KJP Says Student Loan Bailout Is “Fully Paid For” — But Cannot Say What It Costs, How It’s Paid For, or Who Pays

On 8/25/2022, KJP claimed Biden’s student loan forgiveness program was “fully paid for” and “fiscally responsible” — but could not provide the cost, the payment mechanism, or who would bear the expense. Multiple reporters pressed from different angles, exposing the circular logic: the White House said it was paid for because of deficit reduction from other policies, not because the program itself had any internal funding mechanism. KJP cited $50 billion per year returning to the Treasury from ending the loan pause while admitting “we just don’t have a number to share at this time” on the total cost.

”Fully Paid For” — With No Cost Estimate

A reporter laid out the contradiction bluntly. “Can you say a couple of times that this is fiscally responsible? But can you explain how? You can’t say how much it’s going to cost. You can’t say exactly how it’s going to be paid for. And you can’t say exactly who is paying for the cost. How is it fiscally responsible?”

“The way that we are talking about it — the actions we have taken, the deficit has been reduced over the last 19 months,” KJP said.

“So you’ve taken previous fiscally responsible actions that you believe give you more room to be less responsible?” the reporter pressed.

“No, no, no, no, no. We do not see this as irresponsible,” KJP insisted.

Another reporter tried. “You could say this is how much it’s going to cost if everyone who is eligible applies.”

“We just don’t have a number to share at this time,” KJP said.

A third reporter pressed: “Do you believe this student loan program is fully paid for?”

“We do believe it will be fully paid for because of the work that this president has done with the economy,” KJP said, citing domestic policy advisor Susan Rice.

No Internal Pay-For

A reporter caught the key distinction. “The previous proposals — Build Back Better, IRA, infrastructure — were ‘fully paid for internally.’ This one doesn’t have any mechanisms internally to raise money at the same time.”

“You’re saying that because of deficit reduction from other policies, you’re okay lessening that deficit reduction with this proposal?” the reporter asked.

KJP did not dispute the framing. “What the president did was to do this in a fiscally responsible way,” she said. “What the last administration did was not.”

$50 Billion From Ending the Pause

KJP cited one number. “When we talk about the pause being lifted, that’s going to bring $50 billion per year back into the Treasury from this plan,” she said — meaning the “pay-for” was simply resuming loan payments that had been paused, not new revenue generated by the forgiveness program itself.

The logic meant the administration was calling the program “paid for” by counting money that would have flowed to the Treasury anyway if they hadn’t extended the pause repeatedly.

”Why Forgive Debt in a Strong Economy?”

A reporter caught another contradiction. “The president often says we’re not in a recession because we’ve got record employment, businesses investing at record rates. So why are those appropriate conditions to forgive student debt?”

“We’ve also said that we know that some people are still suffering. Both can be true,” KJP said. “The economy is stronger than it’s been in some time” — while simultaneously arguing people needed debt relief because they were struggling.

”Why Not $50,000?”

KJP addressed progressive criticism that the $10,000-$20,000 forgiveness amount was too low. “People have said, why don’t you do $50,000? We don’t want to do that because we want to make sure that we do this in a fiscally responsible way,” KJP said — raising the question of how a program with no cost estimate and no pay-for could be called “responsible” at any amount.

Key Takeaways

KJP said the student loan bailout was “fully paid for” but could not provide the cost, the payment mechanism, or who would pay.
The only “pay-for” cited was $50 billion/year from ending the loan pause — money that would have returned to the Treasury regardless.
Unlike Build Back Better and the IRA, the loan forgiveness had no internal revenue mechanisms; it was “paid for” by crediting deficit reduction from separate policies.
KJP said the economy was strong enough to not be in recession but weak enough to justify mass debt forgiveness — “both can be true.”
The White House chose $10,000-$20,000 over $50,000 for “fiscal responsibility” — while unable to estimate the cost of even the smaller amount.

Transcript Highlights

The following is transcribed from the video audio (unverified — AI-generated from audio).

How is it fiscally responsible? You can’t say the cost, how it’s paid for, or who pays. We see this as a fiscally responsible balanced approach.
You could say the cost if everyone eligible applies. We just don’t have a number to share at this time.
Is the student loan program fully paid for? We do believe it will be because of the work this president has done with the economy.
This one doesn’t have any internal pay-fors. The pause being lifted brings $50 billion per year back to the Treasury.
Why forgive debt in a strong economy? Some people are still suffering. Both can be true.
Why not $50,000? We want to do this in a fiscally responsible way.

Full transcript: 890 words transcribed via Whisper AI.