美国参议院少数党领袖查克•舒默在11月早些时候表示,他希望当选总统乔•拜登的政府能够免除大多数美国人5万美元的联邦学生贷款,此番言论引起了轰动。放在几年前,美国人几乎无法想象这种想法可以得到舒默这样的温和派重要人士的支持,但最令人惊讶的是,这位参议员主张拜登在担任总统的头100天内,通过行政命令来实行这一举措。
美国目前的联邦学生贷款超过1.7万亿美元,拜登必须能力过硬才能够实施如此大规模的刺激计划,将其一笔勾销,因为共和党所控制的参议院几乎肯定不会在国会通过这项法案。民主党如果可以在佐治亚州接下来的第二轮选举中把两个参议员席位都拿下,就有机会在参议院中占据大半江山,但这种情况远非十拿九稳。如果他们未能成功的话,拜登将不得不依靠行政命令来推行大多数政策。
今年9月,舒默和另一位参议员伊丽莎白•沃伦提出一项决议,声称根据美国在1965年颁布的《高等教育法》(Higher Education Act),总统拥有免除学生贷款债务的行政权力。该法案其中有一条规定,总统任命的教育部部长能够“减少、放弃或免除任何权利、头衔、所有权、留置权或要求”,两位参议员认为这其中包括了学生贷款债务。一些法律学者认为,这一条款可以让其在法庭上经受得住质疑,尤其是在不清楚谁会真正提起诉讼的情况下。无论谁想这么做,都必须阐明不收回这笔债务所带来的危害,而很少人能够证明这一点。
沃伦11月在《华盛顿邮报》(Washington Post)发表了一篇专栏文章,她指出免除学生贷款债务将给数千万美国人带来经济刺激,并有助于缩小种族贫富差距,此举也将因此成为“唯一最有效的行政措施来提供大规模消费驱动刺激”。
在今年早些时候进行的竞选宣传中,拜登认可减免1万美元的学生贷款,但他尚未公开支持舒默和沃伦提议的免除5万美元计划。当最近被问及此事时,拜登拒绝发表评论,反而提到了众议院通过的“卫生和经济复苏综合紧急解决方案法案”(HEROES Act Bill),这是美国应对新冠疫情的第二项刺激计划,但因为参议院的民主党和共和党无法达成协议,所以计划目前被搁置。
不过,像舒默这样坚定的温和派如今提出这一计划,拜登或许也越来越有可能考虑实施行政命令。如果他这么做的话,美国是否真的会像沃伦坚称的那样,迎来经济繁荣并减少种族贫富差距?
美国巴德学院的一批经济学教授曾经在2018年发表一篇名为《免除学生债务的宏观经济效应》(The Macroeconomic Effects of Student Debt Cancellation)的论文,其中便提到了这一主题。研究人员在模拟实验中实施了一次性全额免除学生贷款的政策,取消了包括联邦和私人贷款在内的债务,从而发现了以下宏观经济效应:
国内生产总值平均每年增加860亿至1080亿美元
在10年预测期内,平均失业率下降0.22至0.36个百分点
免除学生债务的头几年里,每年大约新增120万到150万个工作岗位
美国联邦储备委员会小幅上调利率
“研究表明,其他许多积极的溢出效应在这些模拟中并没有被考虑在内。”作者补充道,“这包括成立小型企业、获取学历、成立家庭、提高获得信贷的机会,以及减少家庭受经济周期性低迷的影响。”
然而,这些发现中有几点需要留意。这项特别的模拟免除了全部的债务,而不是每个借款人只减免5万美元(不过需要指出,大约四分之三美国人的学生债务少于5万美元),而且它假定联邦政府接管私人贷款的融资,而舒默和沃伦的计划仅限于联邦债务。不过研究人员也表示:“我们的结果保守估计了免除学生债务所带来的宏观影响”,因此可能已经有一些平衡因素在内。
当涉及到种族贫富差距时,研究表明即使没有巴德学院模拟的那种一次性全免政策,免除学生债务也是可以带来好处的。2015年,一家名为Demos的左倾智库曾经做过一项研究并发现,免除所有家庭的学生债务实际上会让种族贫富差距的中值增加9%,因为白人家庭完成大学和研究生学位的可能性更高。
相反,Demos建议只在年收入低于5万美元的低收入家庭中免除学生贷款。他们发现这一政策能够让低收入家庭中黑人和白人的贫富差距缩减37%。如果进一步消除年收入在2.5万美元或以下的家庭的债务,黑人和白人的贫富差距将会缩小50%。
对于全面免除债务的政策来说,学生贷款人之间的收入差距一向是主要批评点。从本质上来说,拥有最多债务的人最后往往会完成大学或研究生课程,进而获得更高的收入。批评者认为,这些借款人不太需要债务减免,这可能会加剧上述贫富差距。如果拜登试图推行免除学生债务,他将面临很多选择。在限定收入的基础上减免债务,这一中立的折衷做法或许可以确保让那些最需要债务减免的人受益。(财富中文网)
译者:秦维奇
美国参议院少数党领袖查克•舒默在11月早些时候表示,他希望当选总统乔•拜登的政府能够免除大多数美国人5万美元的联邦学生贷款,此番言论引起了轰动。放在几年前,美国人几乎无法想象这种想法可以得到舒默这样的温和派重要人士的支持,但最令人惊讶的是,这位参议员主张拜登在担任总统的头100天内,通过行政命令来实行这一举措。
美国目前的联邦学生贷款超过1.7万亿美元,拜登必须能力过硬才能够实施如此大规模的刺激计划,将其一笔勾销,因为共和党所控制的参议院几乎肯定不会在国会通过这项法案。民主党如果可以在佐治亚州接下来的第二轮选举中把两个参议员席位都拿下,就有机会在参议院中占据大半江山,但这种情况远非十拿九稳。如果他们未能成功的话,拜登将不得不依靠行政命令来推行大多数政策。
今年9月,舒默和另一位参议员伊丽莎白•沃伦提出一项决议,声称根据美国在1965年颁布的《高等教育法》(Higher Education Act),总统拥有免除学生贷款债务的行政权力。该法案其中有一条规定,总统任命的教育部部长能够“减少、放弃或免除任何权利、头衔、所有权、留置权或要求”,两位参议员认为这其中包括了学生贷款债务。一些法律学者认为,这一条款可以让其在法庭上经受得住质疑,尤其是在不清楚谁会真正提起诉讼的情况下。无论谁想这么做,都必须阐明不收回这笔债务所带来的危害,而很少人能够证明这一点。
沃伦11月在《华盛顿邮报》(Washington Post)发表了一篇专栏文章,她指出免除学生贷款债务将给数千万美国人带来经济刺激,并有助于缩小种族贫富差距,此举也将因此成为“唯一最有效的行政措施来提供大规模消费驱动刺激”。
在今年早些时候进行的竞选宣传中,拜登认可减免1万美元的学生贷款,但他尚未公开支持舒默和沃伦提议的免除5万美元计划。当最近被问及此事时,拜登拒绝发表评论,反而提到了众议院通过的“卫生和经济复苏综合紧急解决方案法案”(HEROES Act Bill),这是美国应对新冠疫情的第二项刺激计划,但因为参议院的民主党和共和党无法达成协议,所以计划目前被搁置。
不过,像舒默这样坚定的温和派如今提出这一计划,拜登或许也越来越有可能考虑实施行政命令。如果他这么做的话,美国是否真的会像沃伦坚称的那样,迎来经济繁荣并减少种族贫富差距?
美国巴德学院的一批经济学教授曾经在2018年发表一篇名为《免除学生债务的宏观经济效应》(The Macroeconomic Effects of Student Debt Cancellation)的论文,其中便提到了这一主题。研究人员在模拟实验中实施了一次性全额免除学生贷款的政策,取消了包括联邦和私人贷款在内的债务,从而发现了以下宏观经济效应:
国内生产总值平均每年增加860亿至1080亿美元
在10年预测期内,平均失业率下降0.22至0.36个百分点
免除学生债务的头几年里,每年大约新增120万到150万个工作岗位
美国联邦储备委员会小幅上调利率
“研究表明,其他许多积极的溢出效应在这些模拟中并没有被考虑在内。”作者补充道,“这包括成立小型企业、获取学历、成立家庭、提高获得信贷的机会,以及减少家庭受经济周期性低迷的影响。”
然而,这些发现中有几点需要留意。这项特别的模拟免除了全部的债务,而不是每个借款人只减免5万美元(不过需要指出,大约四分之三美国人的学生债务少于5万美元),而且它假定联邦政府接管私人贷款的融资,而舒默和沃伦的计划仅限于联邦债务。不过研究人员也表示:“我们的结果保守估计了免除学生债务所带来的宏观影响”,因此可能已经有一些平衡因素在内。
当涉及到种族贫富差距时,研究表明即使没有巴德学院模拟的那种一次性全免政策,免除学生债务也是可以带来好处的。2015年,一家名为Demos的左倾智库曾经做过一项研究并发现,免除所有家庭的学生债务实际上会让种族贫富差距的中值增加9%,因为白人家庭完成大学和研究生学位的可能性更高。
相反,Demos建议只在年收入低于5万美元的低收入家庭中免除学生贷款。他们发现这一政策能够让低收入家庭中黑人和白人的贫富差距缩减37%。如果进一步消除年收入在2.5万美元或以下的家庭的债务,黑人和白人的贫富差距将会缩小50%。
对于全面免除债务的政策来说,学生贷款人之间的收入差距一向是主要批评点。从本质上来说,拥有最多债务的人最后往往会完成大学或研究生课程,进而获得更高的收入。批评者认为,这些借款人不太需要债务减免,这可能会加剧上述贫富差距。如果拜登试图推行免除学生债务,他将面临很多选择。在限定收入的基础上减免债务,这一中立的折衷做法或许可以确保让那些最需要债务减免的人受益。(财富中文网)
译者:秦维奇
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer caused a stir earlier November when he stated his hope for President-elect Joe Biden's administration to forgive $50,000 of federal student loan debt for the majority of Americans. Such an idea endorsed by a major moderate party member like Schumer was practically unthinkable just a few years ago, but the most surprising element was the senator's assertion that it could be done by executive order within the first 100 days of Biden's presidency.
The ability to institute such a sweeping stimulus—there is currently more than $1.7 trillion in federal student debt—with the flick of Biden's pen is huge, because a Republican-controlled Senate would almost certainly not pass it as legislation through Congress. Democrats have a chance to win the majority if they capture both seats in Georgia's upcoming runoff elections, but that's far from guaranteed. If they don't succeed, Biden will have to rely on executive action to carry out most of his governance.
In September, Schumer and Sen. Elizabeth Warren unveiled a resolution arguing that the president has existing executive authority to cancel student loan debt thanks to the Higher Education Act of 1965. A passage in the legislation states that the president-appointed Secretary of Education can "compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand," which, the senators say, includes student loan debt. Some legal scholars say utilizing this provision could survive a challenge in the courts, especially because it's unclear who would actually bring a case to sue. Whoever did would have to demonstrate harm from not collecting this debt, and few could make that argument.
In an op-ed published in the Washington Post at November, Warren wrote that canceling student loan debt would give tens of millions of Americans an economic boost and help narrow the racial wealth gap, making it "the single most effective executive action available to provide massive consumer-driver stimulus."
Biden endorsed $10,000 in student loan forgiveness while on the campaign trail earlier this year, but has not offered any public support of Schumer and Warren's $50,000 plan. When asked about it recently, he declined to comment and instead pointed to the House-passed HEROES Act Bill, the second coronavirus stimulus package that currently lies dead in the water due to Republicans and Democrats in the Senate unable to compromise on a deal.
But the fact that a staunch moderate like Schumer is now in support of such a plan suggests a growing possibility that Biden would consider the executive order. If he did, would the economy really flourish, reducing the racial wealth gap, as Warren insists?
That was the subject of a 2018 paper "The Macroeconomic Effects of Student Debt Cancellation," authored by a group of economics professors working with Bard College. In a simulation using a one-time total student loan cancellation policy including federal and private loans, the researchers found the macroeconomic effects included:
an average GDP boost of $86 billion to $108 billion per year
a reduction of the average unemployment rate by 0.22 to 0.36 percentage points over a 10-year forecast
roughly 1.2 million to 1.5 million newly-created jobs per year in the first few years following student debt elimination
modest rises in the Federal Reserve's interest rates
"Research suggests many other positive spillover effects that are not accounted for in these simulations," the authors added, "including increases in small business formation, degree attainment, and household formation, as well as improved access to credit and reduced household vulnerability to business cycle downturns."
There are a couple of caveats to these findings, though. This particular simulation forgave all total debt rather than just $50,000 per borrower (though it's worth noting around three in four Americans have less than $50,000 in student debt), and it assumed that the federal government took over the financing of privately-owned loans on the behalf of borrowers, while Schumer and Warren's plan is just limited to federal debt. But the researchers noted that "our results provide a conservative estimate of the macro effects of student debt liberation," so there may be some semblance of balance there.
When it comes to the racial wealth gap, research suggests that eliminating student debt can be beneficial even if not done with a full-scale one-time policy like the Bard simulation. A 2015 study conducted by the left-leaning Demos think tank found that eliminating student debt for all households would actually increase the median racial wealth gap by 9% because white families have a higher likelihood of completing college and graduate degree programs at a higher percent.
Instead, Demos proposed eliminating student debt only among low-wealth households making less than $50,000 a year. Demos found that such a policy would reduce Black-white wealth disparity by nearly 37% among low-wealth households. And taking it a step further by eliminating debt for households making $25,000 or less would reduce the Black-white wealth gap by a staggering 50%.
This income disparity among student-loan borrowers has been one of the main criticisms of a sweeping debt cancellation policy. Essentially, people who have the most debt tend to complete college or graduate programs and go on to earn higher income as a result. Critics argue that those borrowers are in lesser need of debt forgiveness, which could add to the wealth gaps outlined above. Should Biden attempt to push forward with student debt cancellation, he will have a number of choices available to him. Limited forgiveness with a cap on income could present a middle-ground compromise that ensures those who need debt cancellation the most will benefit.