Student Loan Discharge is an issue this election
year. So, we will get bills introduced about
Student Loan Discharge. And another bill.
And more bills. Which have no chance of passing
because this is late into an election year, when all
our public servants do is work to keep their
seat at the public trough.
Such bills are the equivalent of what the horses in the picture leave behind on the ground.
Nevertheless, let’s look at a recent Student Loan Discharge proposal.
Student Loan Forgiveness Tax Repayment Act
This one is bi-partisan! One could define this as having at least one scoundrel from each party behind it. So, call me a cynic.
The bill, the Stop Taxing Death and Disability Act, would save families from big tax bills when federal student loans are forgiven after death or disability.
This one is also, a re-tread, having been introduced in – you guessed it, the last election year, 2014.
So, good idea, yes. Chance of passage, not so much.
Still, keep your eyes on the current crop of idiots running for office and what they say about Student Loan Discharge.
The Supreme Court Does Not Want To Say Anything
There are so many punters in Washington D.C., pedestrians must keep their heads down all the time.
The Congress punts to the Executive branch, or to the Judiciary. Obama punts wherever he wants to.
And, Justice Thomas berated his colleagues for punting a Student Loan Discharge question back to the Department of Education (DOE). Which is part of the Executive branch, as are all cabinet departments.
(Remember when we had three functioning branches of government? Me neither)
While the two other members of the panel concurred with Hamilton to an extent both also expressed reservations, particularly in regard to the Education Department’s interpretation of the rules regarding collection costs and whether the department’s interpretation should be given deference.
That was the critical question United Student Aid Funds wanted the Supreme Court to consider. The justice who declined to grant certiorari did not explain their rationale for doing so.
But Justice Clarence Thomas blasted his colleagues, accusing them of choosing to sit “idly by” while “[h]e who writes a law” also “adjudges its violation” – a line borrowed from an earlier dissent written by the late Antonin Scalia.
It is tough enough dealing with the existing laws and statutes and rules and regulations. What Justice Thomas protested was letting the DOE be the referee for a game in which it is one of the two teams.
C’est la vie.