Here is the NRO article referenced in the comments below.
Since there's a paywall, here is the relevant part to our discussion:
President Biden made clear today, this is a one-time deal, a lottery, a lightning strike. People who paid off their loans last week aren’t covered. People who will take out new loans after the policy has run its course aren’t covered.... This isn’t a reform. It’s not even pretending to be reform. It’s a contemptuous, abusive, unbelievably expensive shot in the dark...
It seems so arbitrary. Why does Biden not want to do the same thing for loans on trucks owned by plumbers? Why not for mortgages — which, given how heavily it subsidizes them, the federal government clearly thinks are worthwhile? Why not for credit cards or auto payments or mom-and-pop credit lines? The answer, I’m afraid to say, is disgustingly classist: Because Joe Biden and his party believe that college students are better than everyone else...
Electricians, store managers, deli workers, landscapers, waitresses, mechanics, entrepreneurs? Screw ’em. Sure, college graduates make more money than non-graduates, and their unemployment rate is lower, too. But non-graduates don’t have access to the president, so they don’t matter.
It really is arbitrary and, well, stupid. If you went to college as an undergraduate on a merit-based scholarship that covered your costs because you worked hard to keep your grades up, you won't be eligible for the $20,000 that went to those who borrowed and got a Pell Grant. If you were a frat boy who spent the four years drinking up your student loans, you likely will.
The major reform that cuts rates for loan repayment only affects undergraduate loans, though grad school loans tend to be much higher. The 'public service' thing we talked about yesterday: 'our kids' work at nonprofits, 'their kids' don't. There's no justification for that program that isn't tribal.
7 comments:
It is very much to the interest of the Dems to keep the higher-education machine running full blast. No different than a president who directs more $ to the defense industry because that industry is one of his largest campaign contributors, in the past and in the expected future.
It occurred to me later that the one group this really helps is Ivy League grads with big undergraduate loans — ie, the Whiye House aides who wrote the regulation.
They even get the expanded “public service” exemption. It’s carefully crafted for them to help— serve— themselves.
This clip from Dsily Wire has what I think is the most telling exchange on this, between Elizabeth Warren and a father whose daughter would not benefit from this forgiveness because he worked hard and she worked hard to get her through school without any debt. I hope the Republican National Committee runs this clip a lot in the lead up to the midterms. Here's the short version but the whole thing is worth listening to:
"I've saved all my money. [My daughter] doesn't have any student loans. Am I going to get my money back?"
Warren: "Of course not."
"So you're going to pay for people who didn't save any money and those of us who did the right thing get screwed."
https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1562131578460987392
IowaHawk as an essay (disguised as a series of 'tweets') which is 500% better than anything I've seen in the media.
https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/1562587233105784833
If he's right, (and his charts seem well-sourced) the primary beneficiaries are would-be barbers, cosmetologists, and others who enroll in for-profit "tech colleges" with aspirations of qualifying for a state's occupational licensing approval. Most of whom, afterwards, either fail the course work or just fail to earn sufficient funds to keep current on the loans.
The problem with overly expensive Ivy League schools, or DEI degrees from third-tier colleges, are both real. But both may be exaggerated compared to the "barber college" issue.
*MY* biggest issue is not the issue. I'm just miffed, again, that the White House is somehow supposed to be in charge of identifying and solving such problems. What the hell is Congress supposed to do if the President takes this responsibility?
The Iowahawk thread was quite good.
I question the lists of defaults by school though. My Alma Mater (which I won't name here) shows a *zero* percent default rate. I find it hard to believe, knowing the school and the dropout rate and how they hustle people into the financial aid office to apply for loans. I wonder if refinanced loans no longer attach to the school? Anyway, I have questions.
Iowahawk has a good larger point about college reform being needed at least as much as this bailout was, and identifies some good metrics. I'm not sure 'loan default' is fit to be a criterion, though. Maybe you don't default, but end up paying what turns out to be a lot more for a degree that turns out to have been much less valuable than advertised. The fact that you end up slaving successfully over the payments for two decades doesn't suggest to me that the deal was honestly sold.
Likewise I like his concept that your proposed major should be considered. Philosophy is popularly derided, but philosophy majors do OK, earning more on average than other humanities major. (The current median is $62,678, above the US median salary by a few thousand dollars). The other humanities do worse, some of them a lot worse.
Post a Comment