Promises kept.

August 25, 2022

          President Biden kept another campaign promise on Wednesday by announcing a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel up to $20,000 for certain borrowers. Importantly, the plan also provides relief to future borrowers by cutting in half the amount that borrowers have to pay each month from 10% to 5% of discretionary income and forgives loan balances after ten years of payments. The White House Fact Sheet for Student Loan Relief contains the details of the plan. Per the Fact Sheet, the plan will

• Provide up to $20,000 in debt cancellation to Pell Grant recipients with loans held by the Department of Education and up to $10,000 in debt cancellation to non-Pell Grant recipients

• Borrowers are eligible for this relief if their individual income is less than $125,000 or $250,000 for married couples.

• Extend the pause on federal student loan repayment will be extended one final time through December 31, 2022

          The Department of Education estimates that 43 million borrowers will receive some form of relief and about 20 million borrowers will receive complete forgiveness. The DOE estimates that 90% of all relief will go to borrowers earning less than $75,000.

          Biden’s proposal will improve the lives of tens of millions of Americans. For reasons difficult to understand, the backlash against Biden’s plan has been fast and furious. For Republicans, the hypocrisy writes itself. The GOP has described Biden’s loan forgiveness as “socialism” and a “moral hazard.” And yet, fifteen Republicans in Congress (or their business affiliates) received forgiveness of $16,193,000 in loans they received from the federal government under the Paycheck Protection Plan—an average debt cancellation of more than $1 million, compared to a maximum forgiveness of $20,000 under Biden’s Plan. And then there is Donald Trump, who has petitioned for bankruptcy on six occasions to avoid paying the debts of his businesses . . . .

          The Editorial Board of the Washington Post seemed to take personal offense over the plan in an editorial entitled, Biden’s student loan forgiveness is an expensive, regressive mistake. The Board wrote:

          The loan-forgiveness decision is even worse [than the four month extension of the moratorium on loan repayments]. Widely canceling student loan debt is regressive. It takes money from the broader tax base, mostly made up of workers who did not go to college, to subsidize the education debt of people with valuable degrees.

          While the Post’s objection is technically true, it is also true for the following subsidies and credits: Trump’s 2017 tax cut for millionaires, oil company subsidies, export subsidies for US manufacturers, auto industry subsidies, lower tax rates for hedge fund managers (“carried interest deduction”), 100% deductibility for yachts purchased for “business purposes,” and deduction for 100% of the future depreciation for private jets in their first year of service.

          All of the above subsidies, credits, and deductions are regressive because—as the Post notes—“the broader tax base is mostly made up of workers” who are not millionaires, who do not manage hedge funds, who do not own oil wells, and who do not purchase yachts or private jets. And yet, the Post and others reserve peevish indignation for a program that helps middle- and lower-income earners who took a chance by investing in their futures and themselves.

         And there were complaints about “unfairness” by those who paid their loans or who do not qualify for loan forgiveness. Biden did what he could given the limits on the Department of Education’s ability to modify its loan programs. The fact that Biden crafted a plan that targets middle- to low-income earners was a reasonable compromise. Was it perfect? Of course not. But when that becomes the standard for achieving progress, all forward movement will cease. We should celebrate another promise kept by Biden.

Further thoughts on Tuesday’s primary and special election results.

          Democrats are rightly encouraged by the results of Tuesday’s primaries, especially the victory by Pat Ryan in New York’s special election for the NY-19 congressional district. Polling by NBC News provides additional grounds for hope. Here, “hope” is defined as “we aren’t prisoners of history, and we refuse to accept the conventional wisdom that the party in power loses ground in the midterms.”

          An NBC survey compared the “enthusiasm” levels among Democrats and Republicans in the last four mid-terms to the enthusiasm level today. See NBC News, NBC News survey finds 2022 midterms have entered uncharted territory. Per NBC,

Democrats have now drawn even with Republicans on enthusiasm, with 66% of Democratic voters expressing high interest in the upcoming midterms, versus 68% for Republicans. In past shellackings, the party out of power has enjoyed double-digit leads (or close to it) on this question in our poll (using either October or merged data from previous years).

2006: D+13

2010: R+17

2014: R+11

2018: D+9

Now: R+2

The main driver of that uptick in Democratic enthusiasm is the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, and the poll finds 58% of voters disapproving of that decision, versus 38% who approve. 

          The same poll shows that voters ranked “Threats to democracy” as the “most important issue facing the country”—ahead of cost living, the economy, immigration, climate change, abortion, and guns. See NBC News August Poll. Given that Republicans are fielding candidates whose primary focus is promoting the Big Lie, they have chosen the wrong issue at the wrong time as their marquee headline.

          None of this guarantees Democrats anything—as the NYTimes predictably reminds Democrats. See NYTimes, Democrats Sense a Shift in the Political Winds, but It May Not Be Enough. But it signals that the future is open to Democrats in a way it has not been in two decades. Don’t let anyone tell you differently.

The DOJ releases internal memo justifying decision not to prosecute Trump.

          The DOJ released an internal memo justifying Bill Barr’s decision to clear Donald Trump of obstruction of justice. See NYTimes, Memo Details Barr’s Justifications for Clearing Trump of Obstruction. The unredacted memo is here: Memorandum for the Attorney General, 3/24/19.

          The memo is a classic example of motivated reasoning that abuses logic and exalts sophistry. The memo is so disingenuous that one expert has opined Bill Barr should be disciplined. See Alternet, Legal experts say Bill Barr ‘should be disciplined’ following release of 'garbage' Justice Department memo.

          I will wait for others to deconstruct the memo in detail but let me focus on its primary logical flaw. The authors assert that Trump could not be prosecuted for obstruction of justice because Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to indict Trump on collusion:

          The evidence does not establish a crime . . . involving the President toward which any obstruction or attempted obstruction by the President could be directed.

          That argument is ludicrous. At the time that Trump was attempting to impede Mueller’s investigation, Trump had no idea whether Mueller would find evidence of collusion. The point of statutes criminalizing obstruction of justice is to prevent targets of investigations from impeding those investigations. Obstruction of justice is a crime against the administration of justice and does not depend on a defendant’s liability for an underlying crime. 18 USC § 1503 provides that “Whoever corruptly . . .  impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished.”

          The argument that Trump could not be guilty of obstruction of justice because Mueller could not find sufficient evidence of collusion appears to be made in bad faith. Bill Barr is not the only lawyer whose license to practice law should be scrutinized.

Concluding Thoughts.

          Two more notes on Pat Ryan’s victory in NY-19 congressional district. As reported by Politico, Turnout surge powered Democrats’ N.Y. special election win — and their renewed hopes for November. Two groups helped increase turnout.

          First, reader Sarah O. of Postcards To Voters reports that the group sent 100,195 postcards reminding Democrats to vote in Pat Ryan’s race for NY-19. Sarah asked me to thank all of the readers of this newsletter who joined in that effort. So, thank you! Job well done!

          Another reader, Adelia M, wrote the following inspirational note about her experience canvassing in NY-19 for Pat Ryan:

          On the special election in NY-19. Please urge your readers to knock on doors. In our small town, we knocked on about 300 doors (mostly Dems) in six weeks to get out the vote in our rural swing district full of Republican Molinaro signs. People are shy about canvassing, but it turns out that voters are people just like you and me. If they’re home, they usually open the door and talk. And it is effective in getting out the vote! So, in these extraordinary times, take a step out of your comfort zone and knock on doors. You’ll get hooked, especially when your candidate wins—like he did in NY-19. Mobilize.us and every campaign website list volunteer canvassing opportunities. As I like to say, you won’t regret it if you do, you might regret it if you don’t.

          Thanks to all readers of this newsletter who helped push Pat Ryan over the finish line. Take the morning off and then back to your battle stations! Keep up the good work!

          Talk to you tomorrow!