• Tag Archives student loans
  • How the US Government Created the Student Loan Crisis

    President Joe Biden unveiled a sweeping plan on Wednesday to let delinquent student loan borrowers transfer tens of thousands of dollars in debt to taxpayers. If he were a biblically minded leader, Biden would have used his nationally televised press conference to repent of his role in creating the student loan crisis in the first place.

    Biden’s student loan bailout lets individuals write off $20,000 in unpaid student loans if they received Pell Grants or $10,000 if they did not. The plan is open to households that make up to $250,000 a year or individuals who make $125,000. It would also reduce the number of people who have to make student loan payments at all, as well as the amount and time they must pay before US taxpayers pick up the tab for their full loan.

    While much of the commentary has focused on students who refused to make their loan payments, few have discussed how successive presidential administrations set those students up for failure. The federal government largely nationalized the student loan industry in 2010 via a piece of legislation related to Obamacare, the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.” The US government now holds 92 percent of all student loans — and the nation’s total student debt has more than doubled, from $811 billion in April 2010 to $1.748 trillion in April 2022.

    Part of the reason the figures have surged — and students start life so indebted — is due to progressive policies that made it impossible for most people to ever pay off their student loans. In their haste to have the US taxpayer underwrite the maximum amount of college tuition, they transformed most student loans from a fixed-rate loan — like a mortgage or car loan — to a plan based on the student’s post-graduation income. Gradually, the borrower’s share of his college loans shrank, while the taxpayer’s increased.

    The first income-based repayment plan — the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, established in July 1994 under the Clinton administration — required students to pay up to 20 percent of their discretionary income for 25 years; any remaining balance would be paid by taxpayers. The George W. Bush administration passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, which let graduates pay 15 percent of their income above 150 percent of the federal poverty line. The Obama-Biden administration reduced that to 10 percent and wrote off unpaid undergraduate loans after 20 years under a series of new loan policies between 2012 and 2014.

    These policies made student loan debt effectively permanent and unpayable.

    The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) spelled out the process in a thorough, February 2020 report. CBO researchers followed college graduates who began paying off student loans in 2012. “By the end of 2017, over 75% of those borrowers owed more than they had originally borrowed. By contrast, the median balance among borrowers in fixed-payment plans decreased steadily,” they noted. “Loans are often repaid more slowly under income-driven plans because the required payments are too small to cover the accruing interest. As a result, borrowers in such plans typically see their balance grow over time rather than being paid down.”

    The federal government took over nearly all student loans, forced students to make years of payments only to fall further behind, then handed the enlarged debt to the US taxpayer. The ill-advised policies began as far back as 1978 with the Middle Income Student Assistant Act, which let all college students accrue student loan debt. A series of bills expanded this web of indebtedness to an ever-larger percentage of Americans — and Joe Biden supported every single legislative misstep. He also made it all-but impossible to discharge student loans in bankruptcy, ensuring that graduates’ hopelessly accumulating loan payments went on endlessly — and that college administrators continued to collect.

    If someone wanted to destroy a generation’s hope in their ability to get ahead, he couldn’t have devised a better system.

    As the French wag said, that policy is “worse than a crime; it’s a mistake.” The majority of student loans are now income-based according to the CBO, and the loans the government would issue between 2020 and 2029 will cost taxpayers an estimated $82.9 billion. All this ignores the fact that Uncle Sam has proved a poor accountant. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released in July found the Department of Education predicted that student loans would generate $114 billion for the federal government; they instead lost $197 billion — a $311 billion error, mostly due to incorrect analysis.

    Only the federal government could lose money on an industry that has grown at four times the rate of inflation. As Milton Friedman once observed, “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.”

    And, of course, those calculations didn’t consider the possibility that Biden would transfer a hefty part of that amount to productive US taxpayers, who cannot default from compulsory taxation.

    Biden and former President Barack Obama should repent for fastening this debt burden to the younger generation, then increasing the unfathomable national debt for all Americans. President Biden’s announcement on Wednesday afternoon should have seen him bow before the audience, whisper a “mea culpa,” and offer the write-offs as an act of restitution and reparation for the bad policies he supported for more than four decades. To fit proper biblical restitution, the payment would have to be made to the 75 percent of students who took out government-created, income-based student loans since the Obama administration — especially those who made their payments. He would also have to have the legal and constitutional authority to redistribute other people’s money, which he does not. But if he did, that arrangement would at least be fair.

    But in the Bible, repentance (μετάνοια) means to change one’s mind and behavior. Biden’s new student loan bailout did not represent heartfelt repentance but hard-hearted defiance. Instead of turning the ship of state back toward safety, Biden cried, “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” Rather than abandon the income-based student loan bondage he and Barack Obama designed, he further reduced the minimum payments to 5 percent of new graduates’ discretionary income, raised discretionary income to 225 percent of the poverty level, and let students transfer their unpaid loans to taxpayers after 10 years. That will consign even more graduates to a life of hopeless interest-service payments and force taxpayers to eat an even larger percentage of defaulted, inflated debt.

    That only makes sense if the progressives intend to collapse the system, as many believed they designed Obamacare to force the US healthcare system into a death spiral, and replace it with a government-run socialist alternative. Obama admitted he favored socialized medicine in 2008. “If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Obama told a campaign rally. But for the moment, he would tinker with the existing system until Americans “decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively.”

    Is it possible this is the next step toward government-funded college? Whatever it is, it is not the road back to economic sanity.

    Biden and Obama should repent. And if they will not humble themselves, voters should humble those who support their immoral policies at the ballot box.

    A similar version of this story appeared in The Washington Stand.


    Ben Johnson

    Rev. Ben Johnson is a senior editor at the Acton Institute. His work focuses on the principles necessary to create a free and virtuous society in the transatlantic sphere (the U.S., Canada, and Europe). 

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


  • Top 20% Gets 6x More Benefits from Student Debt Cancellation than Bottom 20%, New Study Finds

    From Sen. Elizabeth Warren to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, some of the most prominent progressive politicians in the country are pushing hard for widespread student debt cancelation. So, it’s fascinating to see a new study show that forcing taxpayers to pay down the roughly $1.5 trillion in government-held student debt is not a “progressive” policy by any stretch.

    Note that just one in three American adults over age 25 actually has a bachelor’s degree. This population, naturally, holds almost all student debt. Yet college graduates typically make 85 percent more than those with only a high school diploma and earn roughly $1 million more over a lifetime.

    So any government policy that forces taxpayers to pay off loans held by a relatively well-off slice of society is actually regressive, meaning it disproportionately helps the wealthy. You don’t have to take my word for it—this is the finding of a new University of Chicago study.

    Economists Sylvain Catherine and Constantine Yannelis crunched the numbers to conclude that full student debt cancellation would be a “highly regressive policy” and award $192 billion to the top 20 percent of income earners, yet just $29 billion to the bottom 20 percent.

    The study also examines other proposals to have taxpayers pay off $10,000 or $50,000 in debt per person, rather than all debt. It finds similarly regressive outcomes for these proposals as well.

    “Outstanding student debt is inversely correlated with economic hardship,” study co-author Sylvain Catherine writes. “So it is difficult to design a forgiveness policy that does not accentuate inequality.”

    This finding is not an outlier.

    In fact, other research from left-leaning institutions like the Urban Institute has reached the same conclusion. So, we’re left with the simple fact that one of the Democratic Party’s top agenda items is a taxpayer-financed handout to the wealthy. And, of course, student debt cancellation ignores the real reason college is so expensive in the first place.

    But we nonetheless face an important question: Why are supposedly progressive politicians, elected as champions of the working class, using their power to push for handouts for the wealthy?

    One possible answer is that sweeping big-government policies involve the centralization of so much power that they will inevitably be corrupted by favoritism and clientelism.

    “There is no such thing as a just and fair method of exercising the tremendous power that interventionism puts into the hands of the legislature and the executive,” Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises once wrote. “In many fields of the administration of interventionist measures, favoritism simply cannot be avoided.”

    And as far as favoritism is concerned, guess who votes overwhelmingly for progressive Democratic politicians? That’s right: Young people and the well-educated.

    So, while it’s disheartening to see top Democrats seek to exploit the federal taxpayer to their wealthy constituents’ benefit, it’s not exactly surprising. The only way to prevent these kinds of abuses is to limit the power of government itself.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


  • Beware the Incentives of “Forgiving” Student Loan Debt

    Reality has a habit of interrupting the stories people tell themselves.

    The 18th-century philosopher George Berkeley constructed complex arguments to prove that matter doesn’t really exist. In response, Samuel Johnson famously kicked a rock and said, “I refute (him) thus.”

    Like Berkeley, our politicians spend too much time imagining how they might shape society to achieve their preferred outcomes. But they don’t live in the real world. When you earn enough that you don’t have to ask how much things cost, and you’re surrounded by people who are afraid to tell you when you’re full of it, you won’t often know when you’re thinking stupid thoughts.

    But once in a while, someone like Samuel Johnson comes along, and with a few words brings reality back into sharp focus. We received two such welcome doses of reality this month. January opened with Ricky Gervais reminding the Hollywood glitterati who pontificate on economics and politics that they have no idea what they’re talking about. And now it closes with an angry father confronting presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren about her proposal to forgive student loans.

    The father, who worked two jobs so his daughter could graduate college with no debt, asked, “Am I going to get my money back?” Warren’s reply: “Of course not.”

    With those three words, reality intruded into Warren’s story about student debt forgiveness, and everyone except Warren appeared to realize it. The father drove the lesson home:

    My buddy had fun, bought a car, went on vacations. I saved my money. He made more than I did. … We did the right thing, and we get screwed.

    But still, Elizabeth Warren didn’t get it.

    Politicians’ elaborate plans for “fixing” things so often go awry because, in their minds, we will all respond to their policy tinkerings in exactly the way they intend. In Warren’s mind, her plan to have the government “forgive” student loans will magically resolve with students everywhere being debt-free, and everyone else’s lives being the better for it.

    But that’s not how it works. People don’t respond to laws. People respond to incentives.

    When politicians decide to “forgive” debt, they give people an incentive to borrow more and to borrow less prudently. For the same reason that people’s menu choices change when someone else is picking up the tab at the restaurant, so too would students’ and parents’ behaviors change if Warren forces someone else to pay the tuition bill.

    Too many students already choose majors that have little market value. Imagine how much worse this would be when students don’t have to pay back the money they borrow for their degrees. College tuition is already too high. Imagine how much worse this would be when students don’t care how much college costs because someone else is paying the bill.

    Too few high school students already choose to go into the trades. Imagine how much worse this would be when high school seniors face a choice of working to learn a trade or spending four years partying on the taxpayers’ dime. The federal government already runs trillion-dollar deficits. Imagine how much worse this would be when the government has to spend even more money each year to pay off student loan debts.

    The stark reality is that “forgiving student debt” really means forcing people who didn’t go to college to pay for those who did, and forcing people who scrimped and saved for college to pay for those who didn’t. This punishes prudent, frugal choices while rewarding their opposite.

    The father who confronted Elizabeth Warren knows this, but Warren just can’t see it. He is Samuel Johnson, kicking her rock. Apparently he didn’t kick hard enough.

    This article was republished from Canton Rep. 


    Antony Davies

    Dr. Antony Davies is the Milton Friedman Distinguished Fellow at FEE, associate professor of economics at Duquesne University, and co-host of the podcast, Words & Numbers.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.