Topic: Student Loans
“Although student loans and grants should ultimately be restored to the private sector (or, at the very least, the federal government should revisit its role as a guarantor, rather than direct lender) federal postsecondary education investments should bolster economic growth, and recipient institutions should nourish academic freedom and embrace intellectual diversity.”
This answers the question about what they want to do with student loans. As discussed in the analysis, moving them to the private sector is a money loser for whomever gets stuck with them. I don’t know how you’d force or encourage the private sector to take on these loans.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“The new Administration must end the practice of acting like the federal student loan portfolio is a campaign fund to curry political support and votes. The new Administration must end abuses in the loan forgiveness programs. Borrowers should be expected to repay their loans.”
Democrats can’t forgive student loans, because then people might like Democrats better than us! Nothing says your ideas are cruel like arguing for passing laws that actually PREVENT others from doing kindnesses. This is also the same woman who, a few scant paragraphs ago, argued for moving student loans to the private sector, so I don’t know what she’s pretending she wants to protect, here.
Here’s what else is wrong with her statement: Most or all of the people whose student loans were forgiven DID pay back their debts. Several times over, in some cases. What was forgiven was the interest on these loans. And not everyone is/was eligible. Teachers, government employees, people who work for nonprofits or in the medical sector, and the disabled got special consideration. Everyone else had to have a particular type of repayment plan that they’d been paying on time for at least 20 years. [Source]11
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“The next Administration should completely reverse the student loan federalization of 2010 and work with Congress to spin off FSA and its student loan obligations to a new government corporation with professional governance and management.”
This is a weird and contradictory statement, and could reflect a misunderstanding on the author’s part of what the student loan federalization of 2010 actually DID. Earlier in this section, Burke argued for moving student loans to the private sector. Then, she reversed course and argued for keeping them in the government. Now, she’s arguing for reversing the 2010 federalization, which specifically ended the practice of private banks issuing federally guaranteed student loans – indicating that she wants a return to that practice – and in the same breath arguing that the loans should be administered by a “new government corporation” – i.e., not a private entity. The conditions she goes on to describe – federal loans being managed directly by the Department of the Treasury – is decidedly NOT moving them to the private sector, so one wonders why we would need to reverse the 2010 federalization. (Additionally, does moving student loans to the Department of the Treasury even quality as a “new government corporation”? This portion is a more than a bit nonsensical.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which prioritizes government and public sector work over private sector employment, should be terminated.”
No more student loan forgiveness for government employees! Nor for anyone else, either, but I guess particularly not government employees.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.