Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

PLSF/ IBR/ REPAYE Question

In light of the Education plan, was just curious how these p jd4hire05/18/17
When Obama added the PAYE and REPAYE, he needed the approval fettywap05/18/17
Congress controls the money. Since Trump proposals are theor triplesix05/18/17
He can't eliminate Ibr or pslf without statutory changes. Th karlmarx05/18/17
Congress may not be motivated now. However, the first wave i mrtor05/18/17
Not only would Congress, which appears to going demo now, ha karlmarx05/18/17
I'm not arguing the program wouldn't go down without a fight mrtor05/18/17
There is when it is clause in the promissory note included a karlmarx05/18/17
Well then there is nothing to worry about, plsf is a constit triplesix05/18/17
As confident as you are about that, the experts are far less mrtor05/18/17
I agree with mrtor, the jury is still out about whether or n thirdtierlaw05/18/17
I never suggested it was bulletproof. Merely that it was col karlmarx05/18/17
Just wait until the click bait media starts exposing the $50 molawmo05/18/17
You seriously believe a buzzfeed article is going to cause d karlmarx05/18/17
It won't be a partisan issue at that point. I expect there w mrtor05/18/17
Of course it will be partisan. There have been articles abou karlmarx05/18/17
jd4hire (May 18, 2017 - 10:44 am)

In light of the Education plan, was just curious how these plans can be changed? I don't feel like researching and imagine many here have the answer already.

Notice and Comment/ Regulations / Legislative Enactment/ Executive Order?

Thanks in advance.

Reply
fettywap (May 18, 2017 - 10:54 am)

When Obama added the PAYE and REPAYE, he needed the approval of Congress.

Reply
triplesix (May 18, 2017 - 11:06 am)

Congress controls the money. Since Trump proposals are theoretically supposed to not spend anymore money, would he still need a Congressional approval?

Reply
karlmarx (May 18, 2017 - 11:51 am)

He can't eliminate Ibr or pslf without statutory changes. There is no order he can sign. Therefore this is all red meat candy land. Just like obamas theortical budgets were commie candyland. Congress was stalled and dysfunctional before Comey at al. There is no will to change this stuff

Reply
mrtor (May 18, 2017 - 11:59 am)

Congress may not be motivated now. However, the first wave is coming due this fall. The budget shortfall to cover these obligations will reinvigorate the will to drastically modify or eliminate PSLF. It's a shame because I was interviewing with a PSLF-eligible employer this morning. Given the uncertainty, I may continue making full payments even if I get the job. I could see them pulling the rug out from under people, leaving them mired in confusion and in worse shape than if they had avoided ever enrolling in PSLF.

Reply
karlmarx (May 18, 2017 - 12:04 pm)

Not only would Congress, which appears to going demo now, have to attack public sector unions and it's own base, it would have to eliminate grandfathering and retroactively eliminate certifications issued. That's litigation until the end of time.

Reply
mrtor (May 18, 2017 - 12:19 pm)

I'm not arguing the program wouldn't go down without a fight from its enrollees, but the damage would be done long before it is ever resolved. Ultimately, the government can do just about anything it wants. I just don't think there is a protected "right" to use public funds to pay off your education debt.

Reply
karlmarx (May 18, 2017 - 12:21 pm)

There is when it is clause in the promissory note included as part of a statute and provided with a certification process in which the government is issuing yearly letters assuring compliance. This is not some sort of vague promise drafted via executive order

Reply
triplesix (May 18, 2017 - 12:38 pm)

Well then there is nothing to worry about, plsf is a constitutionally and contractually protected right to fleece the taxpayer.

Reply
mrtor (May 18, 2017 - 12:51 pm)

As confident as you are about that, the experts are far less certain. PSLF has been described as one of the most vague and convoluted programs ever enacted. There are no clear protections for enrollees. The possibility of immediately terminating the program, regardless of whether enrollees have made qualifying payments, is considered a realistic possibility by many authorities.

I don't think I would touch the program given the current climate. If they don't change or eliminate it now, they will once they calculate the cost and magnitude of the program after the first wave comes due this fall. The media is already starting to frame the program as a windfall for lawyers, virtually absolving medical doctors and other graduates of any culpability. Lawyers are easy fall guys -- everyone loves docs.

Reply
thirdtierlaw (May 18, 2017 - 12:59 pm)

I agree with mrtor, the jury is still out about whether or not PSLF can just be stricken. It appears differently than IBR does.

As scary as it is, at least a person making payments towards PSLF are also making payments towards the IBR program.

Reply
karlmarx (May 18, 2017 - 1:26 pm)

I never suggested it was bulletproof. Merely that it was colorable. And therefore yet another obstacle to retroactive repeal.

Reply
molawmo (May 18, 2017 - 1:35 pm)

Just wait until the click bait media starts exposing the $500,000 in Loans being forgiven for people earning six figures.

Once those stories start coming to light, this program will change in a hurry

Reply
karlmarx (May 18, 2017 - 1:39 pm)

You seriously believe a buzzfeed article is going to cause democrats to attack government workers? Ask republicans in California about that.

Reply
mrtor (May 18, 2017 - 4:48 pm)

It won't be a partisan issue at that point. I expect there will be a campaign that will successfully drum up broad popular support for repealing or modifying the program. Everyone knows there is already significant, unchecked abuse going on in the program. Once the media starts exposing the fact that tax dollars are being used to further these abuses, enrollees will be fighting from a minority position.

Reply
karlmarx (May 18, 2017 - 5:00 pm)

Of course it will be partisan. There have been articles about pension abuse in California now for two decades. Far more and ugly kind of abuse than anything even contemplated theoretically by pslf. There has been zero effort to substantively reform the system because attacking key consistuents is a stupid move for democrats. This isn't Mr doctor got a some forgiveness either, this is prison guard making 200k in pensions or a child molester teacher keeping a 90% defined benefit pension.

The fact Trump is proposing it by itself makes this toxically partisan. You think a dem congressmen want to face activists and government union hacks that accuse them of being Trump flunkies and not #resisting? Talking about a completely insane political moves with zero upside

Reply
Post a message in this thread