Speaker 1: From Bloomberg News and iHeartRadio. It's the Big Take. I'm Westcasova. Today,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court weighs in on student loans. On February
Speaker 1: twenty eighth, the US Supreme Court hears arguments over Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's plan to forgive federal student loan debt for millions
Speaker 1: of Americans. It's been on hold since a handful of
Speaker 1: Republican led states sued to block it. Supreme Court says
Speaker 1: President Biden's student loan debt forgiveness program will remain blocked
Speaker 1: for now, but the justices agreed to hear oral arguments
Speaker 1: on the case, with the decision expected by June. Those
Speaker 1: arguing against the programs say the president doesn't have the
Speaker 1: power to erase student debt on his own, so the
Speaker 1: Justice's decision in this case is also being closely watched
Speaker 1: as a test of the balance of power between the
Speaker 1: White House and the Congress. Greg Store is Bloomberg Supreme
Speaker 1: Court correspondent. He's here with me now to tell us
Speaker 1: what to look for in this case and how it
Speaker 1: might be decided. Greg, why did an appeals court put
Speaker 1: this student loan forgiveness plan on hold? Well, it was
Speaker 1: challenged by a group of Republican led states, and they
Speaker 1: sought to block the program, saying it was beyond the
Speaker 1: president's authority. So when the Eighth Circuit got involved in
Speaker 1: the case, it didn't give a whole lot of explanation
Speaker 1: to answer the question. But it first concluded that the
Speaker 1: states did have the right to challenge the program, and
Speaker 1: then it said, kind of looking at the pros and
Speaker 1: cons of acting right now, the equities as a court
Speaker 1: would say, we think it makes more sense to block
Speaker 1: the program while the litigation goes forward. So they're claiming
Speaker 1: that Biden overstepped his powers as president and by doing this,
Speaker 1: what is the basis of that argument. Yeah, So there's
Speaker 1: a law that's known as the Heroes Act, and what
Speaker 1: it says is that the Secretary of Education can wave
Speaker 1: or modify some provisions of student loan requirements in the
Speaker 1: case of a national emergency. And so the administration says,
Speaker 1: that's what we're doing here. We're forgiving these loans because
Speaker 1: the national emergency of the pandemic is still having a
Speaker 1: financial impact on borrowers, and we're targeting the borrowers are
Speaker 1: going to be hurt the most by it. And so
Speaker 1: the kind of the fundamental question in the case is
Speaker 1: that a fair reading of the Heroes Act. So the
Speaker 1: idea is that they're arguing that Joe Biden is using
Speaker 1: the pandemic as a convenient excuse to sort of hitch
Speaker 1: a ride on for this program, but he wanted to
Speaker 1: do it anyway, so it wasn't really the pandemic that
Speaker 1: was the reason he did it. Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 1: They even say in their briefs that basically he's fulfilling
Speaker 1: a campaign promise by doing this. They also talk about
Speaker 1: the cost of the program. So the Congressional Budget Office
Speaker 1: has said this is going to cost four hundred billion dollars.
Speaker 1: And what the states say is Congress would not have
Speaker 1: wanted to give the president that much authority to do
Speaker 1: something that's sweeping without being more clear about it. So
Speaker 1: these are states bringing this case arguing that the president
Speaker 1: can't do this because Congress says, so, why do the
Speaker 1: states have standing to bring this case? Yeah, that is
Speaker 1: a really important question that may ultimately be how the
Speaker 1: case is decided. The Biden administration says they do not
Speaker 1: have standing, and you should even get to that question
Speaker 1: about whether the president has the authority the states arguments
Speaker 1: have sort of multifacets to them. But what the Eighth
Speaker 1: Circuit focused on was there is a servicer, a loan
Speaker 1: servicer in Missouri that is created as a separate legal entity,
Speaker 1: but it has some obligations to the Missouri treasury. It's
Speaker 1: supposed to put money in there to help pay for
Speaker 1: education projects. And the state says that servicer is going
Speaker 1: to lose some money because some loans it was servicing
Speaker 1: and getting fees on will evaporate. And so that's the
Speaker 1: financial hit that the states say. They are feeling that
Speaker 1: Missouri is going to potentially get less money in its
Speaker 1: treasury because this entity known as Mohila is getting less
Speaker 1: money for servicing student loans. So the Eighth Circuit Court
Speaker 1: of Appeals heard this and they said, yeah, that's at
Speaker 1: least reasonable enough that we're going to suspend it until
Speaker 1: it goes to the Supreme Court. Yes, that's exactly right.
Speaker 1: There is also a separate case. The Supreme Court actually
Speaker 1: has two cases. There's another one involving two borrowers, but
Speaker 1: most of the legal experts I've talked to think that
Speaker 1: the state case is the one that's probably the main
Speaker 1: event that the states have the stronger argument on standing.
Speaker 1: Given what we know now about the makeup of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, which has seen new members come on in
Speaker 1: the last few years, is there any indication about how
Speaker 1: they'll consider this case and how they might rule. Well,
Speaker 1: let me give you a two part answer to that.
Speaker 1: The easier part is if the Court says finds that
Speaker 1: they're standing and gets to that question of does the
Speaker 1: president have this authority? That is very likely to be
Speaker 1: a conservative versus liberal fight. That is a case where
Speaker 1: the conservative justices have said, we want to see explicit
Speaker 1: authorization before the executive branch can do something so big
Speaker 1: that the Congress would have to approve it exactly. And here,
Speaker 1: when we're talking about language that I would imagine some
Speaker 1: are all the conservative justices would say is pretty vague.
Speaker 1: One would have to expect that they will be skeptical
Speaker 1: of the idea that the president could jump in and say, Aha,
Speaker 1: I've got the authority to wipe out four hundred billion
Speaker 1: dollars in student loans. The standing question is a little
Speaker 1: more complicated. That is probably where if the administration is
Speaker 1: going to win this case, if it's going to pick
Speaker 1: off some of the conservative justices, that that's where they
Speaker 1: would do it. And I say that in part because
Speaker 1: this is a matter where us you know, justice like
Speaker 1: John Roberts may be skeptical the idea that the court
Speaker 1: system should be getting involved in this sort of a fight.
Speaker 1: He may be receptive to the idea that everything doesn't
Speaker 1: necessarily belong in federal court. And in this case where
Speaker 1: the effect on the state treasury is pretty tangental and
Speaker 1: pretty you know, down the road and kind of depends
Speaker 1: on how this agency in Missouri deals with its finances,
Speaker 1: somebody like him, and maybe a few other conservative justices
Speaker 1: might be skeptical that the court should get involved. In
Speaker 1: a lot of your stories over the years writing about
Speaker 1: cases sometimes comes down to this idea of will the
Speaker 1: court choose to take a narrow interpretation are you a procedure,
Speaker 1: or will they use a case to really make a
Speaker 1: big statement about larger things. Is that what we're talking
Speaker 1: about here? I think they could if they want to
Speaker 1: use this case, they could focus on the narrow provisions
Speaker 1: but also make a broader statement. So there is this
Speaker 1: legal doctrine that we saw come up in the court's
Speaker 1: last term in a case involving climate change, which we
Speaker 1: can talk about called the Major Questions doctrine, And the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court said in that case that if it's a
Speaker 1: major question and an administration is saying we've got the
Speaker 1: authority to do something, if it's going to have a
Speaker 1: huge economic impact, we want to see Congress say explicitly
Speaker 1: you can do that. So if they take this case
Speaker 1: as an opportunity to sort of expand on that, really
Speaker 1: say here's what the Major Questions doctrine means, you could
Speaker 1: see that having a lot of impact on other areas
Speaker 1: as well. Where exactly did the Major Questions doctrine come from?
Speaker 1: Who made it? That is a good question. I could
Speaker 1: say that it came from the courts. They sort of
Speaker 1: made it up. But what exactly it is a subject
Speaker 1: of some debate even among the justices. Some of them
Speaker 1: seem to think what it is is just a little
Speaker 1: tool that helps us interpret ambiguous language, that if we're
Speaker 1: not sure what something means, we're not going to assume
Speaker 1: it means something major unless it's really clear, And some
Speaker 1: of them think it's actually this really really big, important
Speaker 1: separation of power's principle that the administration, the president does
Speaker 1: not have the constitutional authority to do some things unless
Speaker 1: it's been clearly authorized by Congress. And you see both
Speaker 1: of those kind of ways of thinking about the doctrine
Speaker 1: sort of intersect as the Court deals with it in
Speaker 1: the context of particular cases. So do you actually invoke
Speaker 1: it we hereby invoke the major questions doctrine or where
Speaker 1: does it come from? In the Environmental Protection Act case
Speaker 1: that was about whether the EPA could impose restrictions on
Speaker 1: coal flat fired power plants, and these are restrictions that
Speaker 1: would have a very big economic effect or could have
Speaker 1: a very big economic effect, And the Supreme Court in
Speaker 1: that case said, the impact is so potentially great that
Speaker 1: we're looking at this language here authorizing the EPA to
Speaker 1: do certain things, and we're not going to read that
Speaker 1: language in a way that lets them do this much.
Speaker 1: If Congress wants to let the EPA do this, it
Speaker 1: needs to be more explicit. And so now we're going
Speaker 1: to see whether that discussion, which was labeled the Major
Speaker 1: Questions doctrine, plays out in this different context. It seems
Speaker 1: like there really are two roads they could take. One
Speaker 1: is really picky letter of the law, do the states
Speaker 1: have the standing to even bring this case? And another
Speaker 1: one that could have pretty far reaching effects beyond student
Speaker 1: loans into all sorts of other things having to do
Speaker 1: with how much power the president has, how much power
Speaker 1: the Congress has. I think that that's right, although I
Speaker 1: wouldn't the standing issue quite so much, perhaps because let's
Speaker 1: say they say, no, the states don't have standing, and
Speaker 1: let's say, let's just imagine that the justices are thinking,
Speaker 1: but if they did, I would rule against the administration.
Speaker 1: Then we've set up this world where an administration can
Speaker 1: put a policy in place, and it may be that
Speaker 1: nobody can challenge it, even though it goes beyond the
Speaker 1: president's authority. So that is kind of a big picture
Speaker 1: implication that I would imagine is going to be on
Speaker 1: the minds of the justices as they consider that standing argument.
Speaker 1: Is there a third option? You know, we have the
Speaker 1: standing argument, we have the major questions doctrine. Is there
Speaker 1: another way that this could go? That's unexpected, not that
Speaker 1: I've seen a lot of cases do have that sort
Speaker 1: of off ramp where the court kind of adduct the
Speaker 1: big question because it can decide on a smaller one.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure I see that here. This is really
Speaker 1: a case that is very likely, almost certainly going to
Speaker 1: determine whether Joe Biden can forgive these loans, whether his
Speaker 1: administration can forgive these loans, are or not? Greg, please
Speaker 1: stay seated. We'll keep talking after the break. Greg, A
Speaker 1: lot of the times we see these big decisions in
Speaker 1: June is that when you think we can expect this
Speaker 1: one to be handed down by the court, I would
Speaker 1: think so, and I the only reason I'm hedging a
Speaker 1: little bit is this is one of those cases that's
Speaker 1: been expedited to some degree, and so we could see
Speaker 1: the Court decide that we need to give a faster
Speaker 1: action because right now the administration's policy is on hold.
Speaker 1: The administration is saying we kind of urgently need this
Speaker 1: relief so people can go about planning their lives, and
Speaker 1: the Court might be sensitive to that and think we
Speaker 1: want to give them an answer as quickly as we can. Greg,
Speaker 1: I'll ask you an unfair question, how do you think
Speaker 1: the court will decide this case when you have a
Speaker 1: six three majority. The safe bet is usually to say
Speaker 1: that the Conservatives are likely to win, given this court's
Speaker 1: record on the major Questions doctrine, given their clear skepticism
Speaker 1: of an administration that takes a little statutory provision in
Speaker 1: says we have this broad power. If you remember a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago, there was a fight over the
Speaker 1: administration rule that would have required workers, some tens of
Speaker 1: millions of workers to either get vaccines or get frequent tests,
Speaker 1: and the Supreme Court said, know, that goes beyond the
Speaker 1: power to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. You can't
Speaker 1: do that. That's all part of this kind of we're
Speaker 1: not going to let the administration have this broad power
Speaker 1: unless Congress is more explicitly said you can do something
Speaker 1: even beyond that case. This is a court that has
Speaker 1: shown a lot of skepticism towards any entity, whether it's
Speaker 1: the administration or a state saying because of the pandemic,
Speaker 1: we get to impose these special rules. And we saw
Speaker 1: it when they were talking about, you know, restrictions on
Speaker 1: capacity in churches and a like during the pandemic exactly. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, just like the student loan case, now
Speaker 1: they said, obviously you can't use the pandemic as an
Speaker 1: excuse to do something you wanted to do anyway. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's exactly it. So those are two more currents that
Speaker 1: are going to be coming against the administration as it
Speaker 1: goes to the Supreme Court. Greg start, thanks for talking
Speaker 1: with me today. Sure thing. Now, let's take a look
Speaker 1: at what will happen if the Supreme Court rules for
Speaker 1: or against forgiving student loans. Claire Valentine joins me now
Speaker 1: from New York. She covers personal finance and she's been
Speaker 1: following this stories ups and downs. Claire, can you start
Speaker 1: by giving us an idea of how many Americans would
Speaker 1: benefit from this student loan debt plan if the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court allows it to go through. More than forty million
Speaker 1: Americans could potentially benefit from this through the relief through
Speaker 1: the forgiveness of up to twenty thousand dollars. What are
Speaker 1: the terms of the Biden plan? How much are people
Speaker 1: able to forgive? And who's for it? Right? So, Biden
Speaker 1: first announced this plan back in August, and when he
Speaker 1: laid it out then the terms were that borrowers were
Speaker 1: eligible for ten thousand dollars in relief or twenty thousand
Speaker 1: for pell grant recipients granted that they make under one
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty five thousand dollars a year or two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty thousand dollars for married couples. And so
Speaker 1: how does it work. They just have to apply for
Speaker 1: this relief. Yeah, in certain cases, the administration already has
Speaker 1: their information, but the vast majority of people have to
Speaker 1: submit an application. About twenty six million people had already
Speaker 1: applied for this before the Supreme Court took up the case.
Speaker 1: It's sort of been frozen since then as we wait
Speaker 1: to find out what happens with the court arguments. Our
Speaker 1: producer Moe Barrow here in Washington, DC, asked people how
Speaker 1: they feel about Biden's loan forgiveness program. Here's what they
Speaker 1: had to say. Student loan reform program that Biden is
Speaker 1: proposing to reform. I'm in favor of it. I think
Speaker 1: it's an opportunity to put folks back on a level
Speaker 1: playing field. We have found that student debt has been,
Speaker 1: you know, debilitating for folks, So for giving opportunities to
Speaker 1: people to pursue their careers and build wealth for themselves
Speaker 1: and for their generations after them is definitely welcomed. One
Speaker 1: of the things it's always struck me about student loans
Speaker 1: in the current periods. When I was in school, my
Speaker 1: student loans were subsidized by the State of New York,
Speaker 1: so I never paid market rates on my student loans.
Speaker 1: The idea that over the last twenty years people have
Speaker 1: been making tons of money offer student loans has always
Speaker 1: been appalling to me. Yeah, I can see why some
Speaker 1: people feel that, hey, I paid my loan myself, somebody
Speaker 1: else is getting paid off. I know people get really
Speaker 1: worked up about it. But here's the thing, Like, you know,
Speaker 1: look at the PPP loans. Look at the loan forgiveness
Speaker 1: that they given to the large corporations, large companies. I mean,
Speaker 1: I know people individually who've gotten almost like a million
Speaker 1: dollars worth the loans forgiven. I think, you know, if
Speaker 1: you compare both, it's not that big of a deal.
Speaker 1: And this is different from the student loan freeze that's
Speaker 1: been in place since the pandemic. Is that right? Yeah,
Speaker 1: so the freeze has been in place since March twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: It's been extended many times each time sort of under
Speaker 1: the rationale that people were struggling, people needed more time
Speaker 1: to get their finances in order after the hit of
Speaker 1: the pandemic. It depends on sort of when the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court case is finished and what they say, but one
Speaker 1: way or another, payments are going to restart sometime this summer,
Speaker 1: and when that happens, people will suddenly be getting these
Speaker 1: monthly bills again that are required for them to pay.
Speaker 1: And you write that if this happens, if people are
Speaker 1: going to be required to pay, this would have a
Speaker 1: pretty big effect, and not just individuals but the economy. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So this has always sort of been the case, but
Speaker 1: I think now more than ever, people are struggling to
Speaker 1: afford their student loan bills. We see that with people
Speaker 1: who have private student loans who are still paying them
Speaker 1: because they haven't been frozen. And then just even people
Speaker 1: sort of gauging how much they would have to pay
Speaker 1: when payments restart. They're crunching those numbers and they're seeing
Speaker 1: with the cost of housing and with everyday goods, given
Speaker 1: inflation figures, the math just isn't working for a lot
Speaker 1: of people. There's not going to be enough to pay
Speaker 1: all their bills. How much is a student loan bill
Speaker 1: for an average American? So the average American at least
Speaker 1: before the pandemic pause, was paying over three hundred dollars
Speaker 1: a month in student loans. The exact number is three
Speaker 1: hundred and ninety three dollars each month, according to the
Speaker 1: Federal reserve, and surveys along the way since this pandemic
Speaker 1: freeze have shown that Americans are going to struggle when
Speaker 1: this happens. One study from the Student Debt Crisis Center
Speaker 1: found that almost nine and ten borrowers are worried about
Speaker 1: affording payments when they restart because of inflation, and people
Speaker 1: are sort of having to make decisions for their lives
Speaker 1: based on this. I talked to a woman who told
Speaker 1: me that she is taking a second job because she
Speaker 1: knows these payments are going to restart and she's going
Speaker 1: to struggle to afford it. So I can hear in
Speaker 1: my head some older Americans, maybe some younger Americans who
Speaker 1: either didn't take out loans or who have already repaid
Speaker 1: their loans, saying, well, yes, that of course will be
Speaker 1: a hardship. But why should the government forgive all these
Speaker 1: loans they knew they were going to have to repay them.
Speaker 1: Why is it the responsibility of everybody else to repay
Speaker 1: their loans just because it's a burden to them. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So it's a good point, and I think a lot
Speaker 1: of people do take that standpoint. People on the other
Speaker 1: side would say that the prices of college tuition have
Speaker 1: risen in many cases. The cost of college education now
Speaker 1: is two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, which is unbelievable
Speaker 1: compared to what it used to be, so people have
Speaker 1: a lot more debt. What we've also seen is because
Speaker 1: people are going to grad school to have an edge
Speaker 1: in the labor market, they're accruing a lot more debt
Speaker 1: because of that as well. And then you're also seeing,
Speaker 1: just from an economic standpoint, people struggling to afford their bills.
Speaker 1: That's bad for the economy. If people aren't spending money
Speaker 1: on goods. We know the American economy is really driven
Speaker 1: by the consumer, and if they can't get out and
Speaker 1: spend like that, that's bad news for the economy as
Speaker 1: a whole. Please stick around. Our conversation continues after the break. Claire,
Speaker 1: another argument I've heard is that when you take on
Speaker 1: loan debt, we're gonna go to college. The assumption is
Speaker 1: you're going to make more money as a result of
Speaker 1: your college degree. But in fact, in recent years, wages
Speaker 1: even for college graduates, have not kept up with inflation,
Speaker 1: and so therefore that kind of basic assumption has fallen
Speaker 1: short for a lot of people who took out big
Speaker 1: loans assuming they'd be able to pay them back. Definitely.
Speaker 1: I think that's right. On the money, is that with
Speaker 1: inflation happening and wages sort of stagnating, in many cases,
Speaker 1: people aren't reaping that return on their investment. And we're
Speaker 1: seeing that, especially in younger generations. Less people are going
Speaker 1: to college now because they've seen sort of this play out.
Speaker 1: They've seen other people with student loans taking them out
Speaker 1: and not making the money to make that decision worth
Speaker 1: it and choosing alternative paths. One thing you right, is
Speaker 1: the larger economic effects of people being unable to repay
Speaker 1: their loans is that you expect an increase in other
Speaker 1: kinds of defaults on credit cards and other sorts of things.
Speaker 1: Exactly how do economists think this ripple effect might play out? Yeah, so,
Speaker 1: I think the basic way it works is that when
Speaker 1: people are hit with say another four hundred dollar bill
Speaker 1: each month, the math just doesn't all add up. They're
Speaker 1: forced to sort of make choices on what bills they're
Speaker 1: going to pay. We know that a lot of people
Speaker 1: who have auto loans sort of prioritize that payment because
Speaker 1: they need to get around, but that's not always the case.
Speaker 1: You know, if they can't make the math work, they're
Speaker 1: going to choose one area to not pay, whether that's
Speaker 1: credit cards and so you see that big interest rate
Speaker 1: affect them, or whether that's auto loans and more. Delinquencies
Speaker 1: sort of ripple through the different consumer categories. Because of that,
Speaker 1: My study from the Federal Reserve recently found that the
Speaker 1: number of people who could be delinquent on their student
Speaker 1: loan payments when they restart could potentially surpass the fifteen
Speaker 1: percent that were before the pandemic. That's pretty striking, just
Speaker 1: the fact that so many people wouldn't be able to
Speaker 1: pay and that we would see such a jump immediately,
Speaker 1: especially when the whole purpose of the student loan pause
Speaker 1: was to help people get themselves in better financial situations
Speaker 1: to be able to actually afford the payments. And if
Speaker 1: the plan is allowed to go forward, for a lot
Speaker 1: of people, the loan forgiveness wouldn't actually erase all of
Speaker 1: their deba just a portion of it. Correct. Yeah, While
Speaker 1: you know, there are many people that have loan balances
Speaker 1: below ten thousand dollars, many many more have balances that
Speaker 1: are you know, eighty thousand, one hundred thousand and so
Speaker 1: you know, while the ten thousand dollars relief would help
Speaker 1: a lot, it's by no means of magic bullets that
Speaker 1: just erases everything, Claire. If the plan is allowed to
Speaker 1: go through, and I think there's a lot of skepticism
Speaker 1: that the court will uphold it, but if it does,
Speaker 1: what does it mean for student loans? Does it just
Speaker 1: sort of reset the clock and then you have a
Speaker 1: whole new generation of students taking out loans and they
Speaker 1: have to pay them back or does that then set
Speaker 1: up a thing where people start expecting, at one point
Speaker 1: or another, the government's going to come in and pay
Speaker 1: their loans, so there's a disincentive to actually pay them.
Speaker 1: What a lot of advocates and activists that I talked
Speaker 1: to say is that this forgiveness plan, it's sort of
Speaker 1: a band aid on the issue, and the issue is
Speaker 1: the rising cost of a college education and the amount
Speaker 1: of loans that is required for that. One thing that
Speaker 1: the Biden administration is also looking into is a new
Speaker 1: income driven repayment plan that would potentially help borrowers even more,
Speaker 1: especially those that have more than ten thousand dollars in
Speaker 1: student debt. And so that role would cap borrowers monthly
Speaker 1: payment at five percent of their monthly discretionary income. That's
Speaker 1: down from ten percent currently, And the government would also
Speaker 1: forgive balances of twelve thousand dollars or less after a
Speaker 1: borrower has made ten years of payments, down from twenty
Speaker 1: years right now. So, you know, while I think the
Speaker 1: main issue is how expensive it is to go to college,
Speaker 1: some of these reforms, like the income driven Repayment plan
Speaker 1: could actually long term help barrows a lot more than
Speaker 1: just this one time forgiveness. As you said, all of
Speaker 1: this kind of points for the need for some kind
Speaker 1: of reform both of the costa college education, how people
Speaker 1: pay those costs. How do you think that student loans
Speaker 1: are going to play out in the future now that
Speaker 1: everyone knows that they cost a whole lot of money
Speaker 1: and you may not be able to pay them back.
Speaker 1: I think one at least short term effect that you're
Speaker 1: going to see is fewer people taking out student loans,
Speaker 1: fewer people deciding to go to college, just realizing that
Speaker 1: that investment is not worth it. I think that especially
Speaker 1: with this potential income driven repayment plan that could be
Speaker 1: helpful that could also be hit with legal challenges with
Speaker 1: this court case kind of as a starting point, We're
Speaker 1: going to see a lot of debate over what the
Speaker 1: executive branch has the power to do in terms of
Speaker 1: helping student loans. It's a really complicated question, and I
Speaker 1: think all of these sort of reforms are based off that.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of ideas that are thrown around
Speaker 1: of what Biden could do to help students. Some people say,
Speaker 1: you know what if federal student loans had a zero
Speaker 1: percent interest rate, that could actually help a lot more.
Speaker 1: It's an idea turn around. We know how these take
Speaker 1: a while to you know, actually get into place, let
Speaker 1: alone to be allowed to happen. But I think it's
Speaker 1: something that our lawmakers and Americans in general are dealing
Speaker 1: with this. So many people have student loans, So you know,
Speaker 1: we're going to see ideas that are playing out and
Speaker 1: you know, attempts to alleviate this. Whether or not they
Speaker 1: actually go through as an open question. Claire Valentine, thanks
Speaker 1: for being here, Thanks for having me, Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to us here at the Big Take. It's a daily
Speaker 1: podcast from Bloomberg and iHeartRadio. For more shows from iHeartRadio,
Speaker 1: visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast or wherever you listen,
Speaker 1: and we'd love to hear from you. Email us questions
Speaker 1: or comments to Big Take at Bloomberg dot net. The
Speaker 1: supervising producer of the Big Take is Vicki Burgolina. Our
Speaker 1: senior producer is Katherine Fink. Our producers are Moe Barrow
Speaker 1: and Michael Fallero. Raphael I'm Seely is our engineer. Our
Speaker 1: original music was composed by Leo Sidrin I'm west Kasova.
Speaker 1: We'll be back on Monday with another Big Take. Have
Speaker 1: a great weekend.