Biden Administration Just Announced $6 Billion in Student Loan Forgiveness
The Department of Education continues to forgive federal debt for attendees of shuttered for-profit schools.

The Department of Education last week announced it was canceling $6 billion in student loan debt and issuing refunds for attendees of shuttered for-profit colleges as part of a settlement in a class-action lawsuit.
The plaintiffs in Theresa Sweet v. Miguel Cardona filed for debt relief under the "borrower defense to loan repayment" program. Created by the Obama administration, borrower defense allows the Education Department to forgive the federal student loan debt of students who can show they were defrauded by the school they attended. Under the Trump administration, the Education Department's evaluation of borrower defense applications slowed to a halt. In response, former students of the now-defunct Corinthian Colleges sued Education Secretary Betsy DeVos for "unlawfully withholding or unreasonably delaying action on Plaintiffs' applications." Miguel Cardona, President Joe Biden's education secretary, then became the defendant.
Under the terms of the settlement, the Department of Education will forgive roughly $6 billion in loans for 200,000 attendees of dozens of technical schools and for-profit colleges. The settlement also requires the Department of Education to reimburse borrowers who already made payments or even paid off the entirety of their loans. It is not clear how many borrowers covered by the settlement will receive loan forgiveness for outstanding debt and how many will receive full reimbursement for debt they already repaid. When asked to clarify how many borrowers were in each category, a Department of Education spokesperson said the agency does not comment on ongoing litigation.
Over the past two years, the Biden administration has approved debt forgiveness claims for thousands of former students at for-profit colleges. Earlier this month, the administration announced over $5.8 billion in loan forgiveness to former students of the now-defunct Corinthian Colleges.
However, the Department of Education's role as the largest issuer of student loans in the country means that it continues to fund colleges and universities that fail to prepare students. Low standards for federal funding incentivize the creation of schools whose sole mission is to collect federal loan money. Even for-profit institutions that do serve the majority of their students still put taxpayers on the hook for attendees who can't make the most of their education. Debt forgiveness for all borrowers, including nonprofit private colleges and public institutions, would have the same effect.
If the government wants to prevent vulnerable, low-income people from being defrauded by for-profit colleges, the simplest policy solution would be to get the federal government out of the student loan business altogether. There is clear evidence that "federal student aid fuels the ivory tower's infamous price inflation, including roughly a doubling, in real terms, of sticker prices between the 1991–92 and 2021–22 school years," wrote Neal McCluskey, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom. He continues: "It also makes logical sense: If you give loads of people easy money to pay for one thing, the price of that thing will rise as people demand more of it, and with greater bells and whistles."
Without easily accessible, seemingly bottomless federal student loans, schools—private, public, for-profit, and nonprofit—would need to either charge rates that attendees can pay out of pocket, or prove to private lenders that they offer an education that positions the vast majority of their graduates to repay their debts.
For now, such a solution seems distant. A limit on the annual amount of federal loans was lifted in 1993, and it appears unlikely to return. Meanwhile, calls to cancel federal student loan debt are growing. In the midst of this mess, the Biden administration is focused on symptoms while the underlying disease goes largely unacknowledged.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Really naive ignorant question here: This is money being spent. Where do the appropriations come from? The White House can't just say Brrrrrr and toss some cash. Everything the government spends comes from appropriations bills passed by Congress.
This is money being spent. Where do the appropriations come from?
Money printer go brrrrr.
The White House can't just say Brrrrrr and toss some cash.
Watch them do exactly that.
Everything the government spends comes from appropriations bills passed by Congress.
WRONG
Please elucidate. WRONG is not helpful.
How is it not helpful? That's how it is. There is no requirement that the federal government must balance its budget. It routinely spends more than it collects and the difference is simply added to the national debt. A lot of times that spending is authorized by congress (with or without any plan to pay for it), but sometimes the executive branch simply spends money on whatever it wants and assigns the cost to one of its many departments, which will then go over budget and the federal government will simply eat the loss, because what else can it do? In this particular case, it's not spending so much as failing to collect. The result is the same. The federal government simply collects less money than expected and the difference goes to the national debt.
"The White House can't just say Brrrrrr and toss some cash."
His initial post was regarding the White House spending money that is apparently not appropriated by Congress. He wasn't referring to the Federal government as a whole. You answered a question that was not asked.
He has a wrong premise so the answer is correct. Paying against legal action doesn't need appropriations specific to paying the action so I'd assume they are coming out of the overall education department budget and of they're over budget so what, money printer go brrrr. It's not responsible but it is how it is.
I actually have made $30,030 simply in 5 weeks straightforwardly running part-time from my apartment. Immediately whilst I’ve misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into exhausted and fortunately I located this pinnacle on line task & with this I am in (res-55) a function to reap lots immediately thru my home. Everybody is capable of get this first-rate career & can benefit greater bucks online going this article.
.
>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
Ah HA! You Assume. Great. Now let someone else actually answer the question. I too can make the assumption that it was appropriated somehow. That "somehow" is what I was asking.
Get fucked pedant
I actually have made $30,030 simply in 5 weeks straightforwardly running part-time from my apartment. Immediately whilst I’ve misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into exhausted and fortunately I located this pinnacle on line task & with this I am in (res-60) a function to reap lots immediately thru my home.
Everybody is capable of get this first-rate career & can benefit greater bucks online going this article.
.
>>>> http://payout11.tk
I said NOTHING about a balanced budget. I asked where this money came from, how it was appropriated by Congress. Brrrrr might create the money, but those printers don't have an "appropriate" switch.
You are correct. They do not. That's entirely my point. They go brrr regardless of whether the money is appropriated or not. It's not appropriated by congress. You can stamp your feet and say they can't do that but they do it anyway. It's not the right thing to do, but no one will stop them.
So, Trump could have just paid for a wall without Congressional appropriations, or even needing to jump through the various hoops he used to fund it (military spending re-tasked, most likely in full accordance with law)? Is there some spending limit on this? Can Biden just snap his fingers, hand out $1M to every citizen and just say "oops, went over the budget, didn't I, sorry about that"?
There comes a point where everyone involved in the action starts resigning, but assuming no one between the president and the printer objects hard enough to hand in their badge... yes.
"Everything the government spends comes from appropriations bills passed by Congress."
Who exactly do you suppose will enforce this element of the Constitution?
Batman?
Tax that rich fuck.
I take it you are new to the concept of "deficit" spending? Government routinely spends more than it takes in, moreover it routinely spends money not specifically enumerated in a budget.
I take it you are new to the concept of reading, and then answering what was written.
DJT issued tarriffs by EO and then turned around and gave the revenue to farmers.
BHO paid insurers to cover his healthcare law.
Two recent ones I can think of.
This is money that was already allocated from spending that the federal government uses to either guarantee, or lend money to, students (such as pell grants, etc.) to fund the DoEd. The president has the authority (dependant on several factors of how law is written in a budget that appropriates then allocates funds) to cancel debt owed to the federal government by debtors. This includes current debt held for lending to other countries, nations, itself (that's right, the government "borrows" from itself between government funds), etc. This is more common with funds that aren't "earmarked", as they are for a specific expenditure only.
Your name is worse than sqrlsy’s.
This is money being spent.
Actually it isn't, the appropriation comes when they make the loan.
You're asking the wrong question. The appropriations were for the original loans. And those appropriations are needed and were granted by Congress years ago (and are regularly renewed and too-often expanded).
No new appropriations are needed to write off "bad debt". That just becomes an accounting fiction buried in the variance analysis of the federal budget.
With what money? jesus christ.
They are going to burn it all down.
is it even money being transferred anymore?
It sure feels like (my) money at tax time.
Ours.
It's called cannibalism.
Great
Policy changes:
No loans for freshman year. If you think you are college material, then you pay for it (or accept a scholarship from the college who thinks you are college material.)
Loans after freshman year will be given by banks who will perform whatever credit analysis they want, on you and the degree and major you are seeking to obtain. Most banks will demand collateral and not fund majors where jobs are scarce or don't pay a living wage.
And make universities also liable in some way for defaults.
That's probably a good idea especially for the dumb ass degrees like Drama, Bagpipes, or Outdoor Adventure Experiences.
Yeah, there may be jobs there but if you don't have a connection in Hollywood or your own YouTube channel they're all a recipe for being a barista to make ends meet while deferring the loan that paid twice as many faculty and four times as many administrators as it should.
Of course if you do have a connection in Hollywood or a YouTube channel you probably don't need the degree either.
Why tell banks what they must do? Just let banks lend on whatever criteria they want, so long as the taxpayer doesn't may for their idiocy.
One of the biggest problems we face today is that BOTH SIDES want the government to micromanage everyone's decisions. Maybe leave it up to the private sector to fail without getting bailed out. A few failures and they'll learn not to be stupid.
I took out some student loans back before government was in charge of it, and my choice of major did not factor into it. Not even my grades. It was basically up to the collateral, my parents cosigning, and my parents ability to repay if I went tits up. It's not up to you, it's up to the bank.
Students regardless of major are piss poor credit risks. Even the fabled and much lauded STEM majors. Which is why banks didn't give a shit about your major, they gave a shit that your parents were cosigning.
Why tell banks what they must do? Just let banks lend on whatever criteria they want, so long as the taxpayer doesn't may for their idiocy.
Well, we already cratered on step one of the plan.
Interest rate for student loans should be proportional to the unemployment rate for the major. General Social Sciences would be subject to 8.7% interest rate. Ethnic Studies, 5.5%. Medical Technicians, 1.5%.
No sense at all in subsidizing creation of graduates for already-glutted disciplines.
I'm curious as to why this isn't an overreach of executive power...shouldn't this be a legislative decision?
Technically, he is complying with a court order. (given that Reason is actually accurate)
Which means it has to be paid.
I would suggest that the Dept. of Education budget be cut by that amount since they didn't do their job.
Thanks for the explanation, it's kind of hard to track this along with everything else in the world going on. I'm not sure I agree that a creditor (bank, government, etc.) is responsible for covering the debt of a borrower because the product they purchase was faulty...but I suppose this fits the administrations agenda.
Yeah, well it's not like Reason fits the headline to the story instead of trolling for clicks.
That a court said it has to be paid does not really obviate the need for an appropriation. It merely puts the onus on the Congress to make one.
Of course, this Congress has no desire to stop the current Executive from doing this on his own, so they will be content to merely observe.
Yeah, sort of. The fact that the Administration is "complying" with something they've previously said they want to do anyway, though... It does call into question whether the adversarial interests of the taxpayers were properly represented.
Exactly, complying with a legal settlement that they had a hand in negotiating, when openly agreeing with opposing council and paying with our money, doesn't exactly inspire confidence that they worked in our best interest.
I'm wondering if this is another case of sue and settle? I have a strong suspicion the government didn't try to hard to fight this suit.
Actually the Dept. of Education budget will be increased by this amount to provide training so that this won't happen again.
Why shouldn't the school that committed the fraud be held accountable?
Why shouldn't the Harvard, Yale, Berkeley, Stanford, Brown, NYU, etc. endowments be used to pay back the massive student loans their destitute social studies graduates owe?
I think you will find the answer in the political donations page of the financial reports.
No, actually, you can find the answer in the revolving door policy between politics and academia: politicians want get academic titles ("Professor Biden", what a joke), and academics get called into high administrative and political offices.
"Why shouldn't the school that committed the fraud be held accountable?"
Exactly why this is being limited to defunct and asset free, "for-profit" schools.
Anyone who can still keep campaign cash flowing to DNC coffers will get a pass. Both from government and from the 'libertarian' writers at Reason.
Biden is doing everything he can to prevent inflation. He said so.
Printing money out of nowhere which ultimately subsidizes wealthy liberal universities does NOT cause inflation.
Putin and Covid caused all the inflation - not Biden not government spending not shutting down oil permits.
"justabill" is a joke account, right? Competition for OBL?
If all of those state schools (of which the vast majority of colleges are) aren't for profit, how the fuck are they making so much money?
If you hand out all the money you take in to yourself and your friends then the business has nothing left and it's a non-profit :^)
Who are you who is so wise in the ways of grifting?
Wasn't there some old-fashioned rule of thumb about subsidize a thing if you want more of that thing? Exactly what do we want more of? Irresponsible personal finance? Foolish spending on highly inflated college costs? Unmarketable degrees?
That is exactly what leftists want
Point of clarification: This is loan forgiveness for students who were DEFRAUDED. So it's not a regular brand of debt forgiveness. It's the equivalent of your credit card company reversing the charges after you got scammed. Just in this case the lender happens to be the taxpayer.
How would this happen in a private free market system of student loans? Don't know, and don't care, the problem is not the loans, the problem is the government being a lender. As long as the government is a lender however, it should pursue all prudent actions against the fraudsters to recover the lost money. Who pays for any loss not recovered? Well that's up to the agreement between the lender and the borrower. Again, the problem here is that it's the government that is the lender, and thus has decided under political pressure that the taxpayer is on the hook for the restitution.
Back to main point: this is not an OCA style giveaway, it's a fraud case. Private lenders can, and often do, forgive debt acquired during fraud. The problem here is not the debt forgiveness, but that the government has taken it upon itself to be the monopoly student loan provider.
" It's the equivalent of your credit card company reversing the charges after you got scammed. Just in this case the lender happens to be the taxpayer."
No it's not.
A homeowner takes out a HELOC and then makes a deposit with a contractor. Then said contractor goes belly up, taking the deposit with him. The homeowner still owes the bank.
This is like bailing out the homeowner. Which is mighty nice for the homeowner, and the bank, but not really nice for the taxpayers who had nothing to do with any of it yet get stuck with the bill.
Are you implying they'll collect taxes to make up the difference?
One way or another, they necessarily do.
Actually, it is just like Brandybuck's example. Just like in yours with the HELOC, the debt is still owed. The credit card companies forgive the debt because they know they will earn more off the goodwill than from sending you to collection. The bank/HELOC situation is identical except that the dollar value of the debt is higher and the potential for goodwill lower so they don't forgive the debt.
In both cases (and in the student loan situation here), we are bailing out the debtor who made a bad choice of vendor. And the costs of that bailout are paid by everyone who made good choices.
No a credit agreement contains specific verbiage about merchandise or services not rendered, a typical bank loan does not.
This is much closer to the later than it is the former.
And home improvement specific loans will often have an explicit "we do not care when or if the work gets done" clause.
The verbiage about merchandise or services not rendered gives you a contractual right to contest a charge - which complaint the credit card company passes back to the merchant for investigation. If the merchant says the charge is legit, you're still on the hook for the bill. The credit card company is under no obligation, either statutory or contractual, to conduct an independent investigation nor to forgive any debts that the merchant says are valid.
I agree that this type of student loan debt forgiveness is qualitatively different than student loan debt forgiveness associated with "let's forgive the $50k student loans for students who got master's degrees in puppetry".
Let's see $6 Billion, January 6th, I'm sensing a subtle marketing plan at work here. Can we move the mid-terms to November 6th and make it a trifecta of sixes to mark the end of days?
One of Biden's campaign promises was a dark, dark winter. I guess he didn't realize how effective he could be in carrying that darkness through an entire presidency.
Just wondering. How many Reason staff and guest writers still owe on their student loans?
I do, and plant to continue to pay them. I took them out, it's my responsibility to pay them.
sucker
sucker.
Wish I knew folks as generous as me!
So caveat emptor doesn't apply to adult students.
In what way were these students defrauded? Did they sign up for jet engine repair and ended up being taught flower arranging?
Some of these certificate mills are so bad that that would be only a slight exaggeration.
Forgiven loans count as income for tax purposes. So recipients aren't totally clear of responsibility.
So the government is going to get theirs no matter what?
hahahahaha, imagine if they do this with all student loans. Can you picture some douche canoe from Harvard realizing he's going to owe big taxes thanks to the 250k he "made".
Biden Administration Just Announced $6 Billion in Additional Government Debt. That increases inflation. Remember that when you vote.
I keep pulling the "L" lever, but I'm beginning to suspect it stands for "Lose" more than anything else. Is there another party I can vote for that at least pretends to care about fiscal responsibility?
You need to get active in primaries and local politics if you care.
In a WTA election system, you must choose between the top two parties, or you might as well not vote.
Sooo, democrats gave away another $6,000,000,000 of tax payer money to a bunch of people who made poor choices. That means we all lose and those who don't have to pay, win. - That's robbing Peter to pay Paul's personal bills just because responsibility is inconvenient.
This is just a leftard stunt to grow commie-education...
Sue the free-market schools.
WyoTech was on that list - And it's well established as functional.
F'En Nazi's. Out pushing Nazism (National Socialism).
How is this legal?