Q: student loans (expected to be paid back) differs from PPP loans (forgiven) A: Republicans …
On 6/30/2023, a reporter asked, “isn’t the comparison between student loans and the Paycheck Protection Program a little bit strained, given that some of those federal student loans were given with the expectation that they would be paid back, and then the Paycheck Protection Program loans were given to employers with the expectation that those loans would be forgiven if they kept folks on payroll during a pandemic?

MR. RAMAMURTI: … all of the Republicans in Congress who are saying to us, “This debt relief program is unacceptable” could have also been saying, “Hey, take it easy on doing all this debt forgiveness.” … we never got a single bit of incoming from Republicans saying, “Slow down PPP forgiveness.” In fact, the incoming we got was people saying, “Do it faster. Make it easier for people to qualify for forgiveness.” So, yeah, we think that there is a real tension between that and the idea that if we’re going to try and give $10,000 to a nurse or a firefighter, that that somehow is unacceptable or crosses the line

Reporter: what is an “expressive original design”?
KJP: Say that one more time.
Reporter: Do you feel like you have a sense — a clearer sense of who this actually impacts — this decision today?
KJP: I mean, I don’t have like a number or a list of who — of who this is going to impact. What we know and understand is this was — this was a — the wrong decision. This was incredibly disappointing that decision was made.

Reporter: Got it. But the Court tries to distinguish in its decision — the Gorsuch’s decision — between a service and a —

KJP: Yeah.
Reporter: — an expressive design. And I’m just trying to get a sense of if you —
KJP: No —
Reporter: — feel like you understand that distinction?
KJP: So, I hear you. I’m just not going

Q: does Admin think Court decision legitimate? A: we disagree with it, we agree with the dissent
Reporter: the other day, the President said that this is not a “normal” Court. While the administration disagrees with this decision, does the administration think that it is legitimate?

MR. RAMAMURTI: so on your first question, you know, we — we accept the Court’s ruling. Of course, we disagree with it. You know, we had a chance to review the dissent written by Justice Kagan. We largely agree with the points that were made in the dissent.

Q: new exciting thing solid legal footing? lawsuits challenging as well? A: authority is crystal clear
Reporter: Are you on totally solid legal footing with the income-based repayment changes or could there be lawsuits challenging that as well?

MR. RAMAMURTI: That authority is crystal clear. There is a specific statute allowing the Secretary to design these income-based repayment programs. And the specific details of this income-based repayment program are — are clearly within what’s permitted under the statute there. And so, we — I would be surprised, frankly, if there was a legal challenge to that proposal.

Reporter: And you say it’s not a substitute, obviously, for debt forgiveness. Are there — and — and I think this is a known answer, so I’m sorry for even asking it — but, like, how big is the universe of people who don’t qualify for the income-based repayment who just aren’t going to be covered by this exciting thing you just offered?

MR. RAMAMURTI: Sure. Every single borrower is eligible for this program. Now, the key is that if you’re an extremely high-income borrower, your income may be so high that the specific benefit, where you cap your payment at a percentage of your income, doesn’t actually benefit you because that percentage is still higher than what your monthly payment would be. But it — it stretches pretty far up the income spectrum

Q: tripped up Biden policies A: weigh new doctrine new Higher Education Act pathway
Reporter: The opinion touches on the President’s authority to act without specific permissions on Congress and cites several opinions that I know have tripped up Biden administration policies over the last couple of years. Can you talk about how you see this opinion moving forward applying in other areas of policymaking that you do?

MR. RAMAMURTI: Well, look, I — I think that it’s kind of in the eye of the beholder. Right? When — when the HEROES Act says that the Secretary can waive or modify a provision, it seems to me that that is very clear about what the Secretary’s authorities are. It is a broad grant of authority

Reporter: Do you see this doctrine continuing to be an obstacle to different goals that we have moving forward?

MR. RAMAMURTI: … we’ll have to weigh how it would stand up against that new doctrine that the Supreme Court has issued. But again, we think that the pathway that we’re choosing here, the Higher Education Act, is available even with this doctrine in place.

https://www.facebook.com/HygoNewsUSA/videos/952501422652199
Q: Student loans vs PPP loans (paid back