美國參議院少數黨領袖查克?舒默在11月早些時候表示,他希望當選總統喬?拜登的政府能夠免除大多數美國人5萬美元的聯邦學生貸款,此番言論引起了轟動。放在幾年前,美國人幾乎無法想象這種想法可以得到舒默這樣的溫和派重要人士的支持,但最令人驚訝的是,這位參議員主張拜登在擔任總統的頭100天內,通過行政命令來實行這一舉措。
美國目前的聯邦學生貸款超過1.7萬億美元,拜登必須能力過硬才能夠實施如此大規模的刺激計劃,將其一筆勾銷,因為共和黨所控制的參議院幾乎肯定不會在國會通過這項法案。民主黨如果可以在佐治亞州接下來的第二輪選舉中把兩個參議員席位都拿下,就有機會在參議院中占據大半江山,但這種情況遠非十拿九穩。如果他們未能成功的話,拜登將不得不依靠行政命令來推行大多數政策。
今年9月,舒默和另一位參議員伊麗莎白?沃倫提出一項決議,聲稱根據美國在1965年頒布的《高等教育法》(Higher Education Act),總統擁有免除學生貸款債務的行政權力。該法案其中有一條規定,總統任命的教育部部長能夠“減少、放棄或免除任何權利、頭銜、所有權、留置權或要求”,兩位參議員認為這其中包括了學生貸款債務。一些法律學者認為,這一條款可以讓其在法庭上經受得住質疑,尤其是在不清楚誰會真正提起訴訟的情況下。無論誰想這么做,都必須闡明不收回這筆債務所帶來的危害,而很少人能夠證明這一點。
沃倫11月在《華盛頓郵報》(Washington Post)發表了一篇專欄文章,她指出免除學生貸款債務將給數千萬美國人帶來經濟刺激,并有助于縮小種族貧富差距,此舉也將因此成為“唯一最有效的行政措施來提供大規模消費驅動刺激”。
在今年早些時候進行的競選宣傳中,拜登認可減免1萬美元的學生貸款,但他尚未公開支持舒默和沃倫提議的免除5萬美元計劃。當最近被問及此事時,拜登拒絕發表評論,反而提到了眾議院通過的“衛生和經濟復蘇綜合緊急解決方案法案”(HEROES Act Bill),這是美國應對新冠疫情的第二項刺激計劃,但因為參議院的民主黨和共和黨無法達成協議,所以計劃目前被擱置。
不過,像舒默這樣堅定的溫和派如今提出這一計劃,拜登或許也越來越有可能考慮實施行政命令。如果他這么做的話,美國是否真的會像沃倫堅稱的那樣,迎來經濟繁榮并減少種族貧富差距?
美國巴德學院的一批經濟學教授曾經在2018年發表一篇名為《免除學生債務的宏觀經濟效應》(The Macroeconomic Effects of Student Debt Cancellation)的論文,其中便提到了這一主題。研究人員在模擬實驗中實施了一次性全額免除學生貸款的政策,取消了包括聯邦和私人貸款在內的債務,從而發現了以下宏觀經濟效應:
國內生產總值平均每年增加860億至1080億美元
在10年預測期內,平均失業率下降0.22至0.36個百分點
免除學生債務的頭幾年里,每年大約新增120萬到150萬個工作崗位
美國聯邦儲備委員會小幅上調利率
“研究表明,其他許多積極的溢出效應在這些模擬中并沒有被考慮在內。”作者補充道,“這包括成立小型企業、獲取學歷、成立家庭、提高獲得信貸的機會,以及減少家庭受經濟周期性低迷的影響?!?/p>
然而,這些發現中有幾點需要留意。這項特別的模擬免除了全部的債務,而不是每個借款人只減免5萬美元(不過需要指出,大約四分之三美國人的學生債務少于5萬美元),而且它假定聯邦政府接管私人貸款的融資,而舒默和沃倫的計劃僅限于聯邦債務。不過研究人員也表示:“我們的結果保守估計了免除學生債務所帶來的宏觀影響”,因此可能已經有一些平衡因素在內。
當涉及到種族貧富差距時,研究表明即使沒有巴德學院模擬的那種一次性全免政策,免除學生債務也是可以帶來好處的。2015年,一家名為Demos的左傾智庫曾經做過一項研究并發現,免除所有家庭的學生債務實際上會讓種族貧富差距的中值增加9%,因為白人家庭完成大學和研究生學位的可能性更高。
相反,Demos建議只在年收入低于5萬美元的低收入家庭中免除學生貸款。他們發現這一政策能夠讓低收入家庭中黑人和白人的貧富差距縮減37%。如果進一步消除年收入在2.5萬美元或以下的家庭的債務,黑人和白人的貧富差距將會縮小50%。
對于全面免除債務的政策來說,學生貸款人之間的收入差距一向是主要批評點。從本質上來說,擁有最多債務的人最后往往會完成大學或研究生課程,進而獲得更高的收入。批評者認為,這些借款人不太需要債務減免,這可能會加劇上述貧富差距。如果拜登試圖推行免除學生債務,他將面臨很多選擇。在限定收入的基礎上減免債務,這一中立的折衷做法或許可以確保讓那些最需要債務減免的人受益。(財富中文網)
譯者:秦維奇
美國參議院少數黨領袖查克?舒默在11月早些時候表示,他希望當選總統喬?拜登的政府能夠免除大多數美國人5萬美元的聯邦學生貸款,此番言論引起了轟動。放在幾年前,美國人幾乎無法想象這種想法可以得到舒默這樣的溫和派重要人士的支持,但最令人驚訝的是,這位參議員主張拜登在擔任總統的頭100天內,通過行政命令來實行這一舉措。
美國目前的聯邦學生貸款超過1.7萬億美元,拜登必須能力過硬才能夠實施如此大規模的刺激計劃,將其一筆勾銷,因為共和黨所控制的參議院幾乎肯定不會在國會通過這項法案。民主黨如果可以在佐治亞州接下來的第二輪選舉中把兩個參議員席位都拿下,就有機會在參議院中占據大半江山,但這種情況遠非十拿九穩。如果他們未能成功的話,拜登將不得不依靠行政命令來推行大多數政策。
今年9月,舒默和另一位參議員伊麗莎白?沃倫提出一項決議,聲稱根據美國在1965年頒布的《高等教育法》(Higher Education Act),總統擁有免除學生貸款債務的行政權力。該法案其中有一條規定,總統任命的教育部部長能夠“減少、放棄或免除任何權利、頭銜、所有權、留置權或要求”,兩位參議員認為這其中包括了學生貸款債務。一些法律學者認為,這一條款可以讓其在法庭上經受得住質疑,尤其是在不清楚誰會真正提起訴訟的情況下。無論誰想這么做,都必須闡明不收回這筆債務所帶來的危害,而很少人能夠證明這一點。
沃倫11月在《華盛頓郵報》(Washington Post)發表了一篇專欄文章,她指出免除學生貸款債務將給數千萬美國人帶來經濟刺激,并有助于縮小種族貧富差距,此舉也將因此成為“唯一最有效的行政措施來提供大規模消費驅動刺激”。
在今年早些時候進行的競選宣傳中,拜登認可減免1萬美元的學生貸款,但他尚未公開支持舒默和沃倫提議的免除5萬美元計劃。當最近被問及此事時,拜登拒絕發表評論,反而提到了眾議院通過的“衛生和經濟復蘇綜合緊急解決方案法案”(HEROES Act Bill),這是美國應對新冠疫情的第二項刺激計劃,但因為參議院的民主黨和共和黨無法達成協議,所以計劃目前被擱置。
不過,像舒默這樣堅定的溫和派如今提出這一計劃,拜登或許也越來越有可能考慮實施行政命令。如果他這么做的話,美國是否真的會像沃倫堅稱的那樣,迎來經濟繁榮并減少種族貧富差距?
美國巴德學院的一批經濟學教授曾經在2018年發表一篇名為《免除學生債務的宏觀經濟效應》(The Macroeconomic Effects of Student Debt Cancellation)的論文,其中便提到了這一主題。研究人員在模擬實驗中實施了一次性全額免除學生貸款的政策,取消了包括聯邦和私人貸款在內的債務,從而發現了以下宏觀經濟效應:
國內生產總值平均每年增加860億至1080億美元
在10年預測期內,平均失業率下降0.22至0.36個百分點
免除學生債務的頭幾年里,每年大約新增120萬到150萬個工作崗位
美國聯邦儲備委員會小幅上調利率
“研究表明,其他許多積極的溢出效應在這些模擬中并沒有被考慮在內?!弊髡哐a充道,“這包括成立小型企業、獲取學歷、成立家庭、提高獲得信貸的機會,以及減少家庭受經濟周期性低迷的影響。”
然而,這些發現中有幾點需要留意。這項特別的模擬免除了全部的債務,而不是每個借款人只減免5萬美元(不過需要指出,大約四分之三美國人的學生債務少于5萬美元),而且它假定聯邦政府接管私人貸款的融資,而舒默和沃倫的計劃僅限于聯邦債務。不過研究人員也表示:“我們的結果保守估計了免除學生債務所帶來的宏觀影響”,因此可能已經有一些平衡因素在內。
當涉及到種族貧富差距時,研究表明即使沒有巴德學院模擬的那種一次性全免政策,免除學生債務也是可以帶來好處的。2015年,一家名為Demos的左傾智庫曾經做過一項研究并發現,免除所有家庭的學生債務實際上會讓種族貧富差距的中值增加9%,因為白人家庭完成大學和研究生學位的可能性更高。
相反,Demos建議只在年收入低于5萬美元的低收入家庭中免除學生貸款。他們發現這一政策能夠讓低收入家庭中黑人和白人的貧富差距縮減37%。如果進一步消除年收入在2.5萬美元或以下的家庭的債務,黑人和白人的貧富差距將會縮小50%。
對于全面免除債務的政策來說,學生貸款人之間的收入差距一向是主要批評點。從本質上來說,擁有最多債務的人最后往往會完成大學或研究生課程,進而獲得更高的收入。批評者認為,這些借款人不太需要債務減免,這可能會加劇上述貧富差距。如果拜登試圖推行免除學生債務,他將面臨很多選擇。在限定收入的基礎上減免債務,這一中立的折衷做法或許可以確保讓那些最需要債務減免的人受益。(財富中文網)
譯者:秦維奇
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.