That was the predictably partisan slant of Vox regarding the highly skeptical reception Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness bribe to young voters in the run-up to the 2022 midterms got from most of the Supreme Court Justices in oral arguments in two cases, Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown. But that’s Vox for you.
Whether the $400 billion treasury heist is Constitutional or not, it is definitely unethical to the core, and not just because the U.S. is already approaching—has surpassed?—perilous National Debt levels during an administration determined to buy votes and power. Responsible taxpayers are going to be forced to gift irresponsible students who took out loans they couldn’t afford, with many hoping they wouldn’t have to. Responsible college graduates (or their parents) who paid back all of their student loans or never got them will be played for chumps. This is the measure that Vox, and to be fair, most of the mainstream media, is representing as wonderful.
The legal and Constitutional disputes are closer than the ethical one. A sloppily drafted 2003 law authorized the Secretary of Education to address emergencies, in full knowledge, one assumes, that the party favoring brute federal power believes that “no emergency should go to waste.” The language of the law is especially dangerous in an era where much of the Democratic Party is is openly totalitarian in methods and rhetoric. The Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, the HEROES Act (Oooo! Such a clever acronym!), gives the Secretary of Education power to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision” to protect borrowers affected by “a war or other military operation or national emergency.”
Like all laws now, most Senators and House members probably didn’t read or think about the bill carefully if at all: it was a post 9-11 reflex. President Bush didn’t have the sense to veto it either. Now, thanks to the contrived “national emergency” of the pandemic, there is at least a colorable claim that the act enables the obscene giveaway. It might be stupid, but SCOTUS is supposed to decide if it is legal.
Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, representing the administration, said the bailout meets the the statutory language, which she said had authorized the secretary of education to act. “The whole point of this statute, its central mission and function, is to ensure that in the face of a national emergency that is causing financial harm to borrowers, the secretary can do something,” she said. The conservative justices appeared to squirm a bit trying to deny that.
“It doesn’t say modify or waive loan balances,” Chief Justice Roberts said. Justice Kavanaugh said that Congress “could have in 2003 referred to loan cancellation and loan forgiveness, and those are not in the statutory text.”
That, of course, is what’s so wrong about sweeping language in Congressional authorizations passing the buck to the Executive Branch. In response, the Roberts Court has been gradually introducing what is being called “the major questions doctrine, which holds that Congress must “speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.’” In June, it invoked the doctrine by curtailing the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to address climate change. Without “clear congressional authorization,” the court said, the agency could not act. The Court also invoked the doctrine when it rules that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were not authorized to impose a moratorium on evictions, and that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was not authorized to tell large employers to have their workers vaccinated against the Wuhan virus or undergo frequent testing.
Even the Left’s allies on the Court conceded that Congress passing off the authority to forgive 400 billion dollars in student loans to the lucky deadbeats who hadn’t already met their obligations qualifies as “a major question.”
The HEROES Act aside, there is a technical but potentially decisive issue of whether the petitioners in the two cases have standing to try to block Biden’s largesse (no Secretary of Education would take such action solo) at all.
The question is now whether law and ethics will be aligned in the SCOTUS ruling, or whether, as happens so often, an unethical policy is ruled nonetheless within Constitutional bounds.
We shall see, won’t we?
Ethics Alarms 
“The HEROES Act aside, there is a technical but potentially decisive issue of whether the petitioners in the two cases have standing to try to block Biden’s largesse (no Secretary of Education would take such action solo) at all.”
Why not? I mean, it’s been obvious for a very long time that Democrats don’t have respect for institutions, norms or mores. They’ll shallowly read text, decide it suits their immediate need, and grab power, figuring they’ll smear the checks and balances if they don’t get what they want.
Let’s say that Biden’s handlers nominated a truly bonkers, like…. steal your luggage while dressed like a dog bonkers… candidate for Secretary of Education, and they were confirmed because Senate Democrats are more than willing to clap along like seals until their cocks are flat. What keeps that person from “cancelling” all student debt? If we’re in an emergency and the HEROES act is applicable, and has no logical or reasonable limit, if it can add a $400 billion dollar line item to the American budget, what keeps that person from just tacking on the other $1.2 trillion? Joe Biden is already a non entity in his administration, does anyone think he’d step on up and go to war with his Education Secretary to avoid spending money?
On the law in question… My understanding is that it meant to make it so that when soldiers were sent off to war, the government could use the HEROES act to waive the interest on loans while they were out of country. It’s not an awful idea… A perk of service. It would have been great if the law had been tailored more narrowly to reflect that, but it is what it is and we are where we are.
I think that the administration argued their case as well as they could have. I think the judges have signaled that the HEROES act allows for deferred or waived interest, but loan forgiveness is a bridge too far. I think they might have done that even if the law hadn’t given them the wiggle room to do so… This is truly an egregious overstep on authority. It’s not the most ridiculous reading of law I’ve ever seen, I mean… Bees are classified as fish in California according to their wildlife protection act, but when you consider the magnitude of what is being attempted on a law meant to keep soldiers out of bankruptcy… It’s kind of gross.
Randi Weingarten screamed that because businesses received loans during the pandemic, students should be forgiven theirs.
Randi Weingarten is a stupid cow.
PPP Loans weren’t actually loans though…. PPP was government wage subsidy.
The idea was to keep people employed by paying employers to keep them on. It’s almost like the government knows welfare is a trap and was interested in keeping people at work, even if they weren’t working. PPP “loans” were only loans as an enforcement mechanism on employee retention, the program was explicitly designed so that if employers did their part and kept people on, the “loans” would be forgiven.
Not only was PPP different in kind from student loans in kind, it was different in beneficiary… With a student loan, the student gets an education (kind of) and the school gets paid. With a PPP loan, employees got paid by employers who often couldn’t operate their business, so the employees got paid, and the employers did paperwork. Oh sure, there were some employers who were net beneficiaries, but a lot of them broke even or worse.
The other thing PPP loans did was keep businesses that the government forced to shut down able to pay to keep their places of business.
My parents are both self employed. My mom is both a massage therapist and (then was a) RN consultant for a drug company and my step-dad a general contractor. As a general contractor, my step-dad lost a huge amount of business and couldn’t hardly keep his office building. My mom’s massage therapy business was shut down by the Governor. She literally could not see patients. Her second job, that of an RN who visits clients on their homes, was also shut down. Her office still required rent and the utilities needed money to keep the heat on. PPP covered some of those expenses as well. I dislike the government handing out free money, but when they actively keep you from working, there is little else that can be done.
The other thing PPP loans did was keep businesses that the government forced to shut down able to pay to keep their places of business.
Indeed. Talk about one hand washing the other, though!
The Left, who wants to basically pay people to stay home, comes up with the great idea to force people to stay home in the name of the pandemic and give them government money to pay them to do so.
No wonder employers are struggling to fill their open positions. It’s all a scam to grab power, and it always was.
Her position is completely without logic, to the point of being silly. Typical lefty cant: if the government can help evil businesses who are simply exploiting the proletariat, er, employees, the government can surely help poor college graduates who are being victimized by evil capitalists, er, banks.
Randi Weingarten screamed that because businesses received loans during the pandemic, students should be forgiven theirs.
Yes, well, we always have to ask, “who benefits?” Very many of the people who would see loan forgiveness are… wait for it… teachers! And by supporting a free money giveaway, the unions get to benefit from the good feelings coming from teachers who receive them.
I know that must come as a shock, but there it is. 🙂
Meanwhile, over at studentaid.gov, the portal you need to go through for any loan adjustments, including an annual verification of incime for income based repayments, every page has a pair of warning splashes across the top: “Student Loan Debt Relief Is Blocked
Courts have issued orders blocking our student debt relief program. As a result, at this time, we are not accepting applications. We are seeking to overturn those orders. If you’ve already applied, we’ll hold your application. Subscribe and check back here for updates. We will post information as soon as further updates are available.” And “The student loan payment pause is extended until the U.S. Department of Education is permitted to implement the debt relief program or the litigation is resolved. Payments will restart 60 days later. If the debt relief program has not been implemented and the litigation has not been resolved by June 30, 2023 — payments will resume 60 days after that. We will notify borrowers before payments restart.”
I certainly read both as “we know we promised we’d help, but the mean old courts won’t let us!” Awfully inflammatory for a neutral federal agency to my eyes.
Concerning:
“waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision” to protect borrowers affected by “a war or other military operation or national emergency.”
Isn’t this overly broad, to the point that a provision could say “allow X”, but the Secratary could modify it to say “ban X”?
Formula:
Get laws/provisions/statutes passed by legislature. Declare a national emergency. Change the laws/provisions/statures without legislature.
I’d argue, “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision,” can’t logically be extended to include forgiving a debt. The promissory note is an obligation to pay, a private contract. There’s no statutory or regulatory provision affecting the contracted obligation to pay.
More than 80% of student loans are held by the federal government. Maybe 90%. In 2001, most loans were held by banks. I can’t recall the cause, but student loans were federalized at some point during President Obama’s 1st term. (It may have been in response to the 2008 debt bubble being burst) If these loans were held by banks, I don’t think a mass student loan bailout would be being entertained.
But the HEROES Act is a garbage piece of legislation. Sloppy language.
I personally like how it’s “debt relief” when the Democrats benefit and a “giveaway” when Republicans do.
Without double-standards, the modern Left just couldn’t survive.
While I don’t condone it, I could see the argument that the HEROES Act probably allows the secretary to suspend debt payments and or interest accruals, it does not allow the secretary to forgive or cancel the debt. Playing around with payments is not directly spending money. Forgiving the debt is spending money and as such constitutionally must be authorized by congress since it would be new spending.