Warren vows to cancel college debt without awaiting Congress

[Omaha Steve]

By WILL WEISSERT

WASHINGTON (AP) — Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren says she’d order her secretary of education to cancel up to $50,000 in college debt for about 95% of student borrowers on her first day in office, effectively erasing outstanding loans for about 42 million Americans.

The Democratic senator from Massachusetts vowed in a proposal released Tuesday to act immediately and not wait for Congress because the secretary of education already has broad authority to compromise on and modify student loans.

Warren had already promised in previous plans to wipe out student loans for 42 million Americans while offering free tuition at public universities. She’s proposed a wealth tax on fortunes worth $50 million or more to pay for doing so, saying that will raise $2.75 trillion over 10 years.

But those proposals would require congressional approval. Hours before a presidential debate in Iowa, which holds its lead-off caucuses on Feb. 3, Warren said she’d move unilaterally to cancel debt first, then work with Capitol Hill to ensure programs to pay for it become law.

FULL story: https://apnews.com/99ea6f3c4b52bbf8f43327d61be5ce8e



Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., speaks during a campaign event, Sunday, Jan. 12, 2020, in Marshalltown, Iowa. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

[highplainsdem]

1. I don't think it helps her to sound as unrealistic as Sanders.

[crazytown]

4. The cost of Warren's program is $650b

Sanders is promising to cancel all debt for everyone, including the highest income earners. The total cost of that is $1.5 trillion.

It is a sensible compromise.

[highplainsdem]

6. It isn't any sort of compromise when she announced she'll do this by executive authority with no way

to pay for it.

It makes her look reckless and desperate.

We're supposed to have a system of checks and balances.

Not an authoritarian system, even a benign one.

[Thekaspervote]

8. +1000

[crazytown]

10. Checking her site: Says it will be done within the existing law.

Everything the next Administration does will be headed to SCOTUS - certainly the wealth tax, which is how this proposal is to be funded.

[highplainsdem]

15. Trump's made similar claims. Says what he does is within the law and the Constitution.

And he's found legal experts to back him up.

We do NOT want to emulate him in this way. Very bad path to take. A stupid path to take.

I'd rather see a Democratic nominee willing to build a consensus and respect our system of government, than see war between polarized parties fighting for authoritarian executive power that will bypass Congress.

[crazytown]

18. I think it is a bit early to suggest the legal basis on Warren is proposing to proceed

is comparable to trumps' claims before the courts, without having seen the policy detail.

[highplainsdem]

19. It's not too early to say that campaigning on bypassing Congress from Day One is stupid and

makes Democrats look bad.

It's especially stupid when we need to win swing states.

[crazytown]

22. If the majority share that opinion, it will cost her votes in the primaries,

and show up in head to heads against trump. We will see.

[Gothmog]

40. I agree with you

[janterry]

3. Cool

n/t

[ritapria]

5. It sounds Great but is it Constitutional to make such a move

without the approval of Congress ? ….I guess a Conservative Majority Supreme Court would make such a determination …..

[crazytown]

12. No doubt there is a legal basis within the policy detail.

If it is defensible, I would hope the Sanders campaign would take it up to facilitate as much of their corresponding proposals as possible.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

38. If I remember correctly, Devos and Trump are...

... currently trying to remove this power from the Sec Ed. for this very reason. So yeah it’s currently doable and I support it.

[LonePirate]

7. This is a much better use of the federal treasury than giving tax cuts to the 1% and corporations.

Bring it on!

[turbinetree]

9. Let's also talk about bankruptcy and what that law did ................when tied to College fees

and tuition's....................and who backed it .....................

[crazytown]

14. I am beginning to suspect

we might be hearing about that in the debate, given Warren's Bankruptcy Act overhaul, and all.

[turbinetree]

17. I hope so..........it is directly tied to a lot of people on the stage in one form or another

and it does matter.........................

[crazytown]

24. The Bankruptcy Act, Student Debt, and the Wealth Tax

are inextricably linked. Elizabeth has not tied all the treads together, but I suspect it won't be long.

[redqueen]

44. Was this issue raised last night? nt

[crazytown]

46. Nope.

No questions about guns either.

[Kahuna7]

11. Boy! Thanks some world class pandering there! nt

[crazytown]

13. It is the proposal she has been running on since day 1

part of the 2c wealth tax plan, which also, no doubt, would be also heading for SCOTUS

[Kahuna7]

16. I know that. I believed it was powerful pandering then too...

I never thought it was realistic.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

30. Well, it's no folksy Corn Pop story, that's for sure.

[Kahuna7]

33. I know you think your being clever but Corn Pop actually existed...

So don't quit your day job.

Link to tweet

[crazytown]

23. Not free. Fully funded by the 2c wealth tax.

[UniteFightBack]

42. +1000

[TwilightZone]

25. I'd prefer that she involve Congress.

Which means, as it does with all of our candidates, that we need to ensure we keep the House and regain the Senate.

[snowybirdie]

26. Let's think that one over

While I applaud her efforts and believe some college should be available to all, Do we really want to continue relying on Executive Orders to legislate? Let's make them play nice together and force compromise, as our Republic was designed to function.

[John Fante]

28. In terms of legality, Warren's plan isn't remotely comparable to

the criminal EOs of Donald Trump. Besides, executive orders didn't begin with him. Obama issued his fair share, for example.

[BlueMTexpat]

35. It would be optimal if that

could happen.

But please don't forget that President Obama had to issue 276 EOs exactly because no one WOULD play together and compromise.

The GOP won't change its colors overnight and especially NOT if ANY Dem is in the WH.

[snowybirdie]

37. Knew Obama

Used EOs. Didn't like it then either, but totally understood why. Let's work towards an ideal rather than falling back on both sides do it! Legislation could limit the number and scope of EOs if we push our newly elected Democratic Congress and Democratic President to do it. We can't keep changing policies and laws depending on what party comes into power. We lose credibility in the world. We are weakened.

[BlueMTexpat]

39. Why not do something immediately

that could help vulnerable people right out of the starting gate? That's what Warren's talking about.

An EO can always be challenged. And if we DO have majorities in both houses of Congress, it can also be enacted into law, which is again, the best outcome of all.

If you want to see the "same-old-same-old" keep on happening, you won't be disappointed. We'll be back to the same frustrations over and over again. Today's GOPers will NOT change their stripes quickly, if at all, no matter how much we might wish for or fantasize about that happening.

But if you want to see change happen, the boat has to be rocked. Gently, but rocked. Warren would give a real push.

I for one am tired of the same-old-same-old.

I am now 76 and it's always "deja-vu-all-over-again." People only realize what they should have voted for afterwards: in 1968; in 1972; in 1980; in 1984; in 1988; in 2000; in 2004; and in 2016.

1968 was the first Presidential election when I was eligible to vote because my birthday was in December in 1964 and the voting age at the time was 21. I voted for the Dem candidate in every election then and since. I intend to vote for the Dem candidate in 2020.

But IMO, the BEST option is Warren.

[still_one]

27. I don't think she can do that. That is pure pandering with promises that can't be met

[BlueMTexpat]

32. There are a lot of things that can be

accomplished via Executive Orders.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/what-is-an-executive-order-/

Elizabeth is a lawyer who understands the law. Unlike some with law degrees who are in Congress, she has actually practiced law as well as being a highly regarded academic and consultant.

She would not have asserted that she could do this without having verified that it would be within her power.

So no, it isn't "pandering with promises that can't be met."

Would any such EO be challenged? Undoubtedly. Would it be upheld? Possibly.

During his Presidency, President Obama issued 276 EOs. For their disposition, please see this link: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama.html

[Politicub]

29. That would be a huge weight lifted from people just getting started with their lives

and people who have been working to pay off their loans for years.

[northoftheborder]

31. The presidential candidates should not be trying to acquire powers that they do not have

Why is that any better than Trump's dictatorship?

[BlueMTexpat]

34. So, was President Obama trying to

acquire powers that he did not have when he issued 276 Executive Orders during his Presidency?

Elizabeth is a lawyer. She knows what she's talking about - unlike too many instant legal experts in this tread.

[The Valley Below]

36. Not good. Presidents should not rule by fiat.

Another blunder.

[John Fante]

41. Because I'm sure Biden will issue no EOs if he's elected president.

[UniteFightBack]

43. Her heart is in the right place and she is a damn fine person but she must not be the nominee. nt

[redqueen]

45. I would say I'm shocked that people are comparing Warren's statement here to Trump's actions.

But I'm actually not.

I'd like to see the details of her proposal, but I have no doubt that she understands the law here clearly and I would never, for even a second, compare this action to anything Trump has done. And it honestly saddens me to see those kinds of statements here. I guess people are getting desperate.

[ecstatic]

47. Lol, I've slowed down my repayments, but even with

the minimum payment, I'll probably be done paying off my loans by January 2021. But congratulations to those who might benefit from this!