Unlawful Promises: The Biden Administration's Student Loan Forgiveness Fiasco

 

Unlawful Promises: The Biden Administration's Student Loan Forgiveness Fiasco

In a defiant and legally dubious move, the Biden administration has announced the forgiveness of $1.2 billion in student loan debt for 150,000 former students, pushing the total to an eye-watering $138 billion forgiven. This brazen act of fiscal irresponsibility is not just an affront to every hardworking American who has scrimped, saved, and sacrificed to pay off their own or their family's education debts; it is a slap in the face to the very notion of the rule of law and personal accountability upon which this nation was built. It is, in no uncertain terms, a monumental misstep that epitomizes the administration's cavalier attitude towards legal constraints and its penchant for governing by overreach.

Let's address the elephant in the room: the Supreme Court's* clear stance against such unilateral executive actions. In previous rulings, the highest court in the land has signaled its skepticism, if not outright opposition, to the idea that the executive branch holds the power to forgive student loan debt en masse without explicit authorization from Congress. This legal boundary, set by the Constitution, exists to prevent exactly the kind of overreach President Biden seems determined to enact. By sidestepping the legislative process and ignoring Supreme Court warnings, the administration not only flouts established legal precedent but also usurps powers not granted to it, effectively challenging the separation of powers that underpins our democratic system. (*See notes at the bottom of the article.)

Critics of the administration's policy rightly see it as an egregious example of vote-buying, a cynical attempt to shore up political support by doling out financial favors. The ethical implications of such a strategy are deeply troubling, suggesting a governance philosophy that prioritizes political gain over legal and fiscal responsibility. This maneuver, far from being a benign act of executive generosity, is a calculated play for loyalty that threatens to corrupt the electoral process and erode public trust in governmental institutions.

Moreover, the economic ramifications of this debt forgiveness are staggering. The notion that $138 billion can be simply wiped away without consequence is a fantasy. In reality, this amount is shouldered by taxpayers, many of whom have made significant personal sacrifices to fulfill their own financial obligations. To them, this policy is not just unfair; it is a direct insult, a message from the government that their efforts to live within their means and honor their commitments are valued less than the desires of those who benefit from this forgiveness. This is not just a redistribution of wealth; it is a redistribution of responsibility, from those who take their obligations seriously to those who are now told they need not bother.

The argument that student loan forgiveness is necessary to alleviate the burden on those struggling under the weight of debt ignores the fact that not all debt is created equal, nor are all circumstances surrounding it. Blanket forgiveness policies fail to differentiate between those who genuinely cannot pay and those who simply choose not to, between degrees that offer a return on investment and those that do not. It is a blunt instrument where a scalpel is needed, offering a windfall to many at the expense of the many more who foot the bill.

In conclusion, the Biden administration's approach to student loan forgiveness is not just misguided; it is a direct challenge to the principles of legal and fiscal governance. It represents a dangerous overreach of executive power, a disdain for the rule of law, and a reckless disregard for the economic consequences of its actions. As a nation, we must demand accountability, not just in fiscal matters, but in the adherence to the constitutional limits of power. The road to financial relief should not be paved with the dismantling of our legal and democratic foundations.

 

*The Supreme Court indeed ruled against President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan, marking a significant legal and political setback for the administration. On June 30, 2023, the Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts and backed by a 6-3 majority, found that the Biden administration had overstepped its authority by attempting to cancel up to $430 billion in student loan debt, a move that would have benefited up to 43 million Americans. This decision was aligned with the objections from six conservative-leaning states (Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Carolina), which argued that such broad action required clear congressional approval, not just an executive decision.

The ruling emphasized that the HEROES Act, upon which the Biden administration based its authority for the debt forgiveness program, allows the Secretary of Education to "waive or modify" existing provisions but not to "transform them" into something entirely new. The Court concluded that the proposed debt-relief program constituted a novel and fundamentally different loan forgiveness program, far beyond mere "modest adjustments" to existing laws and regulations. This was interpreted as a significant overreach, effectively creating a new regime rather than modifying the existing one under the guise of the HEROES Act. The Court's decision invoked the "major questions" doctrine, underscoring that for decisions of vast economic and political significance, explicit congressional authorization is required.

In response to the ruling, President Biden expressed his disagreement and announced intentions to explore alternative avenues under the Higher Education Act to provide relief for student loan borrowers. This alternative approach aims to address the financial burdens of education loans within the legal frameworks upheld by the Court.

The Supreme Court's decision has not only legal but also significant political and social implications, emphasizing the limits of executive power in enacting broad policy changes without direct legislative support. The ruling represents a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over student loan forgiveness, highlighting the complex interplay between executive authority, legislative approval, and judicial oversight in shaping U.S. policy