Teachers are supposed to get federal student loan forgiveness. But they have to apply to get it, and when they do, @usedgov frequently turns them down with no justification. politico.com/news/2021/09/2…
"The disclosure suggests further bureaucratic problems with the management of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which has come under fire from Democrats in recent years for rejecting more than 98 percent of all borrowers who applied."
"[The Department of Education has] blocked thousands of people who clearly work in public service—including educators—from pursuing [student debt forgiveness via] PSLF, often due to paperwork hurdles and other trivial administrative errors." protectborrowers.org/pheaa-ecf-deni…
Folks are asking in replies whether this is a matter of malice or incompetence, but it doesn't really matter. The Biden admin and @usedgov have the power to fix this. They should get on that.
@usedgov Here's someone who was denied loan forgiveness because their employer was "not gov, tax exempt, or non-for-profit." That employer? The Chicago Public School System.
Another "not gov" employer: PS 317 in Queens.
Something I know as a teacher is also relevant to policy: Every hoop you put up is a hoop someone won't make it through. So you've gotta tear down as many hoops as you can, whenever you can, wherever you can.
Sometimes someone doesn't make it through the hoop because they screwed up, sometimes because the person holding the hoop screwed up. But if you take down the hoop, you don't need to have that debate.
The student loan forgiveness program requires that you apply, rather than just ... using information the government already has on you, and forgiving your loans automatically if it finds you qualify for relief.
We saw this last month with the new ITT Tech debt forgiveness—Biden's ED drew up a list of criteria, found all the people who fit those criteria, and just ... cancelled their debt. Just cancelled it.
"ITT borrowers covered by today's action [who] did not enroll elsewhere during the three years after ITT's closure and will not need to take any further action to receive a discharge." ed.gov/news/press-rel…
That's how you do it. Just get out your sword.
Someone just slipped this over my transom: A link to a public comment form advising the Biden admin on how to reform the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. Up until this Friday night. actionnetwork.org/letters/tell-p…
TFW you believe that working for a Koch-funded libertarian lobbying group entitles you to free money from the US government.
And honestly, I'm not the guy who begrudges Ayn Rand collecting Social Security. If you're entitled to money, take it, even if you don't like the program that's paying it out. Fine.
But Americans for Prosperity is a lobbying group. A 501(c)(4).
It's not public service under the plain text of the law. And if you're applying for PSLF because you work there, you're either a welfare cheat or an absolute dumbass.
Or, you know, both.
Longtime @AFPhq staffers to the federal government:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I get feeling like it's unfair to be rejected because you don't check someone's boxes, but nobody has an obligation to like, or to consider liking, anyone for any reason. That's not how liking people works.
And that's before we even get to the straightforwardly practical relationship between having sex with someone and wanting their sexual ethics and values to be compatible with yours.
For a long time I thought some of these victories were pretty much safe, just because their outcomes are now broadly popular. But an antidemocratic political movement doesn't have to care about popularity in the same way that a party that has to win free and fair elections does.
Sodomy laws were almost entirely unenforced for quite a while before the Lawrence decision. But if we've learned one thing from the last five years, it's that norms, precedent, and tradition mean nothing to the modern Republican Party.
Since some folks are misinterpreting, I want to be clear: The people I'm talking about aren't making an ethical decision to reduce their impact on the planet through population reduction. They're foregoing having kids because they're scared of what the world is turning into.
We could debate whether population restriction is going to solve the planet's problems (it mostly wouldn't, and would cause all sorts of other trouble, is my answer), but this isn't that.
Like Silver, I was made nervous by "No One One, Leave Two Blank." Unlike Silver, (1) I understood the argument in its favor, and (2) nobody's paying me gazillions of dollars a year to be smart about politics and elections.
This is the crux of where Silver (I'd argue) whiffed it on the "Leave 2 Blank" issue—an overconfidence in his own gut instincts, dressed up as spurious statistical precision. (I know, you're shocked.)
I had to read four different articles on the Dems' new voting rights bill to find one that clearly answered the question of whether it imposes a national Voter ID requirement. (It doesn't.) washingtonpost.com/politics/revis…
The Dems' old bill banned state-level Voter ID laws. The new bill dramatically restricts them. That's the difference. Either bill would limit Voter ID laws on the state level, neither would impose new Voter ID requirements.
So if you see people this morning asking why the Democrats are supporting Voter ID, the answer is that they aren't, but that sloppy reporting is leaving the impression that they are.
Having investigated further this morning, I see that Franken's interview was conducted as promotion for a new comedy tour, and feel mildly regretful for assisting with his viral marketing.
And just to close the circle, there really isn't anywhere other than Wisconsin for Franken to run. Schumer is running in 2022, and Franken will be nearly eighty in 2028. As much as I'm sure he'd love to, he's not going to primary Gillibrand.