14,000 Law Firms Received Payroll Protection Money: Why Not Forgive All Student-Loan Debt?

 Our government spent trillions of dollars responding to COVID, and just about everybody got a little something from Uncle Sam.  Sometimes I think my wife and I are the only people in the United States who didn't get a COVID relief check.

For example, 14,000 law firms got Payroll Protection money, ostensibly to help them avoid laying off lawyers during the COVID crisis.  Eleven firms got $10 million each, but all 14,000 firms got at least $150,000.

Prisoners also got some COVID cash. More than a half-million incarcerated individuals got three-quarters of a billion dollars in stimulus checks.

Even drinking establishments managed to get their noses in the trough. Hooters of Louisiana, a "full-service restaurant," got $156,000.

In short, the U.S. government has been spewing out COVID cash like a drunken sailor on shore leave. So why not forgive all student-loan debt--all $1.7 trillion?

After all, student-loan forgiveness makes more sense than handing out Payroll Protection money to professional athletes and politicians.

Wiping out all student-loan debt would benefit 45 million student borrowers, giving them extra cash to put into the American economy. That's got to be a good thing.

Moreover, many student debtors took out loans to get college degrees that are worthless to them. Maybe they attended one of the dodgy for-profit colleges where they paid too much for a mediocre educational experience. Perhaps they borrowed $100,000 to get a gender studies degree from an elite college--a degree that did not lead to a good job.

So--you can put me down as a supporter of total student-loan forgiveness.  That's right; let's wipe out everybody's federal student-loan debt.

But we should recognize the perils of this course of action. First of all, student loans constitute the largest category of federal assets. If those loans disappear from the nation's balance sheet, the government's fiscal situation will look bleaker than it already does.

Secondly, we should recognize the moral hazard of wholesale student-loan forgiveness. People who take out student loans in the future will likely do so with the expectation that the feds will eventually forgive the debt. Thus, they may conclude they can default on their loans with no penalty.

Finally, wiping out all student debt does nothing to pressure colleges to get their costs under control. The higher education industry will continue raising tuition rates, forcing future students to take out more student loans to finance their studies.

In conclusion, I support student-loan forgiveness. Nevertheless, wholesale loan forgiveness will not solve the student-loan crisis. Until higher education cleans up its act and reduces costs, future generations of colleges students will continue getting hammered with unmanageable college-loan debt.

Thanks for the PPP money!

Don't just do something, stand there! Another flawed plan to solve the student-loan crisis

 "When someone tells me he's a Christian businessman," my former law partner once observed, "I put my hand over my wallet."

I feel much the same way whenever I read some policy wonk's sweeping plan to solve the student-loan crisis. After we've listened to all the bells and whistles, we always discover that the grand scheme is just another pitch to pump more federal money to the academic racketeers and hucksters that run the nation's universities.

And this brings me to an article by Kevin Carey titled "How to Save Higher Education," published recently in Washington Monthly.  Carey proposes "a new higher education ecosystem that works for everyone, not just the chosen few."

So what would the new ecosystem look like? Carey wants to give "a direct annual subsidy of $10,000 per full-time-equivalent student" to any college (public or private) that agrees to adopt a "uniform pricing system."  Students from families with household incomes below $75,000 would pay nothing. Tuition would increase on a sliding scale, with families earning more than $250,000 paying the full tuition price of $10,000 a year.

According to Carey, his scheme would send more federal money to colleges than they are receiving now. Students from middle-class families would pay only a modest tuition price, and they wouldn't have to take out student loans.  Sounds great!

So what's the catch? Well, for starters, Carey's plan is damned expensive. Carey didn't estimate the cost of his proposal but acknowledge that it would amount to tens of billions of dollars annually.

How will we pay for it?  Carey said the cost will be "partly offset" by "eliminating the tax deductibility of any donations to colleges with an endowment greater than $200,000 per student." But who believes a modest tax hike for wealthy donors will bring in enough revenue to eliminate the student-loan program and reduce tuition prices? I certainly don't.

Interestingly, Carey assures us that his plan will have no effect whatsoever on "the system of elite colleges and universities that currently serve to acculturate and accelerate the children of the ruling class." 

 Even though these elite colleges, in Carey's words,  "sell status to the highest bidder through a thinly veiled system of bribes and legacy admissions preferences," we shouldn't ask them to change the way they do business. Why? Because, according to Carey, institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Stanford "truly are some of the greatest centers of research and scholarship on the planet."

In my view, Carey's plan to "save higher education"  boils down to nothing more than a proposal to send more money to our corpulent and corrupt colleges and universities.  He is content to allow the various accrediting agencies to "serve as watchdogs to prevent unscrupulous schools from lowering standards to sell easy credits."  But the accrediting bodies have done a terrible job regulating the higher education industry. Does anyone think they will suddenly change and become watchdogs over a sector that is out of control?

In my mind, the biggest flaw in Carey's college-funding scheme is its failure to address the fact that 43 million Americans owe $1.7 trillion in student loans, and about half of those debtors will never repay their loans.  And Carey says nothing about the notoriously corrupt for-profit college industry, which should be stamped out in its entirety.

But college leaders will surely love Carey's proposal.  After all, it will send them more federal money, and it will allow the nation's elite colleges to continue charging obscene prices to tutor their students in the arts of arrogance, self-righteousness, and condescension while failing to teach them how to get a job.

Pew Foundation says one out of four student-loan borrowers default within 5 years: But we already knew that.

The Pew Foundation issued a report recently with this snoozer title: Student Loan System Presents Repayment Challenges.  Really? That's like saying that icebergs posed a challenge to the Titanic.

The Pew Foundation's most interesting finding--picked up by the media--was this: Almost one out of four student-loan debtors default on their loans within five years.  But this should not be a shocker. Looney and Yannelis reached basically the same finding five years ago in their report for the Brookings Institution. These researchers reported that the five-year default rate for the 2009 cohort of borrowers was 28 percent (p. 49, Table 8).

And the Pew study probably understates the crisis. The report itself acknowledged that for-profit colleges were underrepresented in its study (p. 5), and we know that almost half of the students who attend for-profit colleges default within five years.

Most importantly, the Pew study did not address the "challenge" faced by more than 7 million college borrowers who are in income-based, long-term repayment plans (IBRPs). IBRP participants are not paying off their student loans even though they are in approved repayment programs. Why? Because people in IBRPs aren't making monthly payments large enough to pay down loan accruing interest, and this interest is capitalized and rolled into their loans' principal.

As much as it pains me to say this, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos gave a clearer picture of the student-loan crisis than the Pew Foundation.  A year ago, DeVos publicly acknowledged that only one out of four student borrowers are paying down principal and interest on their loans and that 43 percent of student loans are "in distress."

For me, the most disappointing thing about the Pew report was its tepid, turgid, and tedious recommendations for addressing the student-loan crisis, which I will quote:

• Identify at-risk borrowers before they are in distress . . .
• Provide [loan] servicers with resources and comprehensive guidance . . .
• Eliminate barriers to enrollment in affordable repayment plans, such as program complexity . . .

Thanks, Pew Foundation. That was really, really helpful.

Note that the Pew Foundation said nothing about bankruptcy relief for distressed college borrowers, tax penalties for borrowers who complete their IBRPs, or the government's shameful practice of garnishing elderly defaulters' Social Security checks. Moreover, Pew said nothing about the Education Department's almost criminal administration of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.  And we didn't read anything about the out-of-control cost of higher education.

Let's face it.  College leaders, the federal government, and so-called policy organizations like the Pew Foundation refuse to acknowledge that the federal student-loan program is destroying the lives of millions of Americans. Instead, they are content to tinker with a system that is designed to shovel money to our bloated and corrupt universities.

America's colleges are addicted to federal money. Like a drug addict hooked on Oxycontin, they must get their regular fixes of federal cash.  After all, they've got to fund the princely salaries of college administrators and lazy, torpid professors.

Like first-class passengers on the Titanic who were sipping champagne when their ship hit an iceberg, the higher education industry thinks the flow of student-loan money will go on forever.  But a crash is coming.

Unfortunately, the people who created the student-loan crisis will be the ones floating away in the lifeboats--living off their cushy pensions and obscene retirement packages. The people who were exploited by the federal student-loan program, like the third-class passengers on the Titanic, will go down with the ship.

Lifeboats reserved for college presidents and DOE senior administrators

University of Kentucky college students go on hunger strike over food insecurity. UK President Eli Capilouto makes $790,000 per year.

More than sixty students at the University of Kentucky began a hunger strike this week. Some will go cold turkey (so to speak) and take nothing but water and edibles required by medical necessity--which I presume will not include Snickers. Others will restrict themselves to one meal a day.

Why are they refusing to eat? Are they calling attention to the student loan crisis, which has destroyed the lives of millions? Are they calling for student-debt relief? Are they asking for student-loan debt forgiveness?

No, they are going on a hunger strike because they might get hungry! Well--that's not quite accurate. Actually, the strikers are protesting what they say is the university's inadequate response to students' food and housing insecurity.

These are the strikers specific demands as reported by a local newspaper:

1) They want UK to establish a Basic Needs Health Center "focused on helping students with housing and food-related challenges."

2) They want the University to establish a Basic Needs Fund, which would distribute small cash grants to students with food or housing issues.

3) Finally, the strikers want the university to hire a full-time person dedicated to helping students meet their food and housing needs.

UK's president, Eli Capilouto, roused his public relations staffers from their slumbers, and the PR team pumped out a suitably sensitive and vapid public response. Here is a sample:

"[W]hile we may disagree in some of our specific approaches [to hunger]," Capilouto purred sympathetically, "we will never disrespect the concerns that have been raised or those who have raised them."  So--no tear gas or pepper spray. That's a relief! No one wants to get tear gassed on an empty stomach.

Capilouto went on to say that UK had cut the cost of its most popular meal plan and expanded the operating hours for the university food pantry. He also said the university was raising money for an emergency fund.

"These next steps are a beginning, not an end," Capilouto assured the strikers. "This is a journey we are on--as a campus community and as compassionate, caring citizens in a larger world."  Don't you love that journey bullshit?

And then President Capilouto concluded his feeble statement with a flourish: "After all, we share the same goal--a commitment to making progress  in ways that ensure the health and wellness of our students as we prepare them for lives of meaning and purpose."

Wow! I give President Capilouto and his PR hacks an A minus for producing a hunger-strike response that is as flavorless and boring as the ramen noodles his students are eating.  (I deducted a few points from his grade because he didn't include the words "transparent" and "inclusive.")

I don't mean to make light of food insecurity on college campuses. In spite of the fact that students borrow on average about $37,000 to get their college degrees, they sometimes fall short on grocery money. But isn't  that what the UK food pantry is for?

Let's take a closer look at what the UK hunger strikers are demanding: "A Basic Needs Center focused on helping students with housing and "food-related challenges." But UK has a student-housing staff and people in charge of the campus dining halls. That's not enough?

And the strikers want small financials grants--apparently to meet food and housing emergencies. But isn't that what the federal student loan program is designed for? And part-time jobs, for that matter.

But the strikers' last demand is truly ludicrous. The strikers, delusional perhaps due to lack of protein, want UK to hire ANOTHER ADMINISTRATOR who will be dedicated to "addressing students' food and housing needs."

I'm sure UK will be happy to comply. Heck, it might hire a half dozen new administrators to staff a Basic Needs Center.  Sure it will cost money, but UK can always raise its tuition; and students will simply take out bigger student loans to absorb the cost.

Why do you suppose the UK protesters didn't call a hunger strike to protest the student-loan crisis and the outrageous cost of going to college? You know why. UK would probably turn the fire hoses on them.

And here's a footnote. President Capilouto--Mr. Sensitive--makes $790,000 a year. That will buy a lot of ramen noodles.

President Capilouto--Mr. Sensitive--makes $790,000 per year.

Senator Elizabeth Warren can survive Cherokee-Gate if she focuses on student-loan crisis

To my surprise, Senator Elizabeth Warren officially announced she is running for President, her head "bloodied but unbowed" by the scandal about her ethnic heritage, which I will call Cherokee-Gate.

Warren is a U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, which is remarkably tolerant of screw ups. Senator Ted Kennedy's political career survived Chappaquiddick (although Mary Jo Kopechne did not). Congressman Barney Frank continued serving in Congress after he admitted hiring a male prostitute as a personal aide. Representative Gerry Studds was elected to Congress six more times after he was censored by the House of Representatives for having a sexual relationship with a 17-year old page (the vote was 420 to 3). In fact, Studds' constituents on Martha's Vineyard gave him a standing ovation after his sex scandal broke.

So Liz came take comfort from the fact that Massachusetts probably doesn't give a damn whether she advanced her career by calling herself an American Indian. The Bay State likes to send moral reprobates to Washington DC.

But playing footsie with one's race to get ahead in the Ivy League won't play well in the Rust Belt, where the children of unemployed steel workers lack the temerity to call themselves Chippewas in order to get a college scholarship.

Thus, if Warren's presidential bid is to have legs, she needs to develop a substantive campaign platform to distract potential voters--and she needs to do it fast. How about focusing on the student-loan crisis?

Senator Kamala Harris stole a march on Warren when she came out for free college, so Liz has got to think of something sexier regarding the student-loan fiasco.  Here are some suggestions, which I hope she will embrace:

1) Legislation barring the federal government from garnishing Social Security checks of elderly student-loan defaulters, a proposal that Senator Warren and Senator Claire McCaskill proposed a few years ago.  That's a no-brainer, in my view.

2) Amending federal law to stop the IRS from treating forgiven student-loans as taxable income. Who could argue against that?

3) Capping accrued interest, penalties and refinancing fees on student loans to no more than 50 percent of the original amount borrowed. Currently, we see college borrowers whose student-loan balances have ballooned to three or four times the original loan amount. Surely that' a reasonable proposal.

4) Revising the Bankruptcy Code to allow distressed student-loan debtors to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy like any other unsecured consumer debt. Or if that lift is too heavy, at least let borrowers discharge their private student loans in bankruptcy.

5) Allowing parents to discharge their Parent Plus loans in bankruptcy if they run into financial trouble and can't pay off the loans they took out for their children's college education.

I admit I hold a grudge against Senator Warren for her Cherokee scam. After all, I grew up in Anadarko, Oklahoma; and it never occurred to me to call myself a a Nadarko Indian. Just like Liz, I've got a law degree; and Liz's eyes are bluer than mine.  If I'd played my cards right, I too might have become a Harvard law professor.  I might have been Harvard Law School's first cisgendered person of color!

But all will be forgiven as far as I'm concerned if Senator Warren will only endorse some of the proposals I've listed. And if she would do that, I think she might do very well in the Iowa caucuses.

Kamala Harris, presidential candidate, promises cost-free college for most Americans. What will she do for millions of student debtors who are suffering right now?

Senator Kamala Harris (D. Cal.) is running for President, and she promises a free college education for most Americans if she gets elected.

How will that work? Back in 2017, Senator Harris and Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vt) introduced legislation for free college, and here are the details:

• Attendance at a public institution will be free for families making $125,000 or less, which Harris claims will benefit about 80 percent of all Americans.

• The federal student-loan program will remain in place, but interest rates on loans will be slashed to less than 2 percent.

• Students from low-income families can attend private colleges and universities that serve "underrepresented minority communities" (she probably means HBCUs) at reduced tuition rates.

• The Harris-Sanders plan will also help students "afford books, housing, and transportation, and other fees." 

Free college! It's like bourbon flowing out of the office water cooler. Who could oppose that?

But here's the big problem with the Harris-Sanders proposal. Their plan would leave the current student-loan program in place.

The federal student-loan program is a colossal disaster, as Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos admitted last November; and it needs to be radically reformed.

Secretary DeVos said only 1 out of 4 student borrowers are paying down principal and interest on their loans, and 43 percent of outstanding federal loans are "in distress." The Harris-Sanders plan won't do anything to relieve the suffering of millions of Americans who are being crushed by student loans except cut interest rates.

In any event, Senator Harris's free college plan is never going to happen. It simply is not possible for the federal government to finance free college education to millions of Americans while we have $1.56 trillion in accumulated student loan debt--at least half of which will never be repaid.

However, there are specific things that Congress and our President can do to relieve the suffering of distressed student-loan borrowers, and I will support any presidential candidate who promises to "treat the wounded."

Two things need to be done:

1) Congress must eliminate the "undue hardship" language from the Bankruptcy Code so that overburdened college debtors can discharge their student loans in the bankruptcy courts.

2) The for-profit-college industry must be shut down.

Kamala Harris says she is "for the people." And in fact, she aggressively prosecuted Corinthian Colleges, a predatory for-profit college racket, when she was California's attorney general.  Her office obtained a billion dollar judgment against Corinthian, which filed for bankruptcy and shut down.

Very impressive!

Nevertheless, as a presidential candidate, Harris must continue to attack the sleazy for-profit industry. And she should endorse bankruptcy relief for millions of honest Americans who have been victimized by student loans.

Right now, Harris's higher education platform is nothing more than "Free beer tomorrow." Let's see if she proposes substantive reforms for the federal student-loan program and a serious crackdown on the for-profits.

The Student Loan Crisis and the Democratic Party Platform: Key Reform Proposals Would Entice Young Voters to vote for Hillary

Hillary Clinton has a problem with young  voters. They went 3 or 4 to 1 for Bernie Sanders in the various Democratic primaries this spring. Why did young voters go to Bernie, and how can Hillary win them over?

The Democratic Party insiders--dinosaurs like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Schumer, etc--don't realize it but the number one domestic policy issue in the United States today is the student loan crisis.  Approximately 43 million Americans are carrying $1.3 trillion in student-loan debt, and at least half of them can't pay it back.

As the Wall Street Journal reported in April, about 40 percent of college-loan borrowers in the repayment phase aren't making their monthly loan payments.  And five million people are enrolled in various income-based repayment programs. Most debtors in these programs are making payments so low that the payments don't cover accruing interest. In reality then, most people in income-based repayment plans will never pay off their loan balances.

Bernie Sanders signaled that he understands the scope of the problem when he proposed a free college education at a public college for every American.  By making that pledge, he turned millions of young Americans into single-issue voters.

Hillary could attract millions of Bernie supporters by adding these  planks to the Democratic Party platform:

• Free college education at a public college or university (as Bernie proposed).
• Eliminating the tax penalty for people who successfully complete long-term repayment plans but who have a loan balance when they've  completed their repayment terms.
• Stopping the garnishment of Social Security checks for elderly student-loan defaulters.
• Forcing the for-profits to stop putting mandatory arbitration clauses in student enrollment documents.
• Repealing the provision of the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Act that virtually eliminated bankruptcy relief for people who took out student loans from private lenders.

If Hillary and her handlers are smart, they will adopt these ideas. I hope Bernie refuses to endorse Hillary until she endorses at least some of them. If Bernie can pressure Hillary to make a commitment to solve the student-loan crisis, his campaign for the presidency will not have been in vain. But if the presidential race between Trump and Hillary rolls toward election day without any serious discussion of the student-loan crisis, then this country is in huuuge trouble.

References

Josh Mitchell. More Than 40% of Student Borrowers Aren’t Making Payments. Wall Street Journal, April 7 2015. Accessible at http://www.wsj.com/articles/more-than-40-of-student-borrowers-arent-making-payments-1459971348