On this episode of News World. On Monday, April eighth, the Biden deministration released details of their new student loan debt forgiveness plan for nearly thirty million borrowers. The proposal still needs to be finalized and will almost certainly be challenged in court. However, Biden administration officials have said they could begin handing out some of the debt relief, including canceling up to twenty thousand dollars in interest, as soon as this fall. The plan would reduce payments for twenty five million borrowers and erase all debt for more than four million Americans. About forty three million people are carrying one trillion, seven hundred billion dollars in student debt, joining me to discuss the proposed new student loan debt forgiveness plan. I am really pleased to welcome my guest, Adam Kissel. He is a visiting fellow in the Hair Foundation Center for Education Policy, and he previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education Programs at the US Department of Education. Adam, welcome, and thank you for joining me on New World.

On this episode of News World. On Monday, April eighth, the Biden deministration released details of their new student loan debt forgiveness plan for nearly thirty million borrowers. The proposal still needs to be finalized and will almost certainly be challenged in court. However, Biden administration officials have said they could begin handing out some of the debt relief, including canceling up to twenty thousand dollars in interest, as soon as this fall. The plan would reduce payments for twenty five million borrowers and erase all debt for more than four million Americans. About forty three million people are carrying one trillion, seven hundred billion dollars in student debt, joining me to discuss the proposed new student loan debt forgiveness plan. I am really pleased to welcome my guest, Adam Kissel. He is a visiting fellow in the Hair Foundation Center for Education Policy, and he previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education Programs at the US Department of Education. Adam, welcome, and thank you for joining me on New World.

It's a pleasure to be here.

It's a pleasure to be here.

Thank you so on Monday, April eight, Biden unveiled this new student loan that forgiveness plan that would help about thirty million borrowers or rayed some or all of their loans. What would the plan actually look like.

Thank you so on Monday, April eight, Biden unveiled this new student loan that forgiveness plan that would help about thirty million borrowers or rayed some or all of their loans. What would the plan actually look like.

We haven't seen the details yet, but we do have some bullet points and we've seen some documents out of what's called negotiated rulemaking, which would have a number of different features to it. One is that if you're is higher after a couple of years than the amount that you originally took out, you're considered to have a kind of hardship that the Secretary can use to waive your debt interest up to twenty thousand dollars. So for people who have had debt over the course of many years, their interest payments and principle might be much higher than their original debt. And that could be because they've been in deferment and they've paid the minimum amount and it's unclear whether they really have a hardship or not because they've just been on an income contingent repayment plan. But it doesn't matter to the Biden administration. They want to cut as much debt as they possibly can, and that's why up to twenty thousand in interest for that category of borrowers would simply be wiped off of their debt and of course transferred to one hundred million taxpayers who will be holding the bag for that. There are some other bullet points released by the administration that would be targeted at borrowers and other categories. So, for instance, if your debt has been in repayment for twenty or twenty five years or more, then your debt might just simply be canceled. And again, cancel doesn't mean that it goes away. It becomes money that somebody else is going to have to pay. And then there's a third category that will also have many people in it, which is an accountability measure, which is that if you look at the debt a few years out after someone graduates and their income a few years out, you can calculate a debt to income ratio, and if that ratio is bad, and doing that program by program, college by college, if that ratio is bad, then you're perceived to have a low financial value degree. And if you're in a low financial value degree program, then you might have your debt canceled as well. So there are some smaller categories, but those I think are the three biggest. And then there's a catch all, which is that if the Secretary decides that you have a hardship for any reason, the Secretary could cancel all of your debt. And one of the ideas that the Secretary has proposed is that if you haven't been paying your student loans for a certain number of months, I guess you must have a hardship. So just imagine how that loophole will be abused. Those are the biggest parts.

We haven't seen the details yet, but we do have some bullet points and we've seen some documents out of what's called negotiated rulemaking, which would have a number of different features to it. One is that if you're is higher after a couple of years than the amount that you originally took out, you're considered to have a kind of hardship that the Secretary can use to waive your debt interest up to twenty thousand dollars. So for people who have had debt over the course of many years, their interest payments and principle might be much higher than their original debt. And that could be because they've been in deferment and they've paid the minimum amount and it's unclear whether they really have a hardship or not because they've just been on an income contingent repayment plan. But it doesn't matter to the Biden administration. They want to cut as much debt as they possibly can, and that's why up to twenty thousand in interest for that category of borrowers would simply be wiped off of their debt and of course transferred to one hundred million taxpayers who will be holding the bag for that. There are some other bullet points released by the administration that would be targeted at borrowers and other categories. So, for instance, if your debt has been in repayment for twenty or twenty five years or more, then your debt might just simply be canceled. And again, cancel doesn't mean that it goes away. It becomes money that somebody else is going to have to pay. And then there's a third category that will also have many people in it, which is an accountability measure, which is that if you look at the debt a few years out after someone graduates and their income a few years out, you can calculate a debt to income ratio, and if that ratio is bad, and doing that program by program, college by college, if that ratio is bad, then you're perceived to have a low financial value degree. And if you're in a low financial value degree program, then you might have your debt canceled as well. So there are some smaller categories, but those I think are the three biggest. And then there's a catch all, which is that if the Secretary decides that you have a hardship for any reason, the Secretary could cancel all of your debt. And one of the ideas that the Secretary has proposed is that if you haven't been paying your student loans for a certain number of months, I guess you must have a hardship. So just imagine how that loophole will be abused. Those are the biggest parts.

How does this differ from the first Biden debt free giveness plan back in twenty twenty two.

How does this differ from the first Biden debt free giveness plan back in twenty twenty two.

The earlier plan relied on the Heroes Act, which was meant especially for actual American heroes, people who say we're serving in a foreign country for some reason, perhaps because of a natural disaster, but because perhaps they've been in a war or conflict, that they haven't been able to pay their student loans on time, And that very specific exception was part of the original law. At a later point, the Heroes Act was amended so that anyone affected by a major disaster who specifically had a problem paying off their debt because of the disaster could have a certain amount of debt cancelation. But what the Secretary of Education did is decided that the entire United States was a disaster area because of the COVID nineteen response. Therefore, every barrower in the world will separate the United States from their Every barwer had some impact from the COVID nineteen response, and therefore they had by definition a hardship related to the disaster, and therefore they were getting ten or twenty thousand dollars cut off of their debt. That was a very specific misuse of a law. The current scheme doesn't use the Heroes Act at all, and we can talk about that.

The earlier plan relied on the Heroes Act, which was meant especially for actual American heroes, people who say we're serving in a foreign country for some reason, perhaps because of a natural disaster, but because perhaps they've been in a war or conflict, that they haven't been able to pay their student loans on time, And that very specific exception was part of the original law. At a later point, the Heroes Act was amended so that anyone affected by a major disaster who specifically had a problem paying off their debt because of the disaster could have a certain amount of debt cancelation. But what the Secretary of Education did is decided that the entire United States was a disaster area because of the COVID nineteen response. Therefore, every barrower in the world will separate the United States from their Every barwer had some impact from the COVID nineteen response, and therefore they had by definition a hardship related to the disaster, and therefore they were getting ten or twenty thousand dollars cut off of their debt. That was a very specific misuse of a law. The current scheme doesn't use the Heroes Act at all, and we can talk about that.

The Supreme Court said that Biden clearly had exceeded his authority as defined by Congress in the Heroes Act. So, as I gather, apparently Biden's lawyers then went out read the Supreme Court decision very carefully and tried to figure out a new loophole that they could get all this money through. Now you called the last plan under the Heroes Act quote, a new socialism of higher education. Pay only what you can, the minimum ount vanishes towards zero, and the taxpayer will cover the rest. Do you really see this as that radical break from any kind of merit based system I do.

The Supreme Court said that Biden clearly had exceeded his authority as defined by Congress in the Heroes Act. So, as I gather, apparently Biden's lawyers then went out read the Supreme Court decision very carefully and tried to figure out a new loophole that they could get all this money through. Now you called the last plan under the Heroes Act quote, a new socialism of higher education. Pay only what you can, the minimum ount vanishes towards zero, and the taxpayer will cover the rest. Do you really see this as that radical break from any kind of merit based system I do.

And the lawsuit from seven states against this latest plan helps us see why that's the case. So a student loan program is meant to be about helping people go to college. You take out a loan, and you're responsible and you pay it back. And the current system says that for about every ten thousand dollars of student debt, the government was making money back. People were encouraged to be responsible enough and they would pay back about ten thousand, five hundred dollars for every ten thousand dollars of debt. The new scheme does socialize higher education because we're all going to be paying because for every ten thousand dollars of debt, there's about only seven thousand dollars that is expected to come back to the public treasury. So the loan program has been transmogrified into a grant program. And when you're talking about a transfer of money from one set of Americans to another, you've really taken a turn towards socialism. And this idea of free college is what the Biden administration is all about these days.

And the lawsuit from seven states against this latest plan helps us see why that's the case. So a student loan program is meant to be about helping people go to college. You take out a loan, and you're responsible and you pay it back. And the current system says that for about every ten thousand dollars of student debt, the government was making money back. People were encouraged to be responsible enough and they would pay back about ten thousand, five hundred dollars for every ten thousand dollars of debt. The new scheme does socialize higher education because we're all going to be paying because for every ten thousand dollars of debt, there's about only seven thousand dollars that is expected to come back to the public treasury. So the loan program has been transmogrified into a grant program. And when you're talking about a transfer of money from one set of Americans to another, you've really taken a turn towards socialism. And this idea of free college is what the Biden administration is all about these days.

What is the new loophole? How have they decided that even though the court has said no, you can't do it. They figured out a way you can do it.

What is the new loophole? How have they decided that even though the court has said no, you can't do it. They figured out a way you can do it.

Well, they still can't do it, So they're not going to win in court, as my prediction. But the Heroes Act was a very specific part of the law. That was the authority that the Education Department was using as its justification for the debt cancelation. But the new authority that they're using is not out of the Heroes Act. It's out of the Secretary's overall waiver authority to waive the rules when someone is a distressed borrower. And that idea is what the Education Department is using as a wedge to declare all kinds of borrowers as distressed borrowers. It did that for what's called the Say Plan, which is for alumni who are on an income based repayment plan, which we haven't talked about yet, and it's doing it prospectively for this so called Plan B. But to me, it's planed C because of the Safe Plan option to find twenty five million more people and say that they are distressed borrowers and deserve a secretarial waiver of paying their student loans.

Well, they still can't do it, So they're not going to win in court, as my prediction. But the Heroes Act was a very specific part of the law. That was the authority that the Education Department was using as its justification for the debt cancelation. But the new authority that they're using is not out of the Heroes Act. It's out of the Secretary's overall waiver authority to waive the rules when someone is a distressed borrower. And that idea is what the Education Department is using as a wedge to declare all kinds of borrowers as distressed borrowers. It did that for what's called the Say Plan, which is for alumni who are on an income based repayment plan, which we haven't talked about yet, and it's doing it prospectively for this so called Plan B. But to me, it's planed C because of the Safe Plan option to find twenty five million more people and say that they are distressed borrowers and deserve a secretarial waiver of paying their student loans.

What is the theory of a distressed borrower? I mean a person who's just made a series of bad decisions, or a person who went into a low income job or what.

What is the theory of a distressed borrower? I mean a person who's just made a series of bad decisions, or a person who went into a low income job or what.

So the traditional idea of a distressed borrower is common sense. It's someone, say, who has declared bankruptcy or has extreme financial trouble in their life where they actually can't pay off their debts. It's not someone whose debt just happens to be higher than the amount that they took out, or who still has debt twenty or twenty five years later. So even in the Save Plan, the idea was that if you would benefit from paying a lower amount, then you must be a distressed borrower. So the term itself has been stretched beyond any reasonable recognition. So when a court looks at it, the court will say that's arbitrary and capricious that you can't say a distressed borrower is someone who's not distressed but will benefit from the new terms of the agreement.

So the traditional idea of a distressed borrower is common sense. It's someone, say, who has declared bankruptcy or has extreme financial trouble in their life where they actually can't pay off their debts. It's not someone whose debt just happens to be higher than the amount that they took out, or who still has debt twenty or twenty five years later. So even in the Save Plan, the idea was that if you would benefit from paying a lower amount, then you must be a distressed borrower. So the term itself has been stretched beyond any reasonable recognition. So when a court looks at it, the court will say that's arbitrary and capricious that you can't say a distressed borrower is someone who's not distressed but will benefit from the new terms of the agreement.

They now have a number of steps they've got to take to actually try to implement it. On the bureaucratic side, what are the steps that the Department of Education has to do in order to try to actually get the money to people.

They now have a number of steps they've got to take to actually try to implement it. On the bureaucratic side, what are the steps that the Department of Education has to do in order to try to actually get the money to people.

Well, under the Heroes Plan, The main reason that the department lost was it was so lawless. It just declared what it was going to do. There is no process that included notice and comment of the public, which is normally required when the government is going to do something different from a regulatory point of view, and the major questions doctrine came in. So when there was something that was of huge political and economic significance, Congress had to authorize it, and Congress didn't authorize it. That's what we're going to see again. Congress has not authorized twenty five million people to get half a trillion or a trillion dollars of student debt, forgiven. But what the department is trying to do is trying to at least get notice and comment from the public. So they've gone through what's called negotiated rule making, which is a special kind of rulemaking that is almost unique to the Education Department, where they go through a number of meetings with representatives of different groups such as borrowers, such as national organizations that work on student debt issues, and they get representatives of all of those constituency groups in a room and they try to come to consensus about a new regulation that would address an issue, so they brought a bunch of those people into a room. Of course, they had nobody from our side of the aisle who would think that student LAN cancelation is bad. From the beginning, they left us out, but they negotiated. They negotiated, and they still couldn't come to consensus. So what happens when the Department can't come to consensus with these representatives of the public is they are completely free to write up their own regulation the way they want. So that's what's going to happen. They've been writing up their own regulation the way they want. They announced, especially through the President on Monday, they're going to do this, this, and this, and we have to wait to see what the exact text of the regulations are. Then the public has a chance to comment, hopefully sixty or ninety days, since there's so much going on, but the Department could say thirty days. And if the Department says thirty days, that will probably become part of the lawsuit because it's not enough time to read all of these pages of regulations. But at that point they'll have their comments. They have to produce a final regulation which shows that they've addressed all of the public's comments and show why they did or didn't do what the commenters wanted. And if they do that badly, that would be another basis for a lawsuit because they're being arbitrary and capricious and not actually responding to the comments. But once they get through all of that, and it could be one hundred thousand comments, so it could take them months, or it could be a small number of comments. But once they do that, it becomes final and then it will be subject to litigation, likely maybe by eighteen or twenty more states, and so likely it will then be put on hold while judges look at the details.

Well, under the Heroes Plan, The main reason that the department lost was it was so lawless. It just declared what it was going to do. There is no process that included notice and comment of the public, which is normally required when the government is going to do something different from a regulatory point of view, and the major questions doctrine came in. So when there was something that was of huge political and economic significance, Congress had to authorize it, and Congress didn't authorize it. That's what we're going to see again. Congress has not authorized twenty five million people to get half a trillion or a trillion dollars of student debt, forgiven. But what the department is trying to do is trying to at least get notice and comment from the public. So they've gone through what's called negotiated rule making, which is a special kind of rulemaking that is almost unique to the Education Department, where they go through a number of meetings with representatives of different groups such as borrowers, such as national organizations that work on student debt issues, and they get representatives of all of those constituency groups in a room and they try to come to consensus about a new regulation that would address an issue, so they brought a bunch of those people into a room. Of course, they had nobody from our side of the aisle who would think that student LAN cancelation is bad. From the beginning, they left us out, but they negotiated. They negotiated, and they still couldn't come to consensus. So what happens when the Department can't come to consensus with these representatives of the public is they are completely free to write up their own regulation the way they want. So that's what's going to happen. They've been writing up their own regulation the way they want. They announced, especially through the President on Monday, they're going to do this, this, and this, and we have to wait to see what the exact text of the regulations are. Then the public has a chance to comment, hopefully sixty or ninety days, since there's so much going on, but the Department could say thirty days. And if the Department says thirty days, that will probably become part of the lawsuit because it's not enough time to read all of these pages of regulations. But at that point they'll have their comments. They have to produce a final regulation which shows that they've addressed all of the public's comments and show why they did or didn't do what the commenters wanted. And if they do that badly, that would be another basis for a lawsuit because they're being arbitrary and capricious and not actually responding to the comments. But once they get through all of that, and it could be one hundred thousand comments, so it could take them months, or it could be a small number of comments. But once they do that, it becomes final and then it will be subject to litigation, likely maybe by eighteen or twenty more states, and so likely it will then be put on hold while judges look at the details.

So is the current multi state lawsuit about the first round of Biden give a ways or is it about this new one.

So is the current multi state lawsuit about the first round of Biden give a ways or is it about this new one.

What I called the plan b in between, So in between the first round and this current round, there was a different round that was a revision of a particular income based or repayment program that has the acronym repaye the repay program. They changed its name to the Save program, and they did that with only thirty days notice in comment. So it was arbitrary and capricious and listened to what they did. The original plan said that one hundred and fifty percent of the poverty line of your income would be exempt from this income based calculation. The new rule was two hundred and twenty five percent of the poverty line would be exempt. In addition, additional categories of your income were a So once they've done that, the next question is how much of your disposable income do you have to pay? And the rule went from ten percent to five percent. And then the next question is how many months in a row do you have to pay before the rest of your debt is simply canceled. It used to be twenty years and it was changed to ten years. So you're basically getting about eighty five percent off compared to the old plant. So eighteen states are now saying that's bad for a bunch of reasons, and that's what they're suing over.

What I called the plan b in between, So in between the first round and this current round, there was a different round that was a revision of a particular income based or repayment program that has the acronym repaye the repay program. They changed its name to the Save program, and they did that with only thirty days notice in comment. So it was arbitrary and capricious and listened to what they did. The original plan said that one hundred and fifty percent of the poverty line of your income would be exempt from this income based calculation. The new rule was two hundred and twenty five percent of the poverty line would be exempt. In addition, additional categories of your income were a So once they've done that, the next question is how much of your disposable income do you have to pay? And the rule went from ten percent to five percent. And then the next question is how many months in a row do you have to pay before the rest of your debt is simply canceled. It used to be twenty years and it was changed to ten years. So you're basically getting about eighty five percent off compared to the old plant. So eighteen states are now saying that's bad for a bunch of reasons, and that's what they're suing over.

Is it very common to have this many states come together and follow lawsuit against the president?

Is it very common to have this many states come together and follow lawsuit against the president?

It seems unprecedented to me. Eighteen states in two different lawsuits. You may know from your experience something different, but that sounds like about the highest number of states that have gotten together on anything in quite a while.

It seems unprecedented to me. Eighteen states in two different lawsuits. You may know from your experience something different, but that sounds like about the highest number of states that have gotten together on anything in quite a while.

And the other part of that is, as you pointed earlier, it's not like they're wiping the debt out, they're transferring it. Correct, so it's actually going to end up being part of the national deficit. Well, all of us are going to pay interest on it. The study you know at Wharton that they came out and said plan would cost somewhere between five hundred and nineteen billion over ten years and could rise to over a trillion. So, I mean Biden is massively increasing the national debt across the board. And this is just one more example of borrowing from our children and grandchildren.

And the other part of that is, as you pointed earlier, it's not like they're wiping the debt out, they're transferring it. Correct, so it's actually going to end up being part of the national deficit. Well, all of us are going to pay interest on it. The study you know at Wharton that they came out and said plan would cost somewhere between five hundred and nineteen billion over ten years and could rise to over a trillion. So, I mean Biden is massively increasing the national debt across the board. And this is just one more example of borrowing from our children and grandchildren.

Absolutely, if you think about it, every trillion dollars is what three thousand dollars per American citizen, So this is not just a question of dispersed costs and concentrated benefits. Even the dispersed costs come out to say three thousand dollars per person. So this is real money for every person, every taxpayer. And when only twenty five million to thirty million people are getting some cancelation and at least seventy million are going to have to pay for it plus of their kids and grandkids, the voter calculation doesn't come out as nicely as maybe the Biden administration thinks. So if they're thinking they're going to get a bunch of votes out of this. They have to remember there's tens of millions of people who are upset with us.

Absolutely, if you think about it, every trillion dollars is what three thousand dollars per American citizen, So this is not just a question of dispersed costs and concentrated benefits. Even the dispersed costs come out to say three thousand dollars per person. So this is real money for every person, every taxpayer. And when only twenty five million to thirty million people are getting some cancelation and at least seventy million are going to have to pay for it plus of their kids and grandkids, the voter calculation doesn't come out as nicely as maybe the Biden administration thinks. So if they're thinking they're going to get a bunch of votes out of this. They have to remember there's tens of millions of people who are upset with us.

First of all. Of course, when I went to school, I borrowed money and it took me probably fifteen years to pay it off. Close to had a similar experience. So I understand the notion of some level of personal responsibility. But isn't it true also that the way Biden is proposing it, there's no income limitation. So you can be a Harvard educated lawyer making a couple million dollars a year and you're suddenly going to have your loan paid off by the Treasury, by the taxpayer. And effect so some poor person out here working as a plumber or working at Wendy's is now going to have a burden because the four hundred thousand dollars a year of Harvard lawyer is being helped out Joe Biden and by entire Biden team.

First of all. Of course, when I went to school, I borrowed money and it took me probably fifteen years to pay it off. Close to had a similar experience. So I understand the notion of some level of personal responsibility. But isn't it true also that the way Biden is proposing it, there's no income limitation. So you can be a Harvard educated lawyer making a couple million dollars a year and you're suddenly going to have your loan paid off by the Treasury, by the taxpayer. And effect so some poor person out here working as a plumber or working at Wendy's is now going to have a burden because the four hundred thousand dollars a year of Harvard lawyer is being helped out Joe Biden and by entire Biden team.

That's completely right. That's why my colleagues and I at the Heritage Foundation called this a regressive scheme. And it's true that on the pay for side that a lot of the people who are paying taxes are paying more if they earn more. Nevertheless, it's true that lots and lots of say, plumbers and folks who didn't go to college, and people who chose to go into the military instead of having college debt, and people who are responsible and paid off their college debt. These categories and more are paying for, as you suggested, potentially the four hundred thousand dollars a year Harvard Law School graduate at a white shoe firm simply because they are pretended to have financial hardship by the Education Department and would qualify for one of these waivers.

That's completely right. That's why my colleagues and I at the Heritage Foundation called this a regressive scheme. And it's true that on the pay for side that a lot of the people who are paying taxes are paying more if they earn more. Nevertheless, it's true that lots and lots of say, plumbers and folks who didn't go to college, and people who chose to go into the military instead of having college debt, and people who are responsible and paid off their college debt. These categories and more are paying for, as you suggested, potentially the four hundred thousand dollars a year Harvard Law School graduate at a white shoe firm simply because they are pretended to have financial hardship by the Education Department and would qualify for one of these waivers.

You also have a situation where Biden, I think pretty desperate to get money to them before the election is basically just a classic old time vote buying gimmick. And your judgment, can they get through all the court challenges enough to actually get money to voters before the.

You also have a situation where Biden, I think pretty desperate to get money to them before the election is basically just a classic old time vote buying gimmick. And your judgment, can they get through all the court challenges enough to actually get money to voters before the.

Election, I think there's very little chance that they will. They could get through the injunction phase fairly quickly if the Supreme Court is willing to look at the case before November. So as you know, what will happen when there's a lawsuit is there'll be a request to put the new regulations on hold, and then you have to do a balance of harms and decide as well on the merits as quickly as you can figure them out. What would happen if we hold the regulation right now and don't forgive any debt? And I think the answer would be if people have to pay on their student loans a few extra months, that harm is pretty low compared to simply giving away half a trillion dollars. So I think there's a good chance that an injunction would find the balance of harms on the side of the eighteen states. Supposing all eighteen of them sue again, it would be hard to get through all those levels of court, starting with the federal district court and appellate court and then the Supreme Court. Certainly not the whole case by November, but at least the injunction request. Now does that matter for the Biden administration because they can still say all of these red states have stopped you, you twenty five million people from getting the relief you deserve. Now they don't deserve it, but that'll be the rhetoric of it. So simply having the lawsuit exists gives them a talking point can say, trying to help you and the other side is trying to hurt you.

Election, I think there's very little chance that they will. They could get through the injunction phase fairly quickly if the Supreme Court is willing to look at the case before November. So as you know, what will happen when there's a lawsuit is there'll be a request to put the new regulations on hold, and then you have to do a balance of harms and decide as well on the merits as quickly as you can figure them out. What would happen if we hold the regulation right now and don't forgive any debt? And I think the answer would be if people have to pay on their student loans a few extra months, that harm is pretty low compared to simply giving away half a trillion dollars. So I think there's a good chance that an injunction would find the balance of harms on the side of the eighteen states. Supposing all eighteen of them sue again, it would be hard to get through all those levels of court, starting with the federal district court and appellate court and then the Supreme Court. Certainly not the whole case by November, but at least the injunction request. Now does that matter for the Biden administration because they can still say all of these red states have stopped you, you twenty five million people from getting the relief you deserve. Now they don't deserve it, but that'll be the rhetoric of it. So simply having the lawsuit exists gives them a talking point can say, trying to help you and the other side is trying to hurt you.

But as your point out a while ago, if you are not one of the people who was in the sort of Biden purchase plan, you may well resent the whole model. There may be more Americans. In fact, I think the only poll I've seen showed many more people opposed than favored it, and they've sort of figured out it's really a bad deal.

But as your point out a while ago, if you are not one of the people who was in the sort of Biden purchase plan, you may well resent the whole model. There may be more Americans. In fact, I think the only poll I've seen showed many more people opposed than favored it, and they've sort of figured out it's really a bad deal.

It is a bad deal, And that's why I've said that the voting calculation by the Biden administration may really backfire because it's so expensive, everyone sees how unjust it is. And besides the fact that it's unlawful, could have a lot of implication for people voting against the Biden administration getting another bite at the apple because they see this coming time after time, all of this lawlessness agency by agency, and it could well be a factor for people's decision about whether to come out to vote and then how to vote.

It is a bad deal, And that's why I've said that the voting calculation by the Biden administration may really backfire because it's so expensive, everyone sees how unjust it is. And besides the fact that it's unlawful, could have a lot of implication for people voting against the Biden administration getting another bite at the apple because they see this coming time after time, all of this lawlessness agency by agency, and it could well be a factor for people's decision about whether to come out to vote and then how to vote.

At the same time, it seems to me you've got an overlay here. Harvard has I think close to fifty billion dollars in their endowment, and they charge very high tuition, So you have to wonder, why is the average tax player now going to ship money to Harvard. You would think that people who were concerned about the poor would have had the opposite model. How do you get money from Harvard and send it to the poor instead? The Biden model is how do we raise taxes on the poor in order to ship it to Harvard. Don't that strike you as like totally backwards? It's pretty awful. So elite rich universities like Harvard get I don't know, billions and billions of dollars a year in federal funding and subsidy for research as well as tuition, and they do not need the tuition dollars at all, but they get it anyway. So what I believe that states as well as the federal government should do is cut off those subsidies that are not needed by rich universities. Taxing the endowment is socialism. That's wealth confiscation. But you can tax endowment income, and you can tax the non educational part of a university's income. Right, So universities have meal plans, they have housing plans, they get lots of money out of their medical work that they do through their hospitals.

At the same time, it seems to me you've got an overlay here. Harvard has I think close to fifty billion dollars in their endowment, and they charge very high tuition, So you have to wonder, why is the average tax player now going to ship money to Harvard. You would think that people who were concerned about the poor would have had the opposite model. How do you get money from Harvard and send it to the poor instead? The Biden model is how do we raise taxes on the poor in order to ship it to Harvard. Don't that strike you as like totally backwards? It's pretty awful. So elite rich universities like Harvard get I don't know, billions and billions of dollars a year in federal funding and subsidy for research as well as tuition, and they do not need the tuition dollars at all, but they get it anyway. So what I believe that states as well as the federal government should do is cut off those subsidies that are not needed by rich universities. Taxing the endowment is socialism. That's wealth confiscation. But you can tax endowment income, and you can tax the non educational part of a university's income. Right, So universities have meal plans, they have housing plans, they get lots of money out of their medical work that they do through their hospitals.

All of that should be taxed. And as much as I don't like taxation in general, I still think that the tax code should be fair across different kinds of organizations, and rich elite colleges like Harvard have been abusing that nonprofit exemption, but they really ought to be paying I don't want to say their fair share, but they ought to be paying what other organizations pay.

All of that should be taxed. And as much as I don't like taxation in general, I still think that the tax code should be fair across different kinds of organizations, and rich elite colleges like Harvard have been abusing that nonprofit exemption, but they really ought to be paying I don't want to say their fair share, but they ought to be paying what other organizations pay.

When I look around and I realize, you've got people at places like Harvard or Yale or Princeton who are genuine socialists. So they're sitting there happy, they had really good jobs and getting paid a lot of money, and their model is for everybody else in the country to subsidize them. Now, I mean, it's a nice gimmick if you can get it, but it strikes me it's so profoundly intellectually and morally wrong that it's kind of amazing that it hasn't been more aggressively taken on up to now.

When I look around and I realize, you've got people at places like Harvard or Yale or Princeton who are genuine socialists. So they're sitting there happy, they had really good jobs and getting paid a lot of money, and their model is for everybody else in the country to subsidize them. Now, I mean, it's a nice gimmick if you can get it, but it strikes me it's so profoundly intellectually and morally wrong that it's kind of amazing that it hasn't been more aggressively taken on up to now.

You know, a few generations ago, we culturally put higher education on a pedestal. Those were the really smart people who were discovering things teaching the next generation, and we gave them a lot of deference and academic freedom, and for the most part, they deserved it. But what's happened today, especially since October seventh and the disastrous response to what happened in Israel. We see legislators and regulators and the general public saying that pedestal just really isn't deserved anymore. There needs to be some accountability. If faculty members are going to be socialists and activists instead of scholars, maybe it's time for there to be some accountability from the public. If they want to interfere with our democracy using that term, if they want to get involved in the democracy and be activists, well maybe the rest of us, the democracy will start knocking on the gates saying, you're responsible to us for all these subsidies. We have something to say about what you're doing. If they went back to pure academia and stop trying to change society and socialize it, maybe they wouldn't be seeing all of these outsiders coming in and saying we don't trust you anymore.

You know, a few generations ago, we culturally put higher education on a pedestal. Those were the really smart people who were discovering things teaching the next generation, and we gave them a lot of deference and academic freedom, and for the most part, they deserved it. But what's happened today, especially since October seventh and the disastrous response to what happened in Israel. We see legislators and regulators and the general public saying that pedestal just really isn't deserved anymore. There needs to be some accountability. If faculty members are going to be socialists and activists instead of scholars, maybe it's time for there to be some accountability from the public. If they want to interfere with our democracy using that term, if they want to get involved in the democracy and be activists, well maybe the rest of us, the democracy will start knocking on the gates saying, you're responsible to us for all these subsidies. We have something to say about what you're doing. If they went back to pure academia and stop trying to change society and socialize it, maybe they wouldn't be seeing all of these outsiders coming in and saying we don't trust you anymore.

We did a podcast recently with Open the Books, which is a very very interesting organization that files Freedom of Information Act all over the place, actually as a website that lists all of these different places, and most of our podcast on the University of Virginia. Well, when you begin to look at the salaries the administrators are being paid. I think Stanford now has more administrators than there are students, not just teachers, and were just pure administrators who have nothing to do with the classroom. And all of this gets wrapped up in both what they charge the student, which Joe Biden is trying to pay off on behalf of the students, and they get it from the government and a whole range of grants. And so we're all told that we have some moral obligation to subsidize people who dislike America, despise free enterprise, I have contempt for our culture. What would like us to pay them on subsidize them. It's quite extraordinary what they pulled off.

We did a podcast recently with Open the Books, which is a very very interesting organization that files Freedom of Information Act all over the place, actually as a website that lists all of these different places, and most of our podcast on the University of Virginia. Well, when you begin to look at the salaries the administrators are being paid. I think Stanford now has more administrators than there are students, not just teachers, and were just pure administrators who have nothing to do with the classroom. And all of this gets wrapped up in both what they charge the student, which Joe Biden is trying to pay off on behalf of the students, and they get it from the government and a whole range of grants. And so we're all told that we have some moral obligation to subsidize people who dislike America, despise free enterprise, I have contempt for our culture. What would like us to pay them on subsidize them. It's quite extraordinary what they pulled off.

The main reason that places like Stanford or University of Virginia, or really almost every college in America can dramatically expand its administration and have such a large administrative bloat is that tuition dollars pay for it. Research overhead dollars pay for it too at a place like Stanford, but that money is not going into the classroom. That extra tuition dollar is going to some assistant dean of DEI of diversity, equity and inclusion to make trouble for the faculty and tell them who they can hire and who they can't hire. So if we and it's tough love, right, if we cut off the subsidies for student loans, then we can do something about the administrative bloat that Americans are paying for.

The main reason that places like Stanford or University of Virginia, or really almost every college in America can dramatically expand its administration and have such a large administrative bloat is that tuition dollars pay for it. Research overhead dollars pay for it too at a place like Stanford, but that money is not going into the classroom. That extra tuition dollar is going to some assistant dean of DEI of diversity, equity and inclusion to make trouble for the faculty and tell them who they can hire and who they can't hire. So if we and it's tough love, right, if we cut off the subsidies for student loans, then we can do something about the administrative bloat that Americans are paying for.

And I think in that sense, when went in exactly the wrong direction.

And I think in that sense, when went in exactly the wrong direction.

And not only that, this one point seven trillion dollars, it is going to still be there because a new wave of students will come in year after year and have more debt. So what the Biden administration is doing is nothing systemically, not even as a recommendation to address the problem of increasing tuition and increasing student debt. Instead, these are all very big and expensive band aids on a problem that ultimately Congress will have to solve.

And not only that, this one point seven trillion dollars, it is going to still be there because a new wave of students will come in year after year and have more debt. So what the Biden administration is doing is nothing systemically, not even as a recommendation to address the problem of increasing tuition and increasing student debt. Instead, these are all very big and expensive band aids on a problem that ultimately Congress will have to solve.

I'm delighted that at Heritage you're working on this because after the election, if we get a Congress that's interested in real reform and a president this in real reform, you're going to turn to places like Heritage for specific implementation ideas. So, Adam, I think the work you're doing is laying the base for a renaissance and a much healthier higher education program. And I want to thank you for joining me, and I want to encourage our listeners to visit Heritage dot org, who they can read about the Student Loan Debt Forgiveness Plan as it is released publicly in the next few months. And frankly, I work with Heritage all the way back and preparing for Reagan, so I know how important Heritage is across the board on virtually every topic. And Adam, you are a great representative of that extraordinary institution. Thank you so much. It's been a pleasure to be here. Thank you to my guest, Adam Kissel. You can read more about the Student Loan net Forgiveness Plan on our show page at newtsworld dot com. Newtworld is produced by Gainwick three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guarnsey Sloan. Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team at Gingwick three sixty. If you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope you'll go to Apple Podcasts and both rate us with five stars and give us a review so others can learn what it's all about. Right now, listeners of Newtsworld can sign up for my three free weekly columns at gingwichtree sixty dot com slash newsletter. I'm Newt Gingrich. This is Newsworld.

I'm delighted that at Heritage you're working on this because after the election, if we get a Congress that's interested in real reform and a president this in real reform, you're going to turn to places like Heritage for specific implementation ideas. So, Adam, I think the work you're doing is laying the base for a renaissance and a much healthier higher education program. And I want to thank you for joining me, and I want to encourage our listeners to visit Heritage dot org, who they can read about the Student Loan Debt Forgiveness Plan as it is released publicly in the next few months. And frankly, I work with Heritage all the way back and preparing for Reagan, so I know how important Heritage is across the board on virtually every topic. And Adam, you are a great representative of that extraordinary institution. Thank you so much. It's been a pleasure to be here. Thank you to my guest, Adam Kissel. You can read more about the Student Loan net Forgiveness Plan on our show page at newtsworld dot com. Newtworld is produced by Gainwick three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guarnsey Sloan. Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team at Gingwick three sixty. If you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope you'll go to Apple Podcasts and both rate us with five stars and give us a review so others can learn what it's all about. Right now, listeners of Newtsworld can sign up for my three free weekly columns at gingwichtree sixty dot com slash newsletter. I'm Newt Gingrich. This is Newsworld.