By Ariana Figueroa
The unanimous ruling by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis came after the six states — Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina — argued that the loan relief program threatens those states’ future tax revenues and that the plan by the Biden administration overrode congressional authority.
“The injunction will remain in effect until further order of this court or the Supreme Court of the United States,” according to the order by a three-judge panel.
Those judges are Bobby E. Shepherd and Ralph R. Erickson, both President George W. Bush appointees, and L. Steven Grasz, a President Donald Trump appointee.
The White House in a statement defended the program, which has been the subject of several lawsuits.
“We are confident in our legal authority for the student debt relief program and believe it is necessary to help borrowers most in need as they recover from the pandemic,” said White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. “The Administration will continue to fight these baseless lawsuits by Republican officials and special interests and will never stop fighting to support working and middle class Americans.”
The Biden administration stopped accepting applications for its student debt relief program last week following a decision from a Texas judge on Thursday that struck down the program, calling it “unconstitutional.” The Department of Justice has filed an appeal to that decision. Current applications are being held by the Department of Education.
Missouri connection
However, the appeals court found that in Missouri, that state had shown likely injury, as a major loan servicer — Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, known as MOHELA — that is based in the state would lose revenue because of the debt relief program.
“Due to MOHELA’s financial obligations to the State treasury, the challenged student loan debt cancellation presents a threatened financial harm to the State of Missouri,” according to the panel. “Missouri, therefore, likely has legal standing to bring its claim. And since at least one party likely has standing, we need not address the standing of the other States.”
The three-judge panel decided against restricting the injunction to those six states because it would “be impractical and would fail to provide complete relief,” and because MOHELA has loans nationwide.
“Given MOHELA’s national role in servicing accounts, we discern no workable path in this emergency posture for narrowing the scope of relief,” according to the order.
More than 43 million Americans have student loan debt, and the Federal Reserve estimates that the total U.S. student loan debt is more than $1.76 trillion.
The Biden administration’s plan would forgive up to $10,000 in loan forgiveness for eligible student loan borrowers, while the recipients of Pell Grants could apply for up to $20,000 in debt relief. The program is intended to assist borrowers who, in 2021, earned no more than $125,000 per year, and couples who earned up to $250,000 per year.
More than 26 million student loan borrowers applied for the program, and 16 million have been accepted, according to Jean-Pierre.
Student loan repayments have been paused since early 2020, due to the coronavirus pandemic, and are set to resume Jan. 1. The Biden administration has not announced if it will extend a pause on student loan repayments.
“This is a big win for our office and for Americans across the country,” Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said, “and we will keep up the fight.”
Why should we (taxpayers) pay for this? We already pay for so much nonsense, how is it fair? Sounds like discrimination to all the hard working people that paid their contractual debt. I didn’t go to college because I couldn’t afford it, that it no one’s problem other than mine, it’s not my parents fault or society’s fault it is what it is. So know you want my taxes to go to other’s….. sounds like a load of hog wash to me.
ReplyDeleteIt is a Demoncat election carrot, nothing more. Now it will dissolve without a trace, just like every other Demoncat campaign lie.
ReplyDelete@6:28 Do you have kids? Do you know people with kids? Is it fair that I pay for their schooling and 'free' meals? Don't you think those kids should be screwed?
ReplyDeleteAlso, we paid for all of those roads you never drive on, and emergency services you may never use. But yes, let's draw a line at improving standards for our fellow citizens.
Yes
DeleteYes
Yes on Schooling I assume you went and benefited
Yes on free meals not the kids fault
Yes on roads
Yes on emergency services
Back to what I said it’s a contractual obligation…
I would sure hope that going to college and receiving a higher education that you could pay back what you owe.
That is if you have a real degree and didn’t study something like dinosaur farts… I’m outta here I have to go to work
LMAO at "Demoncat" I've heard you people call them lots of other names, but never a Demon Cat.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans illiteracy is sad but also hilarious.
https://ppp-loan.info/
ReplyDeleteLook it all up if you can handle it.
No one had a problem with this hand out.
How about all that unemployment at an extra $600 per week for 6-12 months. Did you get a piece of that gravy train?
Helping people just isn’t the same as helping corporations. Corporate welfare is bigger than any other hand out in this country and no one complains.
Sad as can be.
This is corporate welfare and no one has complained. Going on everyday in Joplin.
ReplyDeleteBruce Smith: Numbers don't add up for another Joplin TIF
By Bruce Smith May 27, 2015
In case you are unaware of it, a company called RKS Development wants to redevelop approximately 83 acres along South Main Street (Hearnes Boulevard) in Joplin.
All of this property is south of 32nd Street and north of Interstate 44. Currently 78 percent of this land is zoned as residential or agricultural, but RKS wants 96 percent of it to be rezoned as commercial by using a tax increment financing district.
In a simplified description, a TIF is a device that is used to provide money to subsidize development. The developer gets reimbursed money to make the project more “cost-effective.”
Cities are usually in favor of TIFs because they provide an increase in tax revenue during the duration of the TIF — typically 16 to 23 years. Sounds like a good deal for the developer and the city. Unfortunately, it isn’t such a good deal for the residents of the community. TIFs have become such an overused (and ineffective) tool for development that California, which first started implementing TIFs, has banned them. If you want to know what TIFs are all about in Missouri, I recommend that you search www.showmeinstitute.org.
Currently 3,203 acres in Joplin are in TIF districts. That is 16 percent of the total land area in the city limits. The developers want to turn South Main Street into another retail district, it seems, solely based on the relocation of Mercy Hospital. Joplin has an abundance of unoccupied commercial lease space in established shopping districts (the mall, downtown, the Range Line and 32nd Street corridors), yet developers are intent on building more including the 20th Street redevelopment, the Hope Valley TIF (adjacent to Furniture Row south of the Interstate) and now South Main Street.
The median household income in Joplin in 2012 was $35,889, which is only 69 percent of the national median income of $51,939 for the same year. The population of Joplin as of 2013 was 50,789. It has grown by 278 people since the tornado of May 2011, or less than three-tenths of 1 percent annually. With figures like that, where are the customers going to come from for all these new businesses? Currently the majority of property on South Main consists of older neighborhoods. The developers are calling this a “blighted area.” Their definition of that term is 78 words long in the plan they are submitting to the city. That phrase manages to be all-inclusive yet vague and subject to interpretation at the same time.
One of the definitions for the word “blight” in Webster’s Dictionary is “to destroy.” How appropriate. In my opinion, not only is this new development unnecessary, it will adversely impact the quality of life for people living in or near the South Main corridor and will not be in the best interest of the residents of Joplin.
There was a TIF board meeting held April 30, where I managed to get a copy of the developers’ plans. On page 15 under “Specific Plan Objectives,” No. 8 says “to stimulate development which would not occur without tax increment financing assistance.” On the same page, under Section VIII Plan Implementation Part A, Site Acquisition states: “The exercise of eminent domain shall not be used in the acquisition of any substantial portion of the redevelopment area.”
There will be a TIF board meeting at 5:30 p.m. Thursday in the City Council chambers at City Hall. I urge all concerned residents to attend.
Bruce Smith lives in Joplin.