I wanted to start this post before the Supreme Court decision regarding the debt cancellation proposal, although I may not finish it before that decision comes down so read the next few paragraphs with that in mind.
Before discussing the affirmative action and religious worker rights cases, here is my take on the soon to be released student debt decision.
First, it won't surprise me if the Supreme Court rejects Biden's student loan forgiveness program as an overreach of the executive branch. Since Congress is supposed to control the purse strings of our government, it is not unreasonable for the Court to conclude that this large amount of potential revenue should not be subject to a presidential executive order.
To be honest, I agree with the idea that there has been a migration of power towards the executive branch for quite a while, although this is partly due to what I consider Congress' all too willingness to punt on controversial topics (immigration, for instance), and let the president take all the heat for such decisions that tend to be close to 50 - 50, meaning that whatever the president decides, 50% will love it, 50% will hate it.
So, I am all for the judiciary branch fulfilling their constitutional duty as referee when there is over reach by any of the two other branches, executive or legislative. It is just a shame that some type of student loan forgiveness program wasn't approved by Congress so as to eliminate the need for today's decision.
That is the idea behind the SCOTUS decision earlier this week which rejected the independent legislative theory that was part of the fake elector plan concocted by Trump, Guiliani and Eastman in which some state legislators created "alternate" electors for the 2020 election which did not reflect the actual votes of the states electorate. While is seemed obvious that it was unconstitutional that state legislatures which did not like the voters' choice could just override that choice, it is gratifying to know that a 2 to 1 majority conservative SCOTUS thought so too. Now, state Supreme Court will have tacit authority to overrule such legislative overreaches.
Even more hopeful, this decision also means that when a state Supreme Court rules that electoral maps devised by one party which clearly negate the voters of the other, especially due to racial bias, the legislatures must abide by those rulings and redraw the maps. So, for instance, in Alabama where about 33% of the voters are minority, yet 5 of the 6 house districts (83%) are drawn to favor the voting interests of white people, that map must be redrawn.
However, I do believe that there is a 25% chance that the Court finds in favor of Biden's student loan forgiveness plan, because those suing the Biden Administration may lack standing to do so. Remember, to sue an entity or person, one must demonstrate that you are being negatively effected by that person or company, perhaps via libelous words, unlawful job termination, unfair labor practices, unfair business practices, etc.
In this case, the justices did seem to question why certain states were plaintiffs in the case (all with republican attorney generals) but not all states, red or blue, since all states have students who are effected by this proposal. How exactly does a state lose money when its residents now have more money to spend on the products and services that its businesses produce, which in turn, provide tax money (to the state) while also reducing the need for businesses to lay off workers which would result in added expenses for the state (unemployment costs, as well as, perhaps, welfare and health assistance expenses)?
There are also two individuals on this suit who are claiming hardship because they do not qualify for the full $20,000 benefit. Now, to me, if we are able to sue the government for not giving everyone the exact same benefit, wouldn't that mean that tax credits for having kids should be contested by childless couples, and mortgage interest deductions should be challenged by those who rent?
Yes, those benefits first went through Congress and are part of the IRS codes, so this point may be less persuasive, but it sounds like sour grapes more than anything.
I also read that the company SOFI is also involved. In their case, student loan forgiveness does in fact, negatively effect their business as they actively refinance student loan debt (making a large some of money in the process), so this reduces their potential pool of customers. But it is also true that when they determine eligibility for consolidating student loan debt, credit worthiness is part of the calculation. In other words, people who they deem less credit worthy, are declined loans. Analysis of the debt forgiveness program, has demonstrated that upwards of 75% of people who will benefit have earnings below $75,000 per year, which means that one might speculate that at least half of those who will get forgiveness might not qualify for a SOFI loan. Remember, SOFI has grown dramatically in the recent past, which means they have picked a lot of the low hanging fruit, those who could qualify for better rate.
My wife and I took Parent Plus student loans for our children in the 90's, at 7.9% so as not to burden our kids with too much student debt when they were first starting out. We were able to refinance those loans and have subsequently paid them off, so are not eligible for forgiveness, and wouldn't have been even if we still had that debt as we turned to the private sector for consolidation, at a lower interest rate. Why are not all the other banks that offer student loan consolidation also suing?
I have no sympathy for SOFI, although, at least they might have some standing.
Will the Court consider any of these issues or stick with the simple view that a president does not have authority to forgive student loan debt without specific Congressional authorization?
IRS codes and government policies enhances our economy, hence our business community in myriad ways. Should wind turbine companies sue when solar panel credits are more than those for their product? I know there is a lot of complaining that emanates from the business community about certain government subsidies, but it all seems like sour grapes when one considers just how much corporate and business welfare there is embedded in our tax codes.
It seems like we would all be better off, if we could acknowledge that sometimes a benefit will help us, sometimes our neighbor, sometimes people we don't agree with, but suing simply because they got more than you, this time, seems petty, if not downright childish.
That last part is dedicated to all the "working class" people who seem upset that young people are getting a helping hand (although some research indicates there are boomers who took on their kids debt that will benefit also). As if those of us born in the 50's, 60's and 70's didn't have all kinds of advantages provided us by our parents and Uncle Sam.
It all hearkens back to my 90% boat theory, which states that anytime something is advantageous for those of us in the 90% boat (in terms of income), we should always support programs that benefit any portion of the populace in our boat, even if not us this particular time, because we all know those in the 10% boat are getting more than their share. As I have stated in past posts, so often it is members of that 10% boat that create the wedge issues that keep the 90% of us from acting in concert.
Which brings us to today's SCOTUS decision on affirmative action. While I am not appalled by it, I do think it reflects poorly on the perspective of today's conservative thinkers who believe that there is not a place, especially in our education system, for policies that consider race as a contributor to selection. I am not just talking about minorities, as it seems that college attendance among men, of all races, is declining. It is not inconceivable that in a decade or two, we may need enrollment policies that help men attend college; will that alter perception on what is meant by affirmative action?
As for the religious worker decision, this was the case of a USPS worker who did not want to work on Sundays and did not, until the post office contracted with Amazon to deliver packages on the weekends. At first, his managers worked with him, finding other people to take his turn, but as time went, this process became more difficult, and his record began to be marked with absences. He felt like he could get fired at any time, so he quit.
Applying my 90% boat theory to this topic, puts me on the side of the Court in their conclusion that the post office did not provide a reasonable accommodation. I know that my employer decided to open its doors om Sundays 14 years after I was hired, but they provided incentives for people to work on Sunday, and allowed those hired full time before the change to opt out. Over time, the issue resolved itself as those who were grandfathered retired or left the organization. I don't know the details of the post offices's situation, but one would think that by utilizing overtime and part time workers, and by stipulating that newly hired workers must agree to Sunday work, they could have resolved this issue without SCOTUS involvement.
I have written about Supreme Court decisions, potential and actual, in the past. Here are a few:
https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/06/supreme-court-rules-on-health-care.html
https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-supreme-court-considers-gay-marriage.html
https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2013/07/justice-roberts-courts-decisions.html
https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/11/supreme-court-rulings.html
No comments:
Post a Comment