Month: August 2022

On Wednesday, President Joe Biden unveiled a plan to forgive $10,000 in federally held student loan debt for borrowers making under $125,000 per year and $20,000 for recipients of need-based Pell Grants. All told, the policy could affect as many as 43 million people and cost the government at least $300 billion.

Much of the opposition to that announcement has centered specifically on money—money that taxpayers will be on the hook to repay, money that will be used to ease the burden of people with six-figure salaries, and money that borrowers have already repaid and now won’t have forgiven. To that last point, plenty of people who repaid their loans are now objecting that if they’d known relief was on the horizon, they simply would’ve waited.

That calculus is understandable, but it runs far beyond finances. In the face of Biden’s announcement, many college graduates who made strategic choices to avoid taking on debt in the first place are now forced to wonder if those sacrifices have put them ahead after all.

I always knew I would one day go to college. When it came time for me to decide where to apply, I first thought about things like geography, variety of majors, study abroad opportunities, and the size of the student body. Those factors came to shape my list of dream schools.

How I would afford any of them, I had no clue.

By 2018, my freshman year, students at public four-year colleges were getting charged over $21,000 as in-state attendees and over $37,000 as out-of-state attendees, room and board included. Private four-years charged students over $48,000 on average. The average student who graduated with a bachelor’s degree from a public university in late 2021—as I did—borrowed over $32,000.

My parents eventually convinced me that starting my adult life that far in the hole wasn’t worth the tradeoffs (nor was it a serious option for them to shell out heavily for my degree, given our household income and down-the-road education costs for my siblings). Student loans were off the table. I began to search for a way to afford a good school.

That kicked off a long and winding journey. In my final years of high school, I did all I could to improve my chances of getting merit aid. I took the ACT and SAT a combined five times, gunning for a top score, taking dozens of practice exams in between each testing day. I took seven Advanced Placement (AP) exams. As a homeschooler, I bought used prep books and taught myself the material using a medley of YouTube channels and online guides.

All the while, I quietly retired the list of schools I truly wanted to attend and created a realistic one. Every day, I hunted for a deal. I emailed and called admissions counselors to see if their schools offered specific aid or guidelines for homeschooled students. I obsessed over my chances of securing a merit scholarship at certain colleges based on my standardized test scores and grades. I scoured College Board forums for tips that might help me find a school—any school—that I could attend without taking out loans.

Would I have spent less time on standardized tests and APs if I hadn’t been so concerned about securing a cheap education? Yes. Several of my teenage years were overtaken by me figuring out how to afford the bulk of my adult life. Would I have aimed higher, applied to elite and expensive schools, and felt willing to take out loans if I knew that debt relief would be coming? Of course. Many students who chose a similar path as I did are now looking back on their time in college with a tinge of regret for the experiences we sacrificed.

When it came time to submit college applications, I picked a few schools where I thought I’d have a decent shot at securing merit aid. They were as close to my preferences as I could justify, but I’d since taken the attitude that those preferences were secondary to financial burden. It soon became clear that I should attend the local university, live at home, and commute to campus. On the basis of my test scores and grades, that university awarded me $35,000 annually in merit aid.

Through the aid and some strategic choices, my college education never cost more than $2,000 per year, which my parents graciously paid and I helped mitigate by continuing to apply for scholarships. I never lived on campus. I took on heavy course loads and cashed in on AP credits to finish school a semester early. I didn’t study abroad in college. I dropped a second major and elected not to participate in language programs and research opportunities so I could finish school earlier. At times, I worked three jobs to afford travel to internship and conference opportunities, as well as the nontuition costs of my education.

Biden’s announcement that the federal government will forgive heaps of student loan debt makes those choices less necessary in retrospect. None of this is to say that I would’ve made more reckless choices in high school and college if I knew I’d eventually be off the hook for student loan debt. Nor is it to suggest that my circumstances weren’t fortunate or that people who take out student loans always have good alternatives. But it leaves me wondering which opportunities I unnecessarily gave up in the name of saving and scrimping. Could I have learned another language? Lived abroad? Taken an additional major? Conducted more independent research? Spent more time building professional connections rather than speeding through required courses?

These are questions that many frugal graduates are now asking themselves with a certain amount of frustration. Critics may argue that this is unsympathetic. “I died of cancer,” some chide, “but even though we’ve found the cure, I want people to keep dying of cancer.”

This is overly simplistic. Yesterday’s debt cancellation announcement is less curing cancer so much as it’s a placebo. Students will keep borrowing massive amounts and will be less inclined to make financial sacrifices now that the relief precedent has been set. Colleges won’t have any incentive to lower their costs, which are driven up by government-subsidized student loans. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget even forecasts a return to current student debt levels just a few years from now. The people currently celebrating relief will come to feel the downstream consequences, whether in the form of inflation, higher taxes, or reduced government spending on the programs they favor as the deficit grows ever higher.

The choices that some of us made to avoid high college bills have distorted far more than just our college years. High school was fundamentally different and far more stressful, spent fixated on navigating a financially imposing future. The things we gave up in college very well may have put us at a professional disadvantage, placing us behind peers who borrowed to attend more prestigious schools and had the breathing room to participate in experiences that better equipped them for long-term success.

Graduating debt-free was one of the best parts of my college experience—and just four years since I started my degree, it’s already more difficult to reproduce. The merit scholarship that made my cost-saving journey possible has been reduced and tuition has gone up. I don’t wish severe sacrifice or struggle on anyone who hopes to attend college. But I don’t think concerns about fairness are frivolous, and I don’t think they should be waved away as people cheer yesterday’s forgiveness announcement. This one-off cancellation isn’t the way to make higher education more accessible and affordable—systemic reform is.

The post The Student Loan Debate Isn't Just About Money. It's About the Experiences Students Like Me Sacrificed. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/1AWQECH
via IFTTT

From Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart (S.D. Fla.) today in U.S. v. Sealed Search Warrant:

I have reviewed the Government’s memorandum of law and proposed redactions to the search warrant Affidavit. ECF No. 89. I am fully advised in the entire record, including the contents of the Affidavit.

1. I find that the Government has met its burden of showing a compelling reason/good cause to seal portions of the Affidavit because disclosure would reveal (1) the identities of witnesses, law enforcement agents, and uncharged parties, (2) the investigation’s strategy, direction, scope, sources, and methods, and (3) grand jury information protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). As further explanation for this finding, I incorporate by reference my Order on Motions to Unseal. ECF No. 80; see also United States v. Kooistra, 796 F.2d 1390, 1391 (11th Cir. 1986) (findings must be “sufficient for a reviewing court to be able to determine, in conjunction with a review of the sealed documents themselves, what important interest or interests the district court found sufficiently compelling to justify the denial of public access.”).

2. Based on my independent review of the Affidavit, I further find that the Government has met its burden of showing that its proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve the Government’s legitimate interest in the integrity of the ongoing investigation and are the least onerous alternative to sealing the entire Affidavit.

WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED that:

1. The Intervenors’ Motion to Unseal [ECF No. 4] is GRANTED IN PART.

2. On or before noon Eastern time on Friday, August 26, 2022, the Government shall file in the public docket a version of the Affidavit containing the redactions proposed in ECF No. 89-1.

What exactly this means (i.e., just how much will be redacted and how much will be disclosed), we’ll learn tomorrow, since for now ECF Nos. 89 & 89-1 themselves remain sealed.

The post Latest Order Regarding Unsealing of Mar-A-Lago Search Warrant Affidavit appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/dRiUhzk
via IFTTT

Congress’ annual August recess is a good time to think about the big picture. Most Americans want government reformed for the better. We notice its many breakdowns, dysfunctions and failures to deliver on promises. Yet politicians of both parties usually only talk about more new programs, more spending, and more regulations. Will either party listen, or will they continue down their destructive and unpopular path?

In case some of them are listening, I have a few ideas.

Paul Light, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, writes that while a small majority of Americans prefer that government shrink, what they want more is reform. He reports that public demand for “very major” government reform is up to 60 percent from 37 percent in 1997, when the Pew Research Center first asked this question. Meanwhile, those who believe the government is “basically sound and needs only some reform” is down to 28 precent from 58 percent. All of that while confidence in government to do the right thing hovers around a historic low.

In that context, it makes sense that so many policy proposals from both parties are met with skepticism about the ability of a bloated and debt-burdened government to deliver. The good news is that scholars and policy people have plenty of sound reform ideas. In the 1980s and ’90s, Republicans, for instance, talked about getting rid of various agencies or stopping the federal government’s accumulation of power by devolving functions back to the states and the private sector. Later, they tried to reform Social Security by moving to a system of private accounts. While it failed, these politicians put forward a plan to try to improve, and not just grow, the government.

None of that is being proposed today. Republicans and conservatives are now more interested in expanding rather than reforming the government with programs straight out of the Democrats’ agenda (for example: federal paid leave, the expanded child tax credit, subsidies to businesses, and various cronyist regulations packaged as a way to fight China).

That’s why today I will propose three specific reforms. They aren’t all new, but each is important.

First, I would end all forms of government-granted privileges, whether these are subsidies, guaranteed loans, tax credits, or bailouts. Each type of handout is unfair not only to the taxpayers who foot the bill, but also to the many companies that do not receive them. Such privileges are typically directed to companies that are not just big and politically well-connected but are already very successful at doing what they are given the handouts to do. These handouts distort the economy in all kinds of ways without even, in many cases, producing the promised results.

This reform might require a constitutional amendment forbidding Congress from producing any law or regulation that discriminates among firms that are similarly situated. Such an amendment would require that taxes, regulations, and subsidies apply to all firms, and not just a few, of a certain type. Ideally, this nondiscrimination clause should apply also to individuals.

But our world isn’t ideal, so I’ll reduce the scope of my second reform to the tax code. Indeed, this code now unfairly treats individuals who make the same income differently. Depending on whether they have kids or paid for their homes with mortgages or not, how they earn their incomes and how much they save or invest, two people making the exact same amount can face very different tax burdens.

This complicated and unfair tax system leads to tax avoidance, evasion and distortions—and thus lower economic growth. Our tax code needs fundamental reform. There are many ways to go about it but ignoring the problem shouldn’t be an option.

Finally, we should move away from all age-based eligibility criteria, such as the ones used for Social Security and Medicare. Hear me out: Age-based programs made sense when not working due to old age meant being poor (and in fact seniors used to be overrepresented in the lowest income quintile). But no longer. Seniors today disproportionately occupy the top income quintile. So, we should now move all programs to need-based criteria, which would still allow poor seniors to receive benefits.

Many will disagree with these three ideas. That’s fine. But please, let’s keep the conversation focused on making government better and not just bigger. That’s what Americans want.

COPYRIGHT 2022 CREATORS.COM.

The post A Few Ideas for the Better Government Americans Desperately Want appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/UT2NmrI
via IFTTT

William Faulkner once famously wrote, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

A similar sensibility pervades the work of The Kingdoms of Savannah, is set in his native Georgia and features a great contemporary update of Faulkner’s themes. He is also the creator of the massively popular event series, radio show, and podcast The Moth, which has redefined personal storytelling in the digital age. Born in 1954, Green has published three previous novels, including The Juror and The Caveman’s Valentine, both of which were turned into movies. He also ran a company that sold clothes made from rare fabrics handwoven in Guatemala.

The Kingdoms of Savannah is set in the contemporary South and features an old-line aristocratic family whose fortunes and members have dissipated over the years, in part because of hidden secrets and an inability to move on. At the start of the novel, there’s a murder that implicates the power structure of Savannah, and the result is a page-turning thriller about race, class, and American history.

Green appeared at a recent Reason Speakeasy, a live, monthly, unscripted conversation with outspoken defenders of free thinking and heterodoxy in an era of conformity and groupthink. He talks with Nick Gillespie about his experiences on the frontier of creative expression and the ways in which the past doggedly informs the present, whether in his native Georgia or post-COVID New York City.

They also discuss how he came to create The Moth, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary and has become nothing less than a global phenomenon.

The post How George Dawes Greene's The Moth Reinvented Storytelling appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/WLijgo1
via IFTTT