Last week, the Supreme Court scuttled the Biden administration’s attempt to forgive more than $400 billion in student loan debt.
As a matter of policy, broad-based student debt cancellation remains a terrible idea for a host of reasons.
While targeting relatively small debts held by lower-income community college graduates is more defensible, sweeping student debt forgiveness is regressive, rewarding people with an asset—a college or graduate degree—who are better equipped to pay it off than other debt-burdened Americans.
At a time when the government is still fighting inflation, it was “reckless”—in the words of Obama administration chief economist Jason Furman—to pump billions into the economy.
Finally, it’s counterproductive on its own terms. The debt payment moratorium, implemented by the Trump administration and extended by Biden, has led to more borrowing. According to a University of Chicago study summarized in The Economist, “the pause in student-loan payments caused borrowers to rack up more debt, not less.”
But if Democrats want to ignore economic reality and reward a key constituency by having other people pay their debts, they’re free to do so. There’s just one hitch. Congress needs to do it.
In 2021, Joe Biden questioned how much authority he had to cancel student debt “by signing with a pen” and then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi said he didn’t have the authority to do that. But under intense pressure from the left of their party, they reversed course. They discovered a ridiculous pretense under the 2003 HEROES Act and reversed the Department of Education’s standing opinion.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional separation of powers. Congress, not the president, has the power of the purse.
“If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell,” Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., famously said, “I will help them. It’s my job.”
Holmes’ reputation as a philosopher-jurist and civil libertarian has long been in need of a sharp revision. Holmes was a majoritarian, and because he was a jurist during the Progressive Era, his judicial restraint—a refusal to strike down government actions during a time of government expansion—was admired by those seeking to expand the government.
But Holmes had a point. It’s not the Supreme Court’s job to stop politicians and the voters who elected them from making bad decisions so long as they don’t violate the Constitution in the process.
The problem is that after decades of the judicial and executive branches doing Congress’ job—often at the behest of a dysfunctional Congress unwilling or unable to live up to its responsibilities—judicial restraint is now seen as judicial activism. The court didn’t rule that student debt can’t be forgiven, it merely said that government has to do it right or don’t do it at all.
Whatever you think is the right policy on student debt, I think this is very good news for our politics. The accumulation of power in the presidency has fueled polarization by making presidential elections look like parliamentary elections in which new presidents have sweeping authority to do whatever they want. But our constitutional order is not designed for these kinds of zero-sum politics. The presidency is not equipped to legislate.
Executive orders can be reversed by the next executive. Because the bases of both parties don’t know or care about how policy ends are achieved, every new administration swings for the fences, trying to do as much as it can get away with, to the cheers of their partisans in Congress and media. And they’re soon swept from power as a result.
Hence the great paradox of American politics today: You can get what you want if you win more elections, but to win more elections you need to ask for less.
This cycle of overreach and correction was made possible by a Supreme Court that has long turned a blind eye to the separation of powers.
The shift toward a better politics may have already begun. On Monday, Vice President Kamala Harris told NPR, “Look, we have three branches of government. The court took rights from the people of America. Congress can put those rights back in place. We cannot through executive action. Congress can.”
Sky Nisperos, who moved around the world as a military brat, said that as a teen she began to see the effect of her father’s nearly dozen deployments and tours away from his family. Ernest Nisperos said he remembers being asleep when one of his kids jabbed him in the ribs to wake him. He put Sky’s sister in a wrestling ankle lock before he realized he was back home.
“My sister and I would say, ‘It’s just drill sergeant-dad mode,’ especially for the month he came back,” Sky said.
Ernest Nisperos realized his deployments, which involved battle planning and top secret intelligence, were taking a toll. In 2019, after he returned from Afghanistan, he took the family to Disneyland. During the nightly fireworks extravaganza, he cowered in the fetal position while his family and “Toy Story” characters looked on.
Sky worried her father would end up like her grandfather, the military patriarch, who in the years since he retired from the Navy started to have what the family describes as flashbacks to his time in Ramadi, Iraq, in 2005, sometimes yelling that he needed to take cover from a nonexistent attack.
Her father decided he didn’t want that life for Sky and her two siblings.
Some on the left see the military as a redoubt of fringe conservatism. Oath Keepers, the militia group involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol whose leaders were found guilty of seditious conspiracy, and other extremists have touted their veteran credentials. Those on the right have expressed concerns about the military focusing on progressive issues, or in the terms of some Republican lawmakers, being too “woke.”
The sudden and unpopular conclusion to the war in Afghanistan in 2021 added to the disenchantment of some veterans, including Catalina Gasper, who served in the Navy. Gasper said she and her husband, who spent more than two decades in the Army, used to talk to their boys, now 7 and 10, about their future service, asking them if they wanted to be Navy SEALs.
In July 2019, on her last combat deployment to Afghanistan, she was stationed at a base in Kabul when the Taliban launched an attack. The blast battered Gasper’s body and she was transported back to the U.S. for treatment and recovery.
She was left with lingering damage from a traumatic brain injury. She is sensitive to loud sounds and bright lights. She has recurrent dizziness and forgets words. She also has bad knees and herniated discs in her back.
The U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan in the summer of 2021, precipitating Kabul’s fall to the Taliban. “We’re left with the gut-wrenching feeling of, ‘What was it all for?’ ” she said.
She said she was a patriot but decided she would do everything she could to make sure her kids never enter the military. “I just don’t see how it’s sustainable if the machine keeps chewing up and spitting out” our young people, she said.
Katherine Kuzminski, head of the Military, Veterans and Society Program at Center for a New American Security, a bipartisan security think tank, said the pandemic exacerbated the military’s long-term recruiting problems. “You can’t underestimate the fact we didn’t have recruiters on college and high school campuses for two years,” she said. “Recruiters are the only military access point for many people” without family or friends in the military.
Wormuth, the Army secretary, said she is working with the Department of Education to streamline access to schools. Even with federal laws in place that guarantee military recruiters access to high school and college students, school administrators can limit the scope of visits and restrict recruiters’ movements and activities in schools.
Recruiters are competing with some of the lowest unemployment numbers in decades, and entry-level jobs in the service industry that can promise quick paychecks, no commitments and no wait times to start.
“To be honest with you it’s Wendy’s, it’s Carl’s Jr., it’s every single job that a young person can go up against because now they are offering the same incentives that we are offering, so that’s our competition right now,” said Sgt. Maj. Marco Irenze, of the Nevada Army National Guard.
Defense officials said the military pay scale was designed for single teenage men content to live in barracks and who joined to seek adventure, among other reasons. But the military has seen a shift from teens to people in their 20s, who come in later in life with greater expectations for benefits, pay and marketable skills and who pay more attention to the job market.
The lowest-ranking troops make less than $2,000 a month, although pay is bolstered by benefits including healthcare, food and housing, leaving them few out-of-pocket expenses.
Families or those who live off base can find expenses outstrip income. More than 20,000 active-duty troops are on SNAP benefits, otherwise known as food stamps, according to federal data.
When service members move to a new base they often have to spend money out of pocket—even though the Army is supposed to cover all costs, according to Kathy Roth-Douquet, CEO of Blue Star Families, a military-family advocacy group that is currently asking Congress to mandate more funding for troops’ housing.
“If it’s too expensive to serve in the military, families won’t recommend service,” she said. “This hurts the main pipeline of recruitment.”
The promise of a pension down the line isn’t as attractive as it once was, said West Point’s Crow. Only 19% of active-duty troops stayed until retirement age in 2017, according to the Pentagon. To tackle that problem, the military started a system in 2018 that allows troops to invest in what is essentially a 401(k) program, so if they leave the military before full retirement they can still benefit.
The Department of Defense said 77% of American youth are disqualified from military service due to a lack of physical fitness, low test scores, criminal records including drug use or other problems. In 2013, about 71% of youth were ineligible.
The Army estimates that pandemic pressures on education including remote learning, illness, lack of internet access and social isolation lowered scores on the ASVAB, the military’s standardized test for potential recruits, by as much as 9%. Those who score below a certain level on the test and on physical readiness tests can’t join without improving their scores.
Lt. Col. Dan Hayes, a Green Beret who once taught Special Forces captains, some of the highest-performing soldiers in the Army, took charge of the Future Soldier Prep Course in Fort Jackson, S.C. The course takes Army recruits who can’t perform academically or physically and gets them up to standards that allow them to join the service. Other programs help new soldiers raise scores.
“We’re looking at the problems in society and recruiting and realizing we have to meet people half way,” said Hayes.
The Army is adapting marketing techniques from the private sector. One early lesson: The Cold War-era slogan, “Be All You Can Be,” performed better than a recent one, “Army of One,” which didn’t reflect the teamwork the service thinks appeals to current teenagers. The slogan also emphasizes that the military offers career development and a broader sense of purpose, some of its strongest selling points.
Maj. Gen. Deborah Kotulich, the director of the Army’s recruiting and retention task force, a unit convened to address recent shortfalls, said potential recruits should know the Army has more than 150 different job fields available.
Maj. General Alex Fink is just as likely to wear a business suit as camouflage fatigues at the Army Enterprise Marketing Office based in Chicago. The Army put Fink, a reservist with a marketing background, in Chicago so he can be in the heart of one of the nation’s advertising and marketing hubs.
“It hadn’t evolved for the last 15 or 20 years,” he said in an interview. “We really couldn’t measure the effectiveness of marketing.”
Fink’s office is now gathering data on every potential recruit. If an Army ad runs on Facebook and a link gets clicked, the service can follow that anonymous user digitally.
“We don’t know your name, but we can start serving you ads,” he said.
And if that user eventually fills out an Army questionnaire, the service has a name to go with that data and can know what kinds of ads work best. “Literally we can track this all the way until a kid signs a contract,” he said.
Deeper problems soldiers report include moldy barracks, harassment, lack of adequate child care and not enough support for mental health issues such as suicide.
“Parents have concerns about, hey, if my kid joins the military are they going to have good places to live?” Wormuth said. “If my kid joins the military are they going to be sexually harassed, or are they going to be more prone to suicidal ideations?”
She said the Army has encouraged recruiters to be forthright about addressing what might have once been taboo issues in order to dispel those concerns. The service says it has worked to encourage troops to report abuse and harassment and cracked down on such behavior, and has also expanded parental-leave benefits.
Department of Defense officials have said they will have to address the total combat power of the military if the recruiting crisis continues, but that they aren’t ready to yet talk about whether strength will ultimately be affected.
Readiness shortfalls can be masked when units aren’t headed into war, but a full-scale response, such as what would be needed in the Pacific, could expose undermanned units that can’t be deployed or aren’t effective, and ships and aircraft that aren’t combat ready due to a lack of personnel to maintain them.
The military faces decisions on either cutting the size of units or reconfiguring them, or making choices that could hurt the quality of the current forces.
Working to retain existing soldiers is an option. But retention can mean low performers aren’t let go, said Gil Barndollar, a senior research fellow at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at Catholic University of America. “If you’re not cutting your bottom 10% after their initial contracts it’s going to have a long-term effect on high performers,” he said.
Last year, the Army’s top officer, Gen. James McConville, told reporters the service was prepared to eliminate redundancies in the Army’s key fighting units, which are called brigade combat teams. The Army would maintain the number of the units by reducing the personnel in each of them, a restructuring that was prompted by the recruiting crunch, according to one defense official.
Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan think tank, said the Army might end up making cuts that leave too few soldiers in platoons and other units. During peacetime and training this may go unnoticed, but if those units have to deploy, the Army would have to take troops from other units to fill in gaps.
Undermanned units aren’t ready to respond quickly, Cancian said, and units with fill-in soldiers don’t have the same effectiveness as a unit whose members trained together for months or years. “What you’re going to see in the Army are hollow units,” he said.
Wormuth, the Army secretary, has said units will get cuts but hasn’t made public her plan. She has for months hinted at broader force reductions.
“If you look at us over the course of the last 50 years of history, the Army is a little bit like an accordion. We tend to expand in times of war,” Wormuth said. “Frankly that’s how the Founding Fathers thought about the military, they didn’t want a large standing militia.”
Still, she said, the Army is “very, very focused” on turning around the recruiting numbers.
Changes may come too late for those about to graduate from high school or college. Sky Nisperos, who once dreamed of becoming an Air Force pilot, graduated from the University of Oklahoma in May. Her plan now, she said, is to become a graphic designer.