Biden's Student Debt Relief Plan Will Worsen Inflation
"Student loan relief would lead some people to spend more," warns Obama economic advisor and Harvard economist Jason Furman

When President Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats were pushing the passage of a $1.9 trillion stimulus bill in early 2021, economist Larry Summers warned that the American Rescue Plan would likely trigger runaway inflation.
He was ignored, but he was ultimately proven right.
Now, Biden is prepared to announce a broad-based student loan forgiveness plan that will erase between $10,000 and $20,000 in debt for Americans earning as much as $125,000 this year. The proposal also reportedly extends an ongoing payment moratorium through the end of the year. Biden is expected to announce the proposal in televised remarks from the White House later this afternoon.
Summers, a veteran of both the Clinton and Obama administration, is once again warning that the policy could worsen already high inflation.
"Student loan debt relief is spending that raises demand and increases inflation," Summers wrote on Twitter yesterday. "It consumes resources that could be better used helping those who did not, for whatever reason, have a chance to attend college. It will also tend to be inflationary by raising tuitions."
There are several good points there worth unpacking.
First, even though student debt relief might not look like spending the way we traditionally think of it—the government isn't cutting checks or awarding grants here, the way it did in the American Rescue Plan, for instance—economically, it will function the same way.
Because money is fungible, student loan borrowers will effectively now have extra discretionary income equal to whatever they would have had to pay towards that $10,000 in loans. That might sound great, but remember that the standard definition for inflation is what happens when a larger supply of money is chasing the same amount of goods and services. Money that would have been spent paying back loans will, upon the conclusion of the repayment moratorium, remain circulating in the regular economy. Ending the repayment moratorium without passing forgiveness would've been deflationary by returning U.S. dollars to Treasury.
The last point that Summers makes is also a good one. An entirely predictable response to a $10,000 student loan forgiveness plan would be colleges and universities hiking tuitions—while telling future students not to worry about the rising sticker prices because, hey, a portion of your loans will likely get forgiven anyway.
In short, student loan forgiveness will contribute to inflation on both macroeconomic and microeconomic levels, Summers explained. "Unreasonably generous student loan relief" would contribute to generally higher prices throughout the economy, he tweeted, while simultaneously "encouraging college tuition increases."
Summers is not the only center-left economist to warn about the potential ramifications of the Biden administration's short-sighted student debt relief plan. Jason Furman, a Harvard economist and former head of the White House's Council of Economic Advisors during the Obama administration, tweeted on Monday that student debt relief "benefits recent college grads and hurts most everyone else, both rich and poor."
"Student loan relief is not free," Furman wrote. The roughly $300 billion debt forgiveness plan would be paid for, he added, in part by the 87 percent of Americans "who do not benefit but lose out from inflation."
"Student loan relief would lead some people to spend more," Furman continued. "We can't make more so others would consume less. The way that happens is inflation."
But one does not need to be a former Treasury secretary or White House economic advisor to understand that debt forgiveness is inflationary, it seems. A poll conducted earlier this month by CNBC found that 59 percent of Americans worry that forgiving student debt will worsen inflation.
The key difference between the Biden administration and center-left economists like Summers and Furman is that the latter group are politically liberal but acknowledge that markets and prices are actually real things.
The White House, meanwhile, continues to pursue economic policies with total disregard for the trade-offs that come from them. It would be nice if you could end poverty by printing money and dumping it into bank accounts in the same way that it would be nice if you could jump out of a plane with no parachute and float gently to the ground. But ignoring reality won't lead to productive outcomes in either situation.
Fifteen months ago, Biden ignored economists' warnings and the rest of America got burned. Will it be any different this time around?
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
They are going to just burn everything to the ground as fast as possible while they can.
This is the most nihilistic Administration and Congress in my lifetime.
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I have not ever thought like it would even achievable however my confidant mate got $27k only in four weeks easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail. Look extra details
going this web-page… https://incomebuzz7.blogspot.com/
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (anu--215) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
They're looting
Exactly. Grabbing everything they can before it all comes crashing down.
No shit, Boehm, but you voted for this crappola.
Strategically
And reluctantly
Still can't understand why the fuck I have to pay for people who borrowed money when I didn't and am earning less as a result.
You can't suddenly change the rules in the middle of the game. And, if you do, you most definitely shouldn't be rewarding uncautious behavior. All you do is really distort an already fucked up market.
This is vote buying, pure and simple, and the only reason it has been "studied" and the white house is "close to" the announcement is to build anticipation and move it to the end of the summer so it's closer to the election they're trying to buy.
There are no rules, only weapons
Of course this is bone-headed policy and the media is correct to attack Biden for it.
But the $10,000 gift stands out.
Back when the Bushpigs were running government they came up with a program to GIVE (not loan) first time home-buyers $10,000 for the downpayment.
Yet that program wasn't mentioned in right-wing media.
It's Okay when a Republican gives trillions away (See Donnie the Con Man in 2020 when he handed over $3 trillion out).
And that $3 trillion did not contribute to inflation. Not a bit.
Does it count as whataboutism when you do it?
"It's actually OK to give $10,000 a piece to millions of borrowers because 20 years ago the Bush administration with a Democratic congress gave $10,000 a piece to thousands of borrowers and Townhall didn't even cover it!"
t. kiddie fucker
This gift is also tax exempt!
A few years back you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned. The link below details all the evidence surrounding that ban. A decent person would honor that ban and stay away from Reason. Instead you keep showing up, acting as if all people should just be ok with a kiddy-porn-posting asshole hanging around. Since I cannot get you to stay away, the only thing I can do is post this boilerplate.
https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635836
Don't respond to SPB, just shun him.
Pay your debts. Get a degree that has value in the working world. A degree in "Studies Studies" is worthless.
It's as bad as people to go to college to "find themselves". They don't realize that 5 years after graduating they'll be a completely different person.
Like I wrote yesterday, learn the lesson or be the lesson.
This is actually where one of the stronger arguments against federal student loans comes in. If students could default on their loans, or if the loaner had some greater skin in the game, then there likely would be more factors of degree being pursued and whether it would likely lead to them being able to pay it back in the future. By saying anyone can take out the same loans for whichever field they agree upon, you're actually denying the students that information that the interest rate and loan would have otherwise given them about the value of the degree being pursued.
Prices are information, after all. Prices on money are not fundamentally different in a free market.
there likely would be more factors of degree being pursued
I can guarantee you that if a loan writer gave preferential rates to certain degrees, states would outlaw the practice and call it discrimination.
law degrees are racist because laws are racist.
Promoting engineering degrees is really just a jobs program for autistic people, so in a way it's charity and should have tax advantages.
Pass your own bill first.
1st: Call the bill: DIVERSITY AND EQUITY STEM ACT
2nd: Tell the media that it is to promotes favored groups to fixed passed sins of the patriarchy.
3rd: Leave out all that stupid shit you just told the media from the final draft.
4th: Pass the Bill
5th: Laugh when after they promoted the shit out of it, they finally find out it didn't do what the title said and just made federal loans available to real degrees.
Or just no federal funding but hey I'd settle for less of it and not funding "over-educated" baristas' stupid decisions.
But one does not need to be a former Treasury secretary or White House economic advisor to understand that debt forgiveness is inflationary, it seems.
What skill set does one need to understand it is immoral?
Just remember Boehm, you reluctantly voted for this. Chump.
But, no more mean tweets!
I'll take the mean tweets for cheaper gasoline.
My question: Under what authority can POTUS Biden do that?
It requires congressional action. There is no Article 2 authority to do this. This will get shot down by SCOTUS under the Major Questions doctrine.
Biden used a Bush era terrorism rule.
No shit.
We are still paying for the many mistakes made by the Bushpigs.
Well, you're not. You welched on your mortgage just like you welched on your bet, remember?
A few years back you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned. The link below details all the evidence surrounding that ban. A decent person would honor that ban and stay away from Reason. Instead you keep showing up, acting as if all people should just be ok with a kiddy-porn-posting asshole hanging around. Since I cannot get you to stay away, the only thing I can do is post this boilerplate.
https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635836
Don't respond to SPB, just shun him.
He doesn't need to be enacted. He needs to keep SCOTUS from reviewing it before lection day.
He knows it's unconstitutional, just like his eviction ban.
*not "he", but "they"
Gotta stop pretending that Biden is responsible for anything. That's what they want you to do.
My question too. He can't unilaterally cancel bank loans, and I don't think even Congress could get away with that. The feds back these loans, so cancelling them requires government money. Who authorized and appropriated that money?
I understand brrrrrr but that's a stupid non-answer. Who authorized the money printers?
WHO AUTHORIZED AND APPROPRIATED THE MONEY?
Goddammit writer/editor/fuckoff, do your fucking job and research this shit!
Yeah. This would be a big overreach. I think it becomes clearer once we understand that forgiveness of a debt already paid out and spent is equivalent to eating that debt yourself. So, that is the government basically adding additional debt to its account book.
I am not fond of federal student loans anyway, but if they do move to do this then the only responsible reaction is to completely destroy the federal student loan program because it is broken.
I'm going to just block quote a recent angry article by Charles Cooke:
Bloomberg’s Josh Wingrove reports:
The White House is planning its long-awaited student loan announcement for tomorrow, sources tell @nancook and me. The parameters are unclear still (to us!), but expectations are that it'll include at least a brief extension on the payment pause and further debt cancellation.
If this is true, it would represent a giant middle finger to America. It would represent a middle finger to the Constitution, which vests legislative power in Congress, not the president. It would represent a middle finger to Congress, which has not given the executive branch the authority to give $10,000 each to millions of college students. It would represent a middle finger to the Department of Education, which found last year that it “does not have statutory authority to provide blanket or mass cancellation, compromise, discharge, or forgiveness of student loan principal balances, and/or to materially modify the repayment amounts or terms thereof.” Nancy Pelosi confirmed last summer that “the president can’t do it — so that’s not even a discussion.” “Not everybody realizes that,” she said, “but the president can only postpone, delay but not forgive.” Biden’s response? A middle finger.
At the level of the electorate, it would represent a middle finger to voters without college degrees, who have much higher unemployment rates than voters with college educations, and who will now be on the hook for loans they didn’t take out and didn’t benefit from. It would represent a middle finger to voters who chose not to go college — voters who will, as Nancy Pelosi has put it, be “paying taxes to forgive somebody else’s obligations.” It would represent a middle finger to voters who are currently paying back loans taken out for other purposes (their small businesses, say). It would represent a middle finger to voters who have paid off their student loans already, to voters who made sacrifices to prioritize paying off their student loans early, and to voters who deliberately chose colleges that required them to borrow less money. And, because there is no plan or reform attached — it would be a one-time deal — it would represent a middle finger to voters who will take out student loans tomorrow. Sorry, guys. You didn’t time your birth properly to the 2022 midterms.
It would represent a middle finger to voters who care about inflation, which will not be helped by the ruse. It would represent a middle finger to voters who care about the federal debt, which will be made larger at the stroke of a pen. It would represent a middle finger to voters who care about our constitutional order. It would represent a middle finger to voters who want to help the poor rather than send their cash to the most privileged. It would represent a middle finger to voters who care about funding literally anything other than well-off students — which is pretty much all of them. It would represent a middle finger to voters who care about real higher education reform, which the move will slow, and perhaps stop. It would represent a middle-finger to the Democratic Party, which is already fighting headwinds, and which will suffer more at the polls. And, because of the enormous backlash it will cause, it would represent a middle finger to the people at the bottom of our society, who genuinely need help with their education, and who will now be lumped in with the cadre of affluent, self-serving deadbeats who have apparently convinced the President of the United States to violate his oath of office in order to funnel them a bunch of cash.
It would represent, in other words, a 360-degree middle finger to the United States. If Biden goes through with it, the backlash will be intense, widespread, and as deserved as any in recent memory. At one level, Biden’s team seems to know this. But not, apparently, to care.
Another article from him from today:
A few moments before I sat down to write this piece, I opened the door to six guys in blue shirts who had come to my house to replace our air-conditioning units. The Florida weather being what it is, I’ve seen some of these guys work on our air conditioners before, and they’re as skilled and knowledgeable and conscientious and hard-working as you might expect. The company they work for, which is local to North Florida, was started by a guy who chose to forgo college in favor of taking out a small-business loan to strike out on his own. Most of the technicians who work for him didn’t go to college, either. They took a different path. And, well . . . what absolute chumps the president has just made of them for that!
Squirm if you like, but that’s the truth of the matter: As of today, the six air-conditioning technicians in my house are on the hook for college loans that were signed for, spent, and enjoyed by other people. Confirming the measure today, President Biden announced that any American who has both college debt they vowed to repay and an individual yearly income under $125,000 (or a family yearly income under $250,000) will be given up to $20,000 by the Treasury — which means by you, and by me, and by everyone else who pays taxes in America.
Why? Well, that’s the question.
The answer can’t be, “because that’s what the relevant law anticipates or requires.” As of yet, Congress has provided no authorization for the executive branch to arbitrarily write off some of the money that borrowers owe to taxpayers. As of yet, Congress has passed no rules that allow down-on-their-luck presidents to throw money at people for political gain. As of yet, Congress has given no instruction that if the president’s friends might like a little more cash, he can raid the Treasury to give it to them. Certainly, Congress has set up a loan program. But the deal there is rather simple, all told: First you borrow, and then you pay back what you borrowed. There is no mention of “forgiveness” days or of “help” or of rolling Chekhovian jubilees, and by pretending otherwise, President Biden is making a mockery of his oath to uphold the Constitution.
Another answer that won’t fly is, “To lower the cost of education.” As President Biden made clear today, this is a one-time deal, a lottery, a lightning strike. People who paid off their loans last week aren’t covered. People who will take out new loans after the policy has run its course aren’t covered. The problems in the system aren’t addressed. The colleges, and their endowments, are left unmolested. American culture’s increasingly credentialist presumptions aren’t altered. Within four years, overall debt will return to its present level. With the stroke of a pen, the already-fake deficit savings within the Inflation Reduction Act will be wiped out. This isn’t a reform. It’s not even pretending to be reform. It’s a contemptuous, abusive, unbelievably expensive shot in the dark — the net effect of which will be that fewer people correctly calibrate whether college is worth it, fewer colleges change their offerings to meet market demand, and, because this sort of executive giveaway will now loom large as a possibility, fewer people feel the need to save for college.
It seems so arbitrary. Why does Biden not want to do the same thing for loans on trucks owned by plumbers? Why not for mortgages — which, given how heavily it subsidizes them, the federal government clearly thinks are worthwhile? Why not for credit cards or auto payments or mom-and-pop credit lines? The answer, I’m afraid to say, is disgustingly classist: Because Joe Biden and his party believe that college students are better than everyone else. Because Joe Biden and his party believe that college students are of a finer cut. Because Joe Biden and his party prefer college students to you, and they think that those students ought to be rewarded for that by being handed enormous gobs of your money.
Electricians, store managers, deli workers, landscapers, waitresses, mechanics, entrepreneurs? Screw ’em. Sure, college graduates make more money than non-graduates, and their unemployment rate is lower, too. But non-graduates don’t have access to the president, so they don’t matter. They’re tradesmen, the riff-raff, the great unwashed. They’re background noise, dirty-handed types, second-classers. They don’t deserve $10,000 in debt reduction. What would they even do with it? Go hunting? Give it to their church? Their role is to subsidize the superior people, and the superior people go to college.
Why did Joe Biden do all this? That’s why. Why was this what Joe Biden chose to break his oath to achieve? That’s why. When it came down to it, good ol’ Scranton Joe sent cash from the sort of people he cynically pretends to care about to the sort of people he actually cares about: the privileged, accredited, self-dealing clerisy that his ever-dwindling political party now calls its base.
Really great rant.
They already removed the justification.
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/foia/secretarys-legal-authority-for-debt-cancellation.pdf (link now broken)
But it was:
The HEROES Act, first enacted in the wake of the September 11 attacks, provides the Secretary broad authority to grant relief from student loan requirements during specific periods (a war, other military operation, or national emergency, such as the present COVID-19 pandemic) and for specific purposes (including to address the financial harms of such a war, other military operation, or emergency). The Secretary of Education has used this authority, under both this and every prior administration since the Act’s passage, to provide relief to borrowers in connection with a war, other military operation, or national emergency, including the ongoing moratorium on student loan payments and interest.
Specifically, the HEROES Act authorizes the Secretary to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs” if the Secretary “deems” such waivers or modifications “necessary to ensure” at least one of several enumerated purposes, including that borrowers are “not placed in a worse position financially” because of a national emergency. 20 U.S.C. § 1098bb(a)(1), (2)(A).
In present circumstances, this authority could be used to effectuate a program of categorical debt cancellation directed at addressing the financial harms caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Secretary could waive or modify statutory and regulatory provisions to effectuate a certain amount of cancellation for borrowers who have been financially harmed because of the COVID19 pandemic. The Secretary’s determinations regarding the amount of relief, and the categories of borrowers for whom relief is necessary, should be informed by evidence regarding the financial harms that borrowers have experienced, or will likely experience, because of the COVID-19 pandemic. But the Secretary’s authority can be exercised categorically to address the situation at hand; it does not need to be exercised “on a case-by-case basis.” Id. § 1098bb(b)(3). That is, he is not required to determine or show that any individual borrower is entitled to a specific amount of relief, and he instead may provide relief on a categorical basis as necessary to address the financial harms of the pandemic.
Yet he declared title 42 was over as covid is no longer an emergency just last month.
Thanks for posting that, the first explanation I've seen. I had no idea the HEROES act even existed, and am dumbfounded anyone could think it applies like this.
https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1562495978913288194?t=wHjRHKLkKUZZ3Bis2mscxA&s=19
Pelosi yesterday:
"Well, we're excited about the president, because we didn't know what -- what authority the president had to do this. And now clearly, it seems he has the authority to do this: $10,000 for those ... making under $125,000 a year."
[Link]
This is one of the most absurd moves yet from the most absurd administration i've ever lived under. It's remarkable.
Biden promises to replace your student loan payment with higher priced stuff across the board.
Brilliant!
Yay. You get 10k to maybe gave another air bnb weekend and buy a few more beast ice cases! Principles sarc!
cry more
About you stealing from the taxpayers while claiming to be libertarian? I mean instead of paying off your loans you decided to buy a new car.
Passes off those of us who take responsibility for ourselves and paid off our loans. Youre just an unprincipled person. No wonder you've been migrating left.
Any student loan forgiveness that doesn't start with ending the federal student loan program is just going to make the problems worse. But the politicians don't care about fixing the problems, they just want to buy votes.
The $20k number is for those who received Pell grants, from what I read. So, they are superficially at least trying to skew this 'aid' towards people who were lower income at one time in their lives.
I'm included in that group. I haven't been 'lower income' in over a decade.
Likewise. But I'll take it if I can squeak by that income requirement.
I highly doubt that this will come to fruition, because it's probably illegal.
I'm interested how you would prove standing in order to sue.
Biden justified this forgiveness using an emergency exemption passed after 9/11 and using covid as the justification. Just last month he argued title 42 for illegal immigrants was no longer needed as covid was no longer an emergency.
Why wouldn't' I just take 1 class with either pell or no pell pay $300 for the class (most fees don't show up at 1 class so you get really the least amount to pay) take out the max loans for 10k or 20k and then pocket 9700 or 19700 for nothing?
Unless things have changed since I was the BMOC, the funds go directly to the University's financial office to be administered. The student doesn't touch it.
You can use it to pay for rent and living expenses. They don't ask for receipts.
https://www.savingforcollege.com/article/can-i-use-student-loans-to-pay-for-rent
Per the site:
Student loan funds are sent to the college, not to the student.
The college will apply the student loan funds and other financial aid first to college tuition and fees. If the student is living in the dorms or other college housing, the money will also be applied to room and board.
If a credit balance remains, it will be “refunded” to the student within 14 days. The student can use this money to pay for rent, textbooks and other college costs.
I can't imagine the "refund" would be that much.
In the above example the student takes minimum required classes and maximum loan. Happens every year. A means to pay for their lifestyle.
Exactly, mine went directly to the university, and I never saw a penny of it. Then again, I was on the hook for about $1k a quarter which I had to work for as the scholarships and the load didn't quite cover all of it. Yet, I was responsible and only had $25k borrowed at the end and paid it all off and within the time frame allowed. Of course, this was for an engineering degree which could make money as soon as I got a decent professional job after school.
These twits that Biden is aiming for aren't responsible, nor did they choose a degree that would pay anything off. Seriously, how many Lesbian Transwomen BIPOC Psychology jobs are out there requiring that degree? They're more likely to flip burgers or be a Starbucks barista.
One of the years I was getting Pell grants, doing in-state tuition at a state university with a couple of small scholarships, I was able to buy a car with cash. Not a nice car or a new car, but, a couple thousand dollars worth of car.
Why are we asking high school graduates with no college education or tradesmen who eschewed college to pay for bailouts for people making 100K annually?!
Should the lower economic classes be bailing out the upper crust?
OBL....can you speak to this, pretty please?
Eloi / Morlocks. What more do you need to know?
Another good option. Force everyone who took gender studies to give 10k to someone who didn't.
Wait the fuck a minute, the guy "symbolically burning" his student loan debts has a GCSOM patch on his shirt? The fucking fuckity fuck?
Looks photoshopped. Left hand is out way too far and doesn't line up with the sleeve.
If this gets to SCOTUS I fully expect Roberts to stick his thumb up his ass and pull out another "it's a tax not a fee" plum.
Fortunately, this time, it'll be 5 against 4 then.
Bft... Does anyone really think armed-robbers care about inflation or increasing education costs?? Just another excuse to rob you more..
Government in the USA has turned into a "[WE] gang rules" Rogue-Regime (i.e. democratic suppression) because armed-robbers could care less about a U.S. Constitution (Supreme Law).
Remember when education was added to the US Constitution?
Yeah; me neither.... F'En Nazi's...
I was watching one Biden's crew explain how it won't affect inflation - "because they weren't paying their debts anyway due to covid so it won't affect anything if we cancel it" was his response.
Then he went on to invalidly explain that it will be good for the economy. But I came up with the term that sort of follows the idea - I call it... the Progressive's Trickle Out (tm) theory.