
Last month, President Biden announced his plan to forgive a portion of student loan debt, and offer relief for some 45 million borrowers, over one million of who reside in North Carolina. Here’s how it works: If you took out a federal student loan, and you earn less than $125,000 per year (or less than $250,000 as a married couple), you could be eligible to have 10% of your debt forgiven. If you have a student loan and also received a Pell Grant through the Department of Education, you could get up to $20,000 of your debt forgiven (note that according to the White House, nearly all Pell Grant recipients come from families who earn less than $60,000 per year). It is an admirable initiative to be sure, but one that is fraught with questions about its legality, political motives, economic viability, and fairness.
FAIRNESS
First of all, is Biden’s plan fair? Right-winger Reed Rubinstein, director of oversight and investigations for the America First Legal Foundation told TIME, “This is such a slap in the face to everybody who did what they were supposed to do.” Translation? Millions of students honored the terms of their loans and worked hard to pay them back, and they are not eligible for one red cent of relief. “It’s also not fair to the untold number of Americans who never went to college,” said Alfredo Ortiz, CEO of the Job Creators Network. Moreover, if you took out a private loan, the Biden plan won’t help you either. One could also argue that it’s not fair to all of us taxpayers who expected to be repaid with interest for every dollar we loaned these students. Speaking of taxpayers, the student loan forgiveness program has one catch: recipients of relief must count the amount of debt forgiven as personal income. That means about 27 million low-income students could be on the hook to pay taxes on $20,000 of income. It doesn’t seem fair, but it’s a harsh reality and one that was best explained in a classic scene from Leave it to Beaver.
Beaver: So Wally, you’re really gonna make $10 a day?
Wally: Sure, and they’re gonna take withholding out of it.
Beaver: What’s withholding?
Wally: That’s money they take out of your salary to run the government with.
Beaver: Gee, I didn’t know they took money away from kids to run the government.
Wally: Sure, even if you’re a little baby and you have some money, they’ll come and take it away from you.
POLITICAL MOTIVES
In 2020, Joe Biden campaigned on how we needed to help students saddled with college debt. At that time, education debt topped $1.7 trillion dollars. But while debt was high, talk was cheap. During his first week in office, the President signed a record number of executive orders about everything but, you guessed it, student debt. Biden, who had spent most of his adult life in and around the Capitol, hinted that he needed Congressional support to enact a meaningful student debt forgiveness program, so he did nothing for two years. Then suddenly a little more than two months before the midterm elections, he announced his bold plan. There’s nothing like coming to the rescue of 40 million voters to motivate a politician.
ECONOMIC VIABILITY
Not everyone is a fan of Biden’s rescue plan for students. Alfredo Ortiz commented to TIME that, “A student loan bailout will further exacerbate inflation, increase the deficit, and lead to higher taxes.”
It begs the question, should Biden’s program be put on hold until inflation is under control? The answer would seem to be yes.
LEGALITY
President Biden is relying on the 2003 HEROES Act for the legal authority to launch his student loan forgiveness program. The Act gives the Secretary of Education authority to “change student financial assistance programs during a war or national emergency.” In this case, Biden claims the pandemic and its aftermath qualify as a national emergency. But critics like Third Way’s Vice President Lanae Erickson disagree. “It’s on shaky legal ground,” he told TIME’s Brian Bennett.
Biden’s program is supposed to start in January, but anyone expecting to receive loan relief then may be disappointed if legal challenges ensue. Nevertheless, regardless of the pitfalls, controversies, and potential delays associated with Biden’s loan forgiveness program, the White House recommends that qualified borrowers visit www.StudentAid.gov/debtrelief to apply. Or, if you’re skeptical you can visit its companion website, www.ImFromTheGovtAndImHereToHelp.com.





























Posted September 14, 2022 By Triad TodayThe Less-Redacted Richard Burr
Thanks to Judge Beryl Howell, we now know more about what was in the FBI search warrant served on Senator Richard Burr than we knew one year ago. That’s because on August 29, Howell ordered the Justice Department to release a less-redacted version of FBI agent Brandon Merriman’s warrant which allowed the agency to seize Burr’s cellphone. And what did Agent Merriman conclude after examining Burr’s phone and reviewing other information associated with the stock trade investigation? This statement was in his report:
“I believe probable cause exists that Senator Burr used material, non-public information regarding the impact that COVID-19 would have on the economy, and that he gained that information by virtue of his position as a member of Congress.”
So why in heaven’s name wasn’t Burr formally charged with insider trading? Because federal investigators chose to accept Burr’s lame (and multiple) explanations of his sudden wealth. Burr’s initial statement in March of 2020 was that his decision to suddenly dump stocks was based on “CNBC’s daily health and science reporting out of its Asia bureaus.” But later when the FBI questioned him, Burr changed his story. According to the Winston-Salem Journal, we now know about his revised tale from the newly unredacted search warrant.
“Senator Burr explained that he was uncomfortable with a lot of things in the market…Burr discussed the fact that there has been a long bull market and that it was due for a correction…he also said that the surge of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic party’s nomination process was a risk to the market.”
So, I guess Richard Burr had a crystal ball that no one else had, AND he was afraid that his investments would be devalued if Bernie Sanders snagged the Democratic nomination. Or maybe he just happened to watch CNBC’s Asian-based reporters after receiving classified briefings on COVID. If you believe any of that, then I have some swamp land I’d like to sell you. A simple review of the timeline suggests that Merriman’s conclusion about Burr’s stock trades is right on the money (pardon the expression).
In January 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci briefed Burr about the seriousness of the spreading COVID-19 virus. Then, according to Reuters, three days later Burr, as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, began receiving daily COVID updates, and on January 31, he received a series of voicemails and text messages, which the Journal reported came from “an individual whose identity remains redacted.” Four hours later Burr, his wife, and her brother began to sell off stocks. During one eleven-minute period on February 13, the Burrs engaged in a flurry of stock trades which, by some estimates, netted them over a million dollars. Many of the stocks Burr unloaded were from the hospitality industry which he knew from private briefings would likely tank in a pandemic. It is important to note that just four hours after the Burrs completed their trading, U.S. Secretary of Health Alex Azar declared a national public health emergency because of COVID.
Burr’s suspicious stock trades should come as no surprise to us. In fact, we should have known this was coming as far back as 2012 when he was one of only two senators who voted against the Stock Act. That act makes it illegal for any member of Congress to profit financially from proprietary information. Nevertheless, violations of the Stock Act are difficult to prove, as we have learned from Burr’s pandemic plunder. Richard Burr’s propensity for meteoric wealth building is also nothing new. Based on a report from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, when Burr entered Congress in 1994 his net worth was under $190,000. But, according to OpenSecrets.org, by 2018 Burr was worth over $7.4 million dollars. That’s an increase of 3,600 percent at a time when the income of average Americans rose by less than one percent.
Over the years there have been proposals to augment the Stock Act. Elizabeth Warren, for example, has lobbied unsuccessfully to ban legislators from even trading stocks while in office. And earlier this year, a number of Democratic congressmen and senators attempted in vain to pass legislation that would have required their colleagues to put their portfolios in a blind trust. But if guys like Burr can slither out of violating the Stock Act, then they could do the same with any subsequent laws.
I can’t help but think of Martha Stewart, who in 2001, made a stock trade based on information from her broker’s assistant that the price of ImClone shares would probably decline because its CEO was about to retire. Martha dumped her ImClone stocks in order to avoid a loss that would have amounted to $45,000. For that, Stewart was convicted of obstruction, spent five months in federal prison, was given two years of supervised release, and had to wear an ankle monitor for five months. Moreover, her transactions had no bearing on the health of millions of Americans. The recently unredacted FBI warrants on Richard Burr is a hollow victory for transparency because the soon-to-be-retired Senator wasn’t held to account for the fortune he allegedly made from insider trading. Martha Stewart must be wondering why.