A year after overturning Roe and a day after restricting affirmative action, a half-dozen robed lawyers took another step towards electrifying liberal voters when the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority shot down Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan.
The decision was widely expected, but it nevertheless had the potential to further inflame societal tensions and could conceivably undermine Republicans’ prospects at the polls, the same way the abortion issue did during the midterms.
Obviously, the court can’t consider such things when rendering judgement from on high, but then again, it’s plainly a political body. The Justices do make social policy via their decisions. To say otherwise is to be deliberately obtuse. Apolitical people these exalted lawyers of ours most assuredly are not. On either side. There’s a reason presidents and congressional leaders get so excited about putting new justices on the bench when the opportunity arises.
As I wrote in the new monthly letter+, America’s mountain of student debt is never going to be repaid. Some of you might chafe at that assessment, but I implore readers to be realistic: The odds of a $1.8 trillion debt burden being repaid in full when the creditor is the government, the debtors are voters and a very large share of the electorate believes the asset being financed should be a public good, are exceedingly low.
That’s not a comment on the merits of debt forgiveness. It’s a comment on the reality of a situation which simply isn’t going to get better absent sweeping intervention. I think all readers, regardless of partisan affiliation, will agree that higher education in America needs an overhaul, not just “structural reform,” although that’d be a good start. We can debate what that overhaul should look like, and we can have diametrically opposed ideas about the best course of action, but the situation as it currently exists is suboptimal, to put it politely.
For what it’s worth, my main concern with Biden’s plan was that it didn’t even pretend to solve the problem from a structural perspective. Again: At some point, we have to address the reality of a debt pile that’s only going to grow and the many flaws of the system which makes that outcome inevitable. I don’t have the answers, and on that I’m in good company, because no one else does either.
The court said Biden overstepped his authority. Elena Kagan, in the dissent, suggested it was in fact the court which overstepped by straying outside “its proper, limited role” in the nation’s jurisprudence.
I generally avoid weighing in on this directly, but I’d be remiss not to at least suggest that from a strategic political perspective, Republicans might’ve created a monster with this court. Taken together, it’s hard to conceive of the decisions handed down over the past year as anything other than a systematic effort to shape society in a very specific way. That might not be so problematic were it not for the fact (and it’s a demographic fact, backed up by extensive opinion polling on many key issues) that society is leaning unequivocally in the opposite direction, which means six attorneys are effectively trying to usurp what’s plainly the popular will.
Crucially: I’d say the same thing, and even more forcefully, if I were a staunch conservative. Six people aren’t going to succeed in imposing societal norms on a majority of 330 million. It’s just not possible in a democracy. The harder you try, the more irritated people will be, and they’ll take that frustration to the polls (they may eventually take it to the streets too, but hopefully not).
The backlash to this court (and I don’t think this is arguable) already cost Republicans at the ballot box. It’s impossible to know whether the actual composition of Congress would be any different right now were it not for Dobbs, but it doubtlessly made some Independents think twice before voting Republican. It’s difficult to imagine that the number of fervent pro-lifers who might’ve otherwise sat out the election outnumbered pro-choice voters who turned out only (or mostly) because of the decision.
Now, the court is (almost literally) taking money out of the pockets of voters. More than 25 million people applied for Biden’s program. More than 15 million of those applications were approved. So, 15 million people were just told, by six people, that they can’t have as much as $20,000 in debt forgiveness that was promised to them by the President of the United States. I think it’s safe to assume that some of those 15 million people will take that into consideration when it’s time to vote.
Additionally, these are the kinds of decisions which give firebrand Democrats a leg up in the culture wars which, on most days, are “won” by outspoken Republicans. (And “won” is a misnomer, because nobody “wins” with noxious grievance politics.) Ilhan Omar on Friday called the conservative justices corrupt, a reference to… well, to a lot of things if you read her full statement, but particularly to ongoing headlines around Clarence Thomas’s relationship with Harlan Crow and, more recently, Justice Alito’s fishing trip with Paul Singer.
I wasn’t going to quote extensively from Omar’s lengthy critique, but I do think it’s important to emphasize the extent to which the optics for the Court as an institution (which we should all care about) are becoming quite challenging, something that risks worsening the country’s (bipartisan) institutional credibility crisis.
“The illegitimacy of their actions makes more sense once you understand the depth of their corruption. Three of the rightwing justices were appointed by a twice-impeached president who lost the popular vote twice and led an insurrection when he lost the electoral vote,” Omar said. “Two have taken obscene private gifts from their billionaire backers with business before the court [and] one even accepted private tuition for a child he was raising from his billionaire backer — especially ironic given his ruling today.”
I implore you not to shoot the messenger (i.e., me, your earnest editor). All I’m doing is tying together recent court decisions with a long-running theme in these pages which has consistently garnered plaudits from both my conservative and liberal readers alike — the institutional credibility crisis theme.
The country can’t operate like this. Every day can’t be an “us versus them” clash. Every issue can’t be divisive. Eventually, the constant friction will lead to the demise of civil society or, in an extreme scenario, the complete dissolution of the republic.
Ultimately, the problem is always the same: There’s no sense of shared purpose. A broken higher education system, like a broken healthcare system, should be viewed as a problem everyone has an obvious interest in solving. Instead, it’s trotted out as an issue around which to galvanize the country against itself. Just like every other issue.
Term limits and campaign finance reform would move the US in the correct direction.
Nice job, H.
Sadly, it’s too late for all that. Removing campaign finance is all we really need. No more private funding, no more PACs, none of that crap which is all just bribery. Also, while in office, no stock trading and no big speaking fees. They are public servants so they should serve. Period.
Amen! But I’m sure you realize that the 1% will not give up their hard won gains without a fight. Eventually, on our current course, blood will flow in the streets again. Even then, there’s only a small chance that things will improve for the 99%. It’s much more likely that the US will devolve into a dictatorship with our current oligarchy in power. Meet the new boss same as the old boss.
And that’s what we deserve, for we are a nation of criminals led by the criminals we elect. If you doubt me, take a drive on I70 Mr. Lucky and calculate the percentage of law abiding citizens that are complying with the speed limit. The last time I drove through Kansas City, the only person obeying the speed limit was some lady in a hijab. It occurred to me as I flew past her that most of us have no respect for the law and its more than a little bit ridiculous to expect our elected leaders to be better than us.
My millennial daughter says that after three years of a moratorium on payments, no one is going to pay, anyway. In response to my question on the morality of borrowing money and not paying it back, she cited the unfairness of the system and said that the students didn’t know what they were signing and that the government could just print money to repay the debt. She also said there’s no way the government is going to garnish the wages of tens of millions of people. She told me this on Father’s Day, which served to remind me that I failed to instill in my offspring a basic moral principle (i.e. don’t steal). Without a common sense of what’s fair and just, H’s “complete dissolution of the republic” seems likely.
+1
This isn’t a black and white issue. If these borrowers had been 17 at the time they agreed to the debt, the contract would be unenforceable. When they turn 18, we allow them to sign contracts that will cause substantial indebtedness with one party having significantly more power and knowledge in the relationship.
Yes, as the rules exist today, these borrowers are legally responsible, but is it moral to saddle young people with these types of debts at an age where they are unlikely to fully understand the consequences of taking on this type of debt, especially when a college education is still the clearest path to the middle class? Kids make these decisions at the age of 18 or earlier, and once committed to a certain educational path, it is not easy to switch. As a millennial who paid off my own college debt, it’s a basic moral principle that we shouldn’t saddle young people with overly burdensome debt in the pursuit of higher education.
Always amazing to see boomers and gen x clutch their pearls and cry about moral hazard when they are the ones who pushed their kids to attend increasingly unaffordable colleges and assume ever larger debts. All the while, gutting any semblance of social safety nets and reducing your own tax contributions through lower capital gains taxes.
A nation grows great when men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit. Maybe your parents failed to instill in you a moral principle of “looking after your kids”…
I looked after my kid by paying off her student debt. She just thinks I was stupid to do so.
Gen X here. No moral hazard with forgiveness from my perspective. Not only do I have no problem forgiving this debt, I believe the imperative is in doing so structurally. For all the reasons H calls out here, and in multiple other pieces.
My own story is anomalous, but I’d like to share it. I was fortunate enough to do my undergraduate and law school years in the late 80s and through the 90s (B.A., in philosophy no less, on and off over 7 years, including half of the credits in my local community college, followed by a two year hiatus to work full time in Philly, followed by four years at a state school, i.e., at another sizable discount, to get a JD/LLM, which I discovered I needed when a B.A. in philosophy opened all of maybe one professional door for paltry pay). Despite that era being a lower real cost than today’s educational programs, I racked up about $94,000 all told by 2000. If I made minimum payments (which were about $660) for the duration of the loan I’d end up paying about $210,000.
Coming out of the JD, I got a job as a law clerk (a one year assignment). A great job, but one that paid poorly. So poorly that I couldn’t afford my rent (with roommate) as well as the minimum student loan payment requirement. So at the same time I enrolled back into my state school for the LLM (night classes), leveraging some of the credits from my JD to get about 60% of the way to LLM, but just enough classes left over to be considered “full time” both semesters, thus allowing me to defer student loan payments for that year, and afford to live on the law clerk salary. I actually took on MORE debt, albeit a small amount, to do this. Imagine that calculus. By the way, the law clerk job was easily 60-70 hours a week, and I had a daily commute between Philly and Trenton, in my father’s 15 year old hand me down car.
But wait, there’s more. When I was finishing up my JD, I applied for a Federal position that required an extensive background process. I ultimately got an offer, remarkably aligned with when my law clerk position was wrapping up. I entered Federal service in June of 2000, moving to DC, and moving in with four roommates (one a longtime friend). Because of the many roommates, my rent in DC was less than in Philly, and my salary was about 25% higher than the law clerk job. Point being, I could make this work.
Enter 9/11. Following 9/11, and specifically between Summer 2022 and December 2004, I spent virtually all of that time in either Pakistan or Afghanistan. Due to the danger pay, post differential, and indeed the Federal government’s willingness to pay overtime, my salary during that period effectively tripled. And my expenses throughout were fairly de minimus (as you can imagine).
So in December 2004, just after finishing up a one year posting in Kabul, I wrote a check for the entire amount of my student loan debt. On the other side of writing that check I was debt free to the world. I owned nothing (yet), but I had my degrees, a career, and a way forward. You shouldn’t be surprised to hear that in the subsequent five years, I spent about half of that again in Pakistan and Afghanistan, fighting the good fight. In 2013 I was able to finally buy a place in DC. And now I’m retiring from Federal service later this year after 23+ years, with half of that overseas (in addition to Pakistan and Afghanistan, extensive time in Ukraine, Libya, South Africa, and Cyprus), and moving on to private sector prospects.
If you are still with me, see why there is no pearl clutching here. How was this even a real path out? A real plan out? How “lucky” was I to have had this path/plan? What if I were just starting out coming out of law school now with a higher real debt?
“Despite that era being a lower real cost than today’s educational programs, I racked up about $94,000 all told by 2000. If I made minimum payments (which were about $660) for the duration of the loan I’d end up paying about $210,000.”
This sounds like compound interest… I was under the impression most student loans are simple interest.
I went to church and learned all about the Ten Commandments, the ones that say Thou Shalt not Kill, Thou Shalt not Steal, and those eight other Shalt Nots. Those are the moral principles I was taught to live by. That, and Jesus’s codicils: if your enemy strikes you you must turn the other cheek. You are not allowed to shoot him where he stands; there is no killing with Jesus either. If you don’t like that rule you can’t call yourself a true Christian. My sense is that we are mostly showing them how to chisel and break promises and laws as much as they wish. I was also taught about those pesky promises we make. I would never have even dreamed of breaking a promise another person was counting on me keeping. I spent $1.3 caring for my wife when she was mortally ill because I promised to do so before God, my wife and the assembled company.
While I think they interpreted this specific law correctly but disagree that the parties who sued had standing, this just goes back to the broader issue of our society sucking younger and poorer people dry. A healthy society confers advantages on its youth to give them a strong head start in life and gives poor people opportunities to climb the ladder. Our society does the opposite and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
Some thought provoking thoughts here. But our Dear Leader’s summary is worth pondering, yet again if you need a reason to make yourself gloomy:
“The country can’t operate like this. Every day can’t be an “us versus them” clash. Every issue
can’t be divisive. Eventually, the constant friction will lead to the demise of civil society or, in
an extreme scenario, the complete dissolution of the republic.”
“Ultimately, the problem is always the same: There’s no sense of shared purpose. A broken
higher education system, like a broken healthcare system, should be viewed as a problem
everyone has an obvious interest in solving. Instead, it’s trotted out as an issue around which
to galvanize the country against itself. Just like every other issue.”
The latter points about the educational system are especially alarming in the context of Mr. Lucky’s recent comments about the state of the grad school populations.
(Outside of the overcrowded “Modern Lesbian Dance Theory” doctoral programs mentioned by Rep Lauren Boebert.)
It is extremely unfortunate for our country that Congress is no longer establishing all of the important rules and laws for the country-this is now largely being done by the President and/or the Supreme Court (abortion, immigration, affirmative action, debt forgiveness- to name a few).
It is the same problem with Congress not taking responsibility for the inflationary impacts of their deficit spending ( Although I guess there is a bright spot here- because at least both political parties are in agreement to spend more than they collect in taxes- haha). Instead, Congress is relying on the Federal Reserve to counteract the inflationary effects of ongoing deficit spending (with no end in sight).
Unfortunately, this situation with Congress is probably going to have to get a whole lot worse before it gets better. As upsetting as this is- my advice to my kids remains the same: instead of lamenting the sad state of affairs – understand how the “system” works and then figure out how to navigate a path for yourself.
,” America’s mountain of student debt is never going to be
repaid. Some of you might chafe at that assessment, but I implore readers to be realistic: The odds
of a $1.8 trillion debt burden being repaid in full when the creditor is the government, the debtors
are voters and a very large share of the electorate believes the asset being financed should be a
public good, are exceedingly low”…..Then let’s not call it a loan, call it a welfare check.
Or let’s consider whether America is hopelessly behind modernity on this issue like we are on any number of other important issues. People need a higher education, like just people need healthcare. Our policies on higher education and healthcare look positively insane to many other advanced economies, particularly when you consider that we issue the world’s reserve currency and structure the tax code such that hundreds of billions of dollars is effectively / de facto “spent” to encourage and perpetuate capital and wealth accumulation for a narrower and narrower group of people while everyone else is left with nothing. Around $500 billion is “spent” that way. Every year. Can some of that not go to helping people get educated? Or do we just want to keep the inequality perpetual motion machine going until the whole thing explodes? I’m just asking because, you know… it’s not working for the vast majority of people. And they’re (justifiably) tired of it.
Additionally, Lee, I encourage you to read the latest monthly letter. I think you’re a guy who needs to internalize some of what’s in there.
I’m not sure I agree that everyone needs or wants a higher education and I think the message that everyone should seek one is the original sin of our current predicament (uncapped demand for degrees + subsidized loan access for essentially children -> skyrocketing tuition -> higher education administrative bloat -> a hundred new indulgent, useless degrees -> an even more polarized society with a generation of kids aspiring to be whatever the opposite of a deplorable is. It’s not like we’ve created a generation of doctors, engineers, and scientists who just need a little relief while they they lead the charge on the challenges of the 21st century. I’d argue that those who skipped college and are now doing useful, productive things for society (plumber, electrician) could benefit from $10k (as well, or instead of) the college kids, particularly the ones who did not pursue productive degrees, to then go on take on even more student loans to pursue unproductive graduate degrees. If we want to spread out student loan backlog burden to the taxpayer I think that’s a perfectly reasonable thing for congress to consider and vote on. I agree that structural reform is preferable and would say it should be a precondition of broad debt forgiveness. As for SCOTUS, they have lifetime tenures by design. They don’t have to worry about what’s popular. Presumably, if the majority of citizens disagreed with SCOTUS decisions, the popular will can be expressed via the other branches. The only reason SCOTUS has come to be at the center of the drama is that there isn’t the societal consensus that folks claim there is on these issues (otherwise, they’d have been settled by legislation.
It’s unfortunate that the definition of “productive” now almost explicitly excludes all the disciplines which, historically, played a role in advancing human civilization including history itself. I address a lot of your points in this month’s monthly letter. As far as the idea that “the popular will can be expressed via the other branches,” unfortunately that’s not exactly true for a long list of reasons from the obvious (a presidential candidate can lose the popular vote by a country mile and still end up “winning”) to the more nuanced (gerrymandering, efforts to suppress the minority vote, etc.) to the rarely-discussed (a populace which is told a college education isn’t worth it is a populace that’s undereducated and easily manipulated by, in some cases, demagogues who use the skills they learned at Ivy League schools to prey on the people they’re telling not to go to college). Opinion polling is crystal clear on a variety of social issues that SCOTUS has decided to rule contrary to, and that’s to say nothing of the notion that the whole idea of a tiny panel of wealthy attorneys (from either party) making decisions that affect 330 million people based on a centuries-old document written by white men at time when it was still generally acceptable to consider African Americans capital assets and women as tantamount to property is so absurd that it should be abandoned tomorrow if we were any semblance of sane.
Any degree in the classical Western Civ tradition I’d say counts as productive for the reasons you laid out, though I think the local community college is sufficient for that. My degree in Critical Theory from a top-20 school was not productive, and in hindsight left me ill-equipped for adult life, easily manipulated, and easy prey for demagogues. Agree to disagree on the Framers and the Constitution despite my minor in Temporal Moral Superiority. I’m sure other forms of government can do things faster. They can also undo things faster. We have the only form of government I’m aware of that is capable of withstanding decade after decade of terrible, geriatric leadership without toppling. Every country has its problems. When the Judiciary tells the Executive that only the Legislative can forgive student debt, then half the country can see SCOTUS as a bug, the other half as a feature, but 100% of us should be grateful for another 4th of July.
What’s to disagree with? Either they held other human beings in bondage as capital assets and treated women like property or they didn’t. And they did. I don’t buy the “consider their era” argument. Plus they kind of undermined it by writing so eloquently about the many virtues of equality and freedom.
Sure, we can call it a welfare check, so long as we also call the PPP loans that were forgiven welfare checks.
Germany won the second world war by losing….They are causing brain drains in numerous countires- the attraction? Good jobs, An excellent social secuirity system and affordable quality healthcare… Also free college with a living stipend to 30 and a more enlightened unemployment system. This allowed the Bundesbank to keep rates high for everyone to control inflation….Why wouldn’t an eastern european migrate there?
Love the words. Well put, Walt. Indeed, voters will consider these judgements as they weigh the choices in coming elections.
I can’t help but recall how Roberts, after being nominated by GW Bush to be the Chief Justice, played an apparently even-handed, moderating role in a balanced court that was dominated by “liberal” justices.
Roberts was a man of obvious intelligence. He knew the necessity of playing the part of “chief” under the circumstances. The Supreme Court has a big voice and it speaks from a very large and important stage. Unfortunately, Roberts seems to have been putting on an act. We knew he was “conservative.” He was not a scammer, but his earlier time on the court amounted to a head-fake to build his own credibility.
His conduct on the court since the Trump presidency betrays a radical intention and a radical voice, speaking loudly from the court’s megaphone, taking advantage while the power of the court is firmly in his grasp. The country is harmed by the politicization of the court. And as a result, today the court is a bit less of a “supreme” court, and more a social club of radical republicans (not the conservative variety).
Roberts’ zeal (especially) in rendering recent decisions about abortion, the power of the President (student debt forgiveness), the federal government’s ability to police and control water pollution, affirmative action in college admissions practices, and applying an “It’s all good!” stamp to exercise freedom of speech while justifying discrimination against gay people (never mind that a gay man named in the suit never asked to have a web site designed by the plaintiff).
Precedent set 50 years ago, be damned. Damn all the women who needed abortions, said John Robert through his actions and words last year. And since then John Roberts exudes pride in his fellow club-goers, absolutely thumbing his nose at any of the precedents he and his bench mates extolled in their confirmations to the bench.
Precedent, schmecedent. Damn the gay people. Damn affirmative action. Damn minorities. And damn all the kids that want to use monies the government wants to give them to better themselves through education. Precedent set 50 years ago, be damned. John Roberts is in charge.
I lived and worked for USG in South Africa for the last two and a half years of Zuma. This is what it looks like when a branch of government is captured. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily the end of the world, but very hard work needs to be done by the other branches, and especially by the press. Yes the press is a fourth “branch” of government, or can be. Our “press” is less press and more business, so we continue on in the precarious climate we currently exist within, where our legislative branch is incapable of contributing to meaningful stability. That leaves the executive. Which the Supremes have the power to radically contain.
This BBG article is a good example of what I was saying —> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-01/the-supreme-court-just-gave-democrats-a-new-2024-rallying-cry
Republicans should be pleased with the rulings but wary. Wary because these were successive rulings that Democrats can campaign aggressively on. Sure, if you’re a conservative court you want to rule conservatively, but you need to be at least a little bit subtle because, notwithstanding some of the comments here, these are political people and they do have an interest in elections notwithstanding their tenure. Just ask Ginni Thomas. It reminds me of the opening scene in the cult classic “From Dusk ‘Til Dawn” after the liquor store blows up. “Do you know the meaning of ‘low profile?’ Let me tell you what ‘low profile is not…'” (Great movie by the way. Pure camp, but the cast is incredible.)
Our ‘system’ has always been about money. You can tell who it’s working for by following the money. Today it’s all at the top. Everyone else gets just enough to keep them in harness and not revolt. And what do we do when we don’t like what we see, blame the bottom 20%. The only word that I can conjure at the moment for that is pathetic. For those who think they’ll be safe in their gated communities and private police forces, I wouldn’t count on it. When has it ever been otherwise.