Two Washington Post columns published Wednesday condemned President Biden’s student loan handout as a "jaw-droppingly expensive" plan that will make things "worse" as well as calling it an "extremely regressive policy."
The first column, from the Washington Post editorial board, opened by claiming that Biden’s student loan handout is "the opposite" of Biden’s embrace of "sensible reforms over flashy gimmicks."
The board wrote, "After weeks of anticipation, Mr. Biden announced he will extend the pause on student loan payments until the end of the year. He will also forgive up to $10,000 for those making less than $125,000 a year — and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients under that income threshold."
"Both measures are ill-conceived and misdirected," the board declared.
The column stated, "Widely canceling student loan debt is regressive," and explained, "It takes money from the broader tax base, mostly made up of workers who did not go to college, to subsidize the education debt of people with valuable degrees."
In addition to that, the board called the plan "expensive – and likely inflationary."
"The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that extending the loan pause to the end of the year would cost $20 billion, while forgiving $10,000 for households making less than $300,000 would cost $230 billion," it noted.
What’s more is that the board claimed that the plan would "nullify nearly a decade’s worth of deficit reduction from the Inflation Reduction Act."
Summing up its views on Biden’s handout, the board declared, "Mr. Biden’s student loan decision will not do enough to help the most vulnerable Americans. It will, however, provide a windfall for those who don’t need it — with American taxpayers footing the bill."
The second column, composed by Washington Post columnist Megan McArdle, opened with the assessment, "There are so many things wrong with President Biden’s newly unveiled policy on student loans that one hardly knows where to begin."
McArdle slammed the Biden administration, stating it "just announced a jaw-droppingly expensive plan for student loan forgiveness that is actually going to make the problem of college costs worse, while increasing the political pressure for the government to shovel in even more subsidies."
Not pulling any punches, McArdle asked, "How many ways can a single policy be bad?"
She answered her own question by stating how expensive the plan is, and mentioning that it has been conceived for the sake politics. "This one could cost the federal government somewhere between $400 billion and $600 billion, completely unpaid for. Its legality is at best an abuse of the law to address the ‘national emergency’ of upcoming midterm elections."
McArdle then cited former Obama economic advisor Jason Furman, who stated the handout will pour "roughly half [a] trillion dollars of gasoline on the inflationary fire that is already burning."
The columnist also referred to the plan as "an extremely regressive policy" that benefits "the most affluent demographics, while leaving everyone else to pay the cost through some combination of higher taxes, lower benefits, or higher inflation and interest rates."
Her piece concluded with a brutal analogy for Biden’s student loan plan, stating, "Trying to fix these problems by making it even more attractive to borrow money is like trying to quit smoking by switching to unfiltered cigarettes. When you’re doing something destructive, your best bet is to stop. But if you can’t manage that, you should at least refrain from making the problem worse."