Posted on 05/20/2024 3:59:39 AM PDT by karpov
The Martin Center opposes the Biden administration’s new loan-forgiveness rules for two basic reasons: They are outside of the Department of Education’s authority, and they will have adverse consequences.
Economists often refer to special-interest legislation—bills passed to favor some politically influential group with benefits extracted from society in general. The nation’s Founders were well aware of that prospect and sought to prevent it in their writing of the Constitution. In Federalist 10, James Madison wrote about the evils that arise when “factions” can use governmental power to enrich themselves at the expense of others. The Constitution’s limitations on and division of federal authority were adopted to head off that problem.
In the Department’s proposed student-loan regulations, we have something even worse than special interest legislation, namely special interest regulation. We say this is worse because, with legislation, it is at least possible to vote out of office those who passed the odious bill and replace them with representatives more committed to the general welfare. With regulations decreed by unelected bureaucrats, that possibility does not exist.
The Founders sought to minimize the chances for special-interest legislation by drawing a line between the legislative and executive branches. Only the former was authorized to make laws, and then only within strictly defined boundaries. The executive branch was given the authority to enforce duly enacted laws. The proposed rules, however, clearly amount to the making of new law. Even if it were within the purview of Congress to pass a law relieving certain individuals of their obligation to repay debts owed to the government, it is not permissible for an agency of the executive branch to do so.
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
As far as illegal goes...just think back to that speech he made fairly recently in which he openly boasted about having defied the SCOTUS ruling.
Illegal? Pfftt!
USSC has said no, can’t do it, unconstitutional.
“Santa” Joe says “Try to stop me.”
No one has. No one will.
In economics, a moral hazard is a situation where an economic actor has an incentive to increase its exposure to risk because it does not bear the full costs of that risk. A moral hazard may occur where the actions of the risk-taking party change to the detriment of the cost-bearing party after a financial transaction has taken place.
A ton of us have already paid back our loans but the predatory Student Loan system kept charging interest and fees. Those who have paid back what they borrowed have had their loans forgiven. I don’t see what the issue is here.
And, by the way, how long until President Senile can do the same for mortgages of the "protected classes" ... or anybody he considers a voting bloc? This is so wrong.
The little biatch in the White House needs the votes so he has to play Jesus and spread his “forgiveness” and OUR DOLLARS for their debts across the country.
That is all these sick dim pukes have left, handing out taxpayer money for votes...
The words, Loan Forgiveness, are misleading or perhaps deceitful depending on the intentions of purposely misleading.
What Biden is doing is not loan forgiveness, it is a loan transfer.
Biden seeks to transfer loans off the backs of the folks who benefitted from the loan and put that loan burden on the backs of the taxpayers who did not benefit from the loans.
There is an American somewhere, perhaps many, whose responsible thinking caused him to forgo borrowing what he knew he could not pay back and seek employment without a degree. Today, that citizen's boss is the one who has the degree and that citizen is paying back the boss's loan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.