Social Security Subject To Seizure For Student Loans
The Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. Government may seize a portion of social security benefits to pay for defaulted student loans, leaving senior debtors prisoners with even fewer means to survive, let alone enjoy, their "golden years".
In a case brought by 67-year old student loan debtor James Lockhart, who is attempting to survive on an already low social security benefit of $874 per month, the Supreme Court was unanimous in its 9-0 opinion that as much as 15% of the already insufficient benefits supplied by social security may be seized to help pay for some $7 billion in defaulted, but federally-guaranteed student loan debt.
This ruling only confims the core principle of the American Debtors Prison: Debtors who default for any reason are regarded as "deadbeats", and punished in exactly the same manner, as debtors who commit criminal fraud by taking on debts that they never had any intent to repay. The key that makes this principle so brutal is that there is no way for any debtor to look into a crystal ball and know for certain, without any doubt, that they will have the means to repay debts plus interests, fees, and hidden costs, for the duration of the loan. Creditors do not possess a crystal ball either, and that is why they have used their stupendous wealth and political influence to place the consequences of their actions (i.e., lending money) entirely onto the debtor, retaining no share of the responsibility themselves.
In Mr. Lockhart's case, he owes approximately $80,000 in student loans, but over the years has become disabled with diabetes and heart disease, which neither he nor his creditors could have anticipated when he was a younger man seeking to fund an education so that he could enjoy a more satisfying job, higher income, and a better life. The Supreme Court's ruling places the entire responsibility for this situation onto the least powerful person involved, Mr. Lockhart.
Not only does this ruling show--as the recent bankruptcy "reform" bill did--that the U.S. government fully endorses the modern-day atrocity known as the American Debtors Prison, but it exhibits a lack of empathy and foresight that defies all rational explanation. There is no empathy for American citizens who will die a slow, painful, tragic death--perhaps on the streets, because of this ruling, when in many cases their student loan default was entirely beyond their control and, indeed, they may have spent their entire lives desperately trying to repay their loans. And there is no foresight, because the social security system is already insufficient to support retiring Baby Boomers, and there will be hell to pay in one form or another when the rest of the world and posterity witnesses an entire generation of American citizens living out their final years in the kind of misery and suffering on a scale that hasn't been seen since the Middle Ages (which, incidentally, is when the model for today's debtors prison originated)
Nor does this ruling exhibit enough rational thought to even ask the important questions that need to be asked. For example, if it is considered a maxim that the United States must have a well-educated populace to remain competitive in the world, and to ensure the freedom and prosperity of its citizens, then why is a huge portion of the population forced to go into massive debt to finance that education? Why does the government allow young people in particular to accumulate so much student loan debt, by definition, before they have earned the very degree that ostensibly will allow them to obtain a job with a high enough salary to repay that debt? Why doesn't the U.S. government recognize the fact that most citizens are not as wealthy and well-connected as the members of the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Executive Branch, and therefore that it only takes a relatively small personal disaster to completely devastate a debtors ability to repay debts of any size?
The Supreme Court does not consider these and other important questions; it only considers the very specific and carefully-worded argument brought before them as if the case it is reviewing has no relation to any other institution, policy or life experience. This is not the decision of wise judges who carefully consider the broader ramifications of their rulings. This is the decision of an elite class of politicians with mediocre capacity to think. And it is our nation's shame that U.S. citizens do not take a greater role in pressuring Congress to approve only nominations of wise individuals to the Supreme Court.
All the best,
Paul
In a case brought by 67-year old student loan debtor James Lockhart, who is attempting to survive on an already low social security benefit of $874 per month, the Supreme Court was unanimous in its 9-0 opinion that as much as 15% of the already insufficient benefits supplied by social security may be seized to help pay for some $7 billion in defaulted, but federally-guaranteed student loan debt.
This ruling only confims the core principle of the American Debtors Prison: Debtors who default for any reason are regarded as "deadbeats", and punished in exactly the same manner, as debtors who commit criminal fraud by taking on debts that they never had any intent to repay. The key that makes this principle so brutal is that there is no way for any debtor to look into a crystal ball and know for certain, without any doubt, that they will have the means to repay debts plus interests, fees, and hidden costs, for the duration of the loan. Creditors do not possess a crystal ball either, and that is why they have used their stupendous wealth and political influence to place the consequences of their actions (i.e., lending money) entirely onto the debtor, retaining no share of the responsibility themselves.
In Mr. Lockhart's case, he owes approximately $80,000 in student loans, but over the years has become disabled with diabetes and heart disease, which neither he nor his creditors could have anticipated when he was a younger man seeking to fund an education so that he could enjoy a more satisfying job, higher income, and a better life. The Supreme Court's ruling places the entire responsibility for this situation onto the least powerful person involved, Mr. Lockhart.
Not only does this ruling show--as the recent bankruptcy "reform" bill did--that the U.S. government fully endorses the modern-day atrocity known as the American Debtors Prison, but it exhibits a lack of empathy and foresight that defies all rational explanation. There is no empathy for American citizens who will die a slow, painful, tragic death--perhaps on the streets, because of this ruling, when in many cases their student loan default was entirely beyond their control and, indeed, they may have spent their entire lives desperately trying to repay their loans. And there is no foresight, because the social security system is already insufficient to support retiring Baby Boomers, and there will be hell to pay in one form or another when the rest of the world and posterity witnesses an entire generation of American citizens living out their final years in the kind of misery and suffering on a scale that hasn't been seen since the Middle Ages (which, incidentally, is when the model for today's debtors prison originated)
Nor does this ruling exhibit enough rational thought to even ask the important questions that need to be asked. For example, if it is considered a maxim that the United States must have a well-educated populace to remain competitive in the world, and to ensure the freedom and prosperity of its citizens, then why is a huge portion of the population forced to go into massive debt to finance that education? Why does the government allow young people in particular to accumulate so much student loan debt, by definition, before they have earned the very degree that ostensibly will allow them to obtain a job with a high enough salary to repay that debt? Why doesn't the U.S. government recognize the fact that most citizens are not as wealthy and well-connected as the members of the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Executive Branch, and therefore that it only takes a relatively small personal disaster to completely devastate a debtors ability to repay debts of any size?
The Supreme Court does not consider these and other important questions; it only considers the very specific and carefully-worded argument brought before them as if the case it is reviewing has no relation to any other institution, policy or life experience. This is not the decision of wise judges who carefully consider the broader ramifications of their rulings. This is the decision of an elite class of politicians with mediocre capacity to think. And it is our nation's shame that U.S. citizens do not take a greater role in pressuring Congress to approve only nominations of wise individuals to the Supreme Court.
All the best,
Paul
posted by Paul at 7:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home