction is being taken from a fixed income check sent by the government, the government is acting reasonably in its decision to collect delinquent money from those who have borrowed. At the end of the day, student loans are loans, and should be taken with intent to be repaid. Failing to do so should result in garnishment of wages, fixed or disposable, to allow the loaner the ability to recollect assets – as is happening in this case. But the measure should only be taken as an absolute last resort.

From 2000 through 2003, the Department of Education collected about $400 million a year in delinquent student loan debt through the offset program. If nothing were to be done, the government would lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year through a failed program. The case, however, should be a wake-up call to students learning on loans. The government can and will come for its money. The important lesson is not to wait to start repaying borrowed money.

For those at or near retirement age on a fixed income, some might argue that their money is needed for survival. Less cynical individuals might argue that Washington taking $130 a month is not going to starve a retiree. There comes a point, however, where the government is entitled to its money.

Hitting the pockets of college students immediately after graduation would not prove sufficient – bankruptcy and default rates would skyrocket. A marginal amount of time after graduation should exist before demanding repayment. If ignored, students should realize this case could give the government a free pass to start collecting from college graduates even sooner – and more aggressively.

Ideally, students should begin repayment of loans immediately after graduation so they will not be in the same situation as Lockhart. If borrowers refuse to own up to their responsibility, then the government should be able to seek repayment through unconventional means.