Claiming to aid those allegedly plagued by student debt, Joe Biden is threatening to further burden the American taxpayer before he skedaddles out of office. Pandering to the crestfallen student loan borrowers, he declared two purported ‘savior’ plans: Pay-As-You-Earn and Income-Contingent Repayment. These plans, under the guise of relief, seek to entrain borrowers into a two-decade long process of repayment that could potentially culminate in complete loan forgiveness.
Biden’s administration grimly championed a new waiver last week, set to the tune of federal debt relief. The waiver would apply to student loans where the borrower is facing an alleged hardship. A new aspect of this concoction defines hardship in a way that is worryingly malleable, allowing it to encompass even the most frivolous of challenges.
The ‘hardship’ is vaguely defined as having the potential to ‘impair the borrower’s ability to fully repay the Federal government’ or increase the ‘costs of enforcing the full amount of the debt’. Its interpretation remarkably depends on whether the borrower is considered likely to default on the loan.
Supposedly, officials plan on using a ‘predictive assessment’ tool to gauge which borrowers might default. This aspect, eerily predicated on a sense of clairvoyance, grants the Education Secretary an alarming amount of discretionary authority. This ‘crystal ball’ approach of predicting financial outcomes imparts a threatening level of subjectivity to an already faulty system.
An estimation from the Department of Education declares that this nebulous new measure could impact somewhere between 2.67 million and 8 million borrowers. Again, the actual figures, like much in Biden’s plans, appear grounded in speculation rather than certitude.
In a grandiose boast of fiscal insensitivity, the Department of Education has allegedly waived a titanic $175 billion in student loan forgiveness aiding around 5 million people during Biden’s tenure. The administration’s facile strategy seems to be a desperate clutching at straws to justify these sweeping cancellations to frustrated taxpayers forced to bear the brunt of others’ debt.
Astoundingly, Biden’s administration has hit a wall of judicial resistance multiple times in this unwavering pursuit of blanketed cancellations. One glaring example is the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan. Embroiled in controversy and legal challenges, this plan continues to dangle on the precipice of uncertainty.
Backing away from the tempestuous SAVE scenario, Biden’s administration attempted to recoup face by reintroducing the PAYE and ICR initiatives as separate entities. A spokesperson for the DOE stated that this move allowed borrowers to proceed with repayments despite the dubious legal state of the SAVE plan.
The spokesperson went on to justify these actions as fulfilling the Higher Education Act’s requirements, allowing borrowers to make payments by means of an income contingent repayment plan. However, how this presents a viable solution while the SAVE plan festers in its legal purgatory remains unclear.
The spokesperson further cryptically stated that the Department was set to enroll new borrowers in these fractured plans. This unplanned enrollment, already wracked with ambiguity, contributes to the mounting concerns over the administration’s overall strategy in handling student debt.
It must be acknowledged that the preceding administration made conspicuous strides in restructuring the repayment format. They sought to raise monthly payments on student loans from 10 to 12.5 percent of borrowers’ discretionary income and aimed to merge all income-driven repayment strategies into one simplified plan.
Despite this noble strategy, Biden’s administration seemingly disdains clear-cut repayment approaches. Their counterproductive measures could potentially undermine and dismantle the SAVE plan and challenge any remaining beneficial pieces in our current student debt management system.
The added caveat here is that this disruptive imposition of Biden’s administration might ensue unabated upon their return to office. Yet, the palpable repudiation and criticism of these relentless and obstructive student debt policies prevent them from being accepted without contention.
One notable critique coming from the President-elect during a debate with VP Harris reveals a catastrophic failure in the administration’s strategy. The plan failed to deliver on its promises of cancellation and the idea of canceling debt for millions unfairly ignores the millions who grit their teeth and repaid their loans, highlighting a path of major controversy and potential fracturing in society.
Considering this, the blanketed loan forgiveness plan spearheaded by Biden only deepens the fracture, punishing those who diligently discharged their obligation while simultaneously setting a costly precedent for future students.
In conclusion, while Biden and Harris may adorn their policies with the garb of benevolence, their track record, coupled with an analysis of their superficial plans, hints at an administration more engrossed in fulfilling populist checklists than developing far-reaching solutions for the ongoing student debt crisis.