It’s Groundhog Day yet again for the Biden administration, but the only shadow looming large is their latest, botched attempt at student loan forgiveness.
For the second time in less than a year, President Biden has single-handedly canceled student loan payments for thousands of borrowers. Like his last plan, which was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, Biden’s latest proposal was implemented without a single debate, hearing or vote from Congress.
To make a bad situation worse, Biden’s latest debt forgiveness plan emerges as his grip on young voters is unraveling, possibly setting the stage for them to join Team Trump in 2024. Poll after poll has shown young voters abandoning Biden in his reelection efforts, with Trump gaining an edge among voters under 35.
So why tread down this path again, one that is almost guaranteed to end up in the court system, where the policy will likely meet its doom?
Because it’s a calculated move to save face with young voters ahead of the election.
Biden’s dip in popularity among young voters did not happen overnight. It’s been a gradual decline throughout his presidency.
Among issues, young voters feel let down on several fronts, notably his perceived inaction on climate change and failing to solidify Roe v. Wade at the federal level. Additionally, a striking 70 percent of voters under 35 disapprove of how Biden has handled the Israel-Hamas war.
However, much of the existing discontent among young voters stems from Biden’s first go at student loan forgiveness. His efforts to cancel loans for over 40 million borrowers in 2023 wasn’t just an attempt at keeping a campaign promise — it was a linchpin of trust between Biden and young voters.
The collapse of these efforts, culminating in an unfavorable ruling by the Supreme Court, did not just breed a sense of betrayal of young voters. It drastically narrowed the scope for Biden’s future moves on student loan forgiveness.
Enter Biden’s SAVE Plan. Under SAVE’s framework, a borrower’s monthly loan payment total is based off their income, potentially reducing payments to zero for thousands of low earners. Additionally, SAVE is set to offer borrowers a faster track to total debt forgiveness.
Unfortunately, like Biden’s first attempt, the SAVE Plan treads on thin constitutional ice. Congress, after all, holds the purse strings, while the Executive Branch is relegated to managing expenditures.
This separation of powers is not lost on leaders within Biden’s own party. Take, for instance, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 2021 remarks: “People think the President of the United States can forgive debt. He cannot. He may postpone or delay, but the power to forgive debt lies squarely with Congress.”
Also consider those who chose alternative paths, bypassing college altogether, or those who saved to graduate debt-free. Why should these millions be compelled to shoulder the financial burden of others’ education, particularly when many of these graduates are likely to out-earn them over a lifetime?
Asking them, or any taxpayer, to subsidize the education of others isn’t just illogical, it’s downright unfair.
It seems likely the SAVE Plan will meet the same end as Biden’s first attempt at student loan forgiveness, but what does Biden care? He just needs it to stick around until November.
If the president really wanted to solve the student debt crisis, he’d square off with the larger, underlying issue: the disproportionate rise in education costs. But that’s not what the SAVE Plan is really about.
In 2020, Biden clinched young voters by a 24-point margin running on a platform that included debt forgiveness. And the GOP hasn’t won the youth vote since Ronald Reagan.
The SAVE Plan is a lifeline for Biden’s political fortunes — a political strategy that likely won’t hold up under the scrutiny of voters or the law.
Jacob Lane is a non-profit consultant and Republican strategist. He has worked for GOP campaigns at the federal, state and local levels, as well as with various PACs. He is a contributor for Young Voices and a Newsmax Insider.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller.