a critique of Biden's student loan debt relief plans

 (1) Regressive and Benefits Higher-Income Earners:

A significant portion of the debt relief benefits will go to higher-income households. For example, around 750,000 households with an average income of $312,000 would be eligible for long-term debt cancellation under one provision .

Critics argue that this represents a wealth transfer from lower-income taxpayers to wealthier individuals, which is regressive and unfair .

(2) Encourages More Borrowing and Higher Tuition Costs:

Critics argue that the debt relief plans, by reducing the burden of repayment, will incentivize students to take on more debt and universities to raise tuition costs further, exacerbating the root problem of rising college costs.

(3) The plans do not address the underlying issues driving the student loan crisis and college affordability problems .

(4) Costly and Adds to National Debt:

Estimates of the total cost of Biden's plans to be around $605 billion under static assumptions, but potentially over $1 trillion when accounting for behavioral changes and future details of the income-driven repayment (IDR) program .

Critics argue that these significant costs will add to the national debt and burden taxpayers, many of whom do not have college degrees or have already paid off their loans responsibly .

(5) Executive Overreach and Circumventing Congress:

Some critics argue that Biden's unilateral actions on student loan debt relief represent an overreach of executive authority and circumvent the constitutional power of Congress over spending and borrowing .

They argue that Congress should intervene and use the Congressional Review Act to overturn Biden's plans, reasserting its power of the purse .

(6) Moral Hazard and Unfairness to Responsible Borrowers:

Critics contend that the debt relief plans create a moral hazard, as future borrowers may expect similar forgiveness, leading to increased borrowing and delayed repayments .

They argue that the plans are unfair to those who responsibly avoided debt, worked to pay off their loans, or chose not to attend college due to costs .

In summary, the main criticisms revolve around the regressive nature of the benefits, the potential to exacerbate the root problems, the significant costs and addition to national debt, concerns over executive overreach, and perceived unfairness to responsible borrowers and non-borrowers.