From a practical standpoint, the United States trades with around 200 countries covering about 13,000 items. Is Trump really going to go head-to-head on this many goods? Just the onerous price adjustment and management of it all on a continuous basis will add to the bureaucratic nightmare that Trump says he wishes to avoid. 

Furthermore, if Trump cares about America first, he should forget the concept of reciprocal tax policy. Otherwise, by imposing tariffs based on what other countries charge us, he’s letting other nations set our rates. This would not be looking out for America’s best interest; it’s a game of tit-for-tat — with other nations leading it!

Likewise, Trump is completely tone-deaf on how reciprocal tariffs would impact the average consumer. With tariffs already raising the cost of imported goods, reciprocal tariffs can escalate markets into a trade war. Not only will this continue to drive up prices, but it can also disrupt international trade and global supply chains. With the price of goods artificially raised in such a retaliatory relationship, Americans and American businesses will be less able to get the goods they need at the lowest cost. 

While Trump sees reciprocal tariffs as a means to leverage negotiations with other countries, he’s not interested in encouraging fair-trade practices or diversifying trade relationships. He engaged in a type of political signaling that looks more like economic strong-arming, except that Trump doesn’t understand the long-term economic harm reciprocal tariffs create. Whatever short-term political gain Trump thinks he is creating for this country (or himself) will only burden American consumers with higher prices and economic instability in the long run.

 That is why I was quite dismayed to see a petition to encourage the impeachment of judges, sponsored by the Stefanik Campaign. The petition was encouraging impeachment of judges who had made what many, including myself, believed to be bad decisions.

This is an utterly terrible idea. Even if you don’t like the decision a judge makes, calling for impeachment is just not the way to deal with a bad decision. The decision should be appealed. What  made this action even worse was that there was neither an attempt to describe what was legally wrong about the decision, nor any description or indication of what any impeachable offense was. Even a judge entering a misguided nationwide injunction is certainly not grounds for impeachment. Such a decision should be reversed on appeal so that there are more appropriate guidelines to prevent additional misguided nationwide injunctions in the future. 

Impeachment is for bad actions, not bad decisions. Stefanik would be wise to disavow support for this egregious idea and she should persuade Trump to do the same.

As a longtime tax professional, I’ve seen plenty of government overreach, but this takes the cake. The USMCA was supposed to lock in predictable trade terms—terms Trump himself wanted. Now he’s treating it like a suggestion, not a law. Imagine running a business or a country and signing a deal with someone who’ll ditch it the second it doesn’t suit him. Who’d trust that? It’s not just bad faith; it’s a neon sign screaming that rules only matter until the rule-maker gets bored.

This isn’t about left or right—it’s about consistency and liberty. If you champion individual freedom, you don’t get to shred contracts and impose your will by fiat. That’s the kind of centralized power grab Ayn Rand warned us about, the kind I’ve spent years calling out in tax policy. Trump’s tariffs aren’t just economic meddling; they’re a betrayal of the principles he claimed to stand for.

And here’s the kicker: this isn’t even clever enough to hide. It’s blatant, sloppy, and reeks of the same arrogance that fuels bloated bureaucracies and tax codes designed to choke out the little guy. Government loves to rig the game—promising fairness while picking winners behind closed doors. Trump’s tariff stunt is that game in overdrive: make a rule, break a rule, and leave everyone else scrambling.

The numbers paint a stark picture of the potential impact, though the timeline has shifted. Trump initially announced a 25% tariff on goods imported from Canada and Mexico, However,  the administration subsequently decided to delay  implementation of these tariffs until April. When enacted, they are expected to affect about half of goods from Mexico and more than one-third from Canada. Economists warn this could significantly impact American consumers, potentially raising the cost of North American-made vehicles by $4,000 to $10,000.

The USMCA has shown its worth, with 25 labor complaints filed under its Rapid Response Labor Mechanism from May 2021 to June 2024, resulting in 21 prompt resolutions that improved wages and working conditions for Mexican workers. Now, all of this progress hangs in the balance due to one man’s capricious decision-making. It’s not strength—it’s the tantrum of a guy who thinks he’s above the system he swore to uphold. That’s not a leader. That’s a liability.

Tariffs might sound like they help American businesses, but they only and always do the opposite. History is full of examples—like the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff during the Great Depression—that show tariffs slow down economic growth, raise prices, and hurt consumers. Now, big banks like JPMorgan estimate a 40% chance of recession, largely because businesses are too uncertain to invest. Half of what the U.S. imports helps manufacturers make products, so raising prices on steel and lumber doesn’t protect them—it weakens them. In reality, these tariffs are less about helping American workers and more about protecting politically connected industries.  

The way Trump is handling tariffs isn’t helping either. His policies seem random—one day, Canadian steel faces a 25% tariff; the next, it gets removed after Canada makes a small change. This unpredictability erodes business confidence, making it impossible for companies to plan ahead.” Strong economies rely on stability, not last-minute decisions that change every week. If companies don’t know what rules will apply tomorrow, they’ll hold back on investing or expanding, which slows down the economy even more.  

Consider Canadian lumber, which supplies 70% of the U.S. market. With tariffs now approaching 40%, homebuilders—already struggling with labor shortages—face billions in extra costs. That means fewer homes get built, prices go up, and the housing crisis gets worse. The same goes for steel and aluminum tariffs. Car factories, solar companies, and appliance makers all have to pay more for materials, which means higher prices for consumers or, even worse, factory closures and job losses. This isn’t “winning”—it’s economic suicide. If it really made sense to produce these materials in the U.S. at competitive prices, companies would already be doing it without the government’s interference.  

Countries do not trade. Only businesses and people do. Every trade is one business or individual electing to voluntarily transact with another individual or business. Tariffs interfere by deciding who can trade with whom, usually to benefit powerful industries. Free markets work best when businesses compete fairly, not when the government picks winners and losers. Some Trump supporters argue that these tariffs are meant to challenge China or strengthen the U.S. economy, but the messy execution proves otherwise. If American industries are going to succeed, they need a stable and predictable system—not sudden, punishing policies that make it harder to compete globally.  

Until Trump abandons his tariff obsession and lets the market function, he’s not protecting American workers—he’s punishing them. History has proven that tariffs weaken economies, stifle competition, and raise prices. Yet here we are again, watching him again try the same flawed policies and expecting a different outcome. If Einstein was right, then Trump’s approach isn’t just bad economics—it’s madness.

Tariffs further add to inflation and put American companies at a disadvantage because foreign countries can (and do) retaliate by putting their own tariffs on our exports. This slows manufacturing growth (the cost of their inputs go up), increases prices, and makes the economy more sluggish. On the other hand, free trade creates better choices for consumers and more global opportunities for American companies, resulting in lower costs and an expanded job market.

Even media outlets like the NY Post and Fox News are still parroting the mantra that even though tariffs are bad, they could have long term benefits. These benefits are supposed to be because they will achieve an overall reduction of foreign tariffs against the US, which will allow US companies to make more profits. Though this sounds like it may be right, there has never been any evidence that this is the case (the most logical reason being that because the US economy is so much stronger than other economies, there may be some real economic rationale that tariffs should not be reciprocal).

To suggest a tariff is a pro-growth economic policy is utterly ridiculous. Tariffs don’t strengthen American manufacturers; they are cronyism of the highest order.  Protectionists are economically ignorant, and tariffs have proven yet again to be disastrous for our economy.

Brass Oldies: Part II

“Songs that are “golden oldies” have much less pleasant counterparts in politics– namely, ideas and policies that have failed disastrously in the past but still keep coming back to be advocated and imposed by government. Some people may think these ideas are as good as gold, but brass has often been mistaken for gold by people who don’t look closely enough.

One of these brass oldies is the idea that the government can and must reduce unemployment by “creating jobs.” Some people point to the history of the Great Depression of the 1930s, when unemployment peaked at 25 percent, as proof that the government cannot simply stand by and do nothing when so many millions of people are out of work.

If we are going to look back at history, we need to make sure the history we look at is accurate. First of all, unemployment never hit 25 percent until after– repeat, AFTER– the federal government intervened in the economy.

What was unemployment like when the federal government first intervened in the economy after the stock market crash of 1929? It was 6.3 percent when that first intervention took place in June 1930– down from a peak of 9 percent in December 1929, two months after the stock market crash.

Unemployment never hit double digits in any of the 12 months following the stock market crash of 1929. But it hit double digits within 6 months after government intervention– and unemployment stayed in double digits for the entire remainder of the decade, as the government went in for one intervention after another.

The first federal intervention in June 1930 was the passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs by a Democratic Congress, a bill signed into law by Republican President Herbert Hoover. It was “bipartisan”– but bipartisan nonsense is still nonsense and a bipartisan disaster is still a disaster.

The idea behind these higher tariffs was that reducing our imports of foreign goods would create more jobs for American workers. It sounds plausible, but more than a thousand economists took out newspaper ads, warning that these tariffs would be counterproductive.

That was because other countries would retaliate with their own import restrictions, reducing American exports, thereby destroying American jobs. That is exactly what happened. But there are still people today who repeat the brass oldie that restricting imports will save American jobs.

You can always save particular jobs in a particular industry with import restrictions. But you lose other jobs in other industries, not only because other countries retaliate, but also because of the economic repercussions at home.

You can save jobs in the American sugar industry by restricting imports of foreign sugar. But that results in higher sugar prices within the United States, leading to higher costs for American candy producers, as well as American producers of other products containing sugar. That leads to higher prices for those products, which in turn means lower sales at home and abroad– and therefore fewer jobs in those industries.

A study concluded that there were three times as many jobs lost in the confection industry as were saved in the sugar industry. Restrictions on steel imports likewise led to an estimated 5,000 jobs being saved in the steel industry– and 26,000 jobs being lost in industries producing products made of steel.

Similarly, the whole idea of the government itself “creating jobs” is based on regarding the particular jobs created by government as being a net increase in the total number of jobs in the economy. But, since the government does not create wealth to pay for these jobs, but only transfers wealth from the private sector, that leaves less wealth for private employers to create jobs.

Songs that are golden oldies bring enjoyment when they return. But brass oldies in politics just repeat the original disasters.

A statistical analysis by economists, published in 2004, concluded that federal interventions had prolonged the Great Depression of the 1930s by several years. How long will future research show that current government interventions prolonged the economic crisis we are living through now?”

Research conducted by lawyer Trevor Asserson found substantial evidence of bias against Israel, including a tendency to associate Israel with genocide – despite the fact that Israel has never by word or deed, expressed any intention of eliminating Palestine or its people, and Hamas has expressed openly and consistently their desire to eliminate Israel and its Jews from the face of the Earth (genocide). The report also raises concerns about BBC Arabic’s coverage, noting instances where journalists reportedly showed support for Hamas.

In response, the BBC questioned the report’s methodology, particularly the use of AI for analysis. However, dismissing the report based on AI is disingenuous, since they don’t contest the validity of the findings. AI is a powerful tool for analyzing large volumes of text efficiently and objectively, enabling researchers to identify patterns and biases that might be missed by human reviewers. Its application does not undermine the report; instead, it enhances the analysis by providing a comprehensive view of the content. Additionally, the research was conducted by a team of legal experts and data scientists, meaning that AI analysis complemented, rather than replaced, human oversight and contextual understanding.

The BBC’s insistence on questioning the methodology is clearly just a smokescreen since they don’t even deny the bias and shoddiness of their reporting. Historical evidence shows that media outlets can exhibit bias, and previous studies validate the effectiveness of AI tools in uncovering such biases across various contexts. As a public service broadcaster, the BBC has a responsibility to uphold transparency and accountability. Given these findings, there are serious questions about its suitability for continued public funding.

But what constitutes a political question? I decided to find out. So I asked Alexa to tell me about Kamala Harris‘s tax policy. She responded that she found the following information from a website. Alexa then proceeded for at least 2 1/2 minutes extolling the wonderful virtues of Kamala Harris‘s tax policy —  except that it was blatantly partisan garbage and factually incorrect. For example, Alexa described how Harris strongly believed that lower capital gains rates are needed for economic growth. Therefore, she is proposing to reduce the capital gains rate from Biden’s proposal of nearly 50% to a mere 28%. But this is an utter lie! The Capital gains rate is currently 20% and has been since the Obama Administration. Harris’s proposal actually raises the capital gains rate to 33%, despite the fact that she knows it will hurt economic growth. 

I then asked Alexa to tell me about Donald Trump’s tax policy. Alexa simply replied, “sorry I don’t have any information about that.” Nevermind the fact that he was a US President for four years and has been a candidate for President for two election cycles!

It is clear that Amazon is disingenuously building partisan politics into its Alexa app, despite its protestations that it is not doing so.

Back in 2008 when Obama was debating Hillary Clinton on national TV, Obama discussed with the moderator how raising the capital gains rate would likely reduce federal revenue collections, but he insisted it was good policy anyway — because it was a policy of “fairness”. Yes, knowledgeable people laughed at this, since fairness would actually have required a lower tax rate, and decreasing revenue by increasing taxes couldn’t be more stupid. And as Economics 101 would dictate, we actually experienced a sluggish economy after Obama raised the capital gains rate from 15%-20% (and then tacked on the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax). 

I wouldn’t expect Kamala Harris, who is basically clueless on matters of taxes and economics, to have been aware of this. But one would think that her advisers would be. 

It should also be noted that the capital gains rate, even at 33%% understates the actual tax burden. That’s because capital gains taxes on individuals is actually a second tax, this income having already been taxed at the corporate level. The effective tax rate is therefore in excess of 40%, and this doesn’t even include state taxes. The astoundingly negative effect of this tax increase on economic wealth can’t be overestimated.

The only saving grace is that this proposal is so economically counterproductive and stupid that it’s not likely to get any traction in Congress; Biden has been trying unsuccessfully to raise capital gains for years. It looks like we have another candidate who puts forth an initiative that she knows has very little chance of realization, but chooses to do so anyway so she can characterize the Republicans as protecting the wealthy while she can claim to protect the middle class. 

One of the most glaring issues with the ILWU and ILA’s monopolistic grip on U.S. ports is the staggering compensation packages their members receive, which are wildly disproportionate to the work performed. Longshore workers, particularly on the West Coast, often earn six-figure salaries, with some senior members making well over $200,000 annually, along with massive benefit and pension plans. This level of compensation, secured through the unions’ ability to shut down entire ports during negotiations, places a significant financial burden on port operations, driving up costs for businesses and consumers alike. The inflated pay and benefits, which far exceed those of comparable jobs in other sectors, are a direct result of the unions’ monopolistic control, creating an unsustainable system that prioritizes union interests over economic efficiency.

Another significant and damaging way the ILWU and ILA maintain their grip on U.S. ports is through their fierce opposition to automation. Despite the clear benefits of increased efficiency, lower costs, and improved global competitiveness, these unions staunchly oppose automation, because it weakens their power (Wikipedia) (APM Research Lab). As a result, U.S. ports are significantly behind their global counterparts in adopting advanced technologies, leading to massive disruptions that affect the entire economy. The unions’ resistance to modernization highlights a deeper issue: when union monopolistic power is left unchecked, it can bring progress grinding to a halt and hold entire industries back from necessary evolution.

If the U.S. wants to maintain its position as a global economic leader, it must address the stranglehold that the ILWU and ILA have on our ports. This is about ensuring that our ports can operate efficiently, compete on a global scale, and keep costs down for American consumers and businesses. We need immediate action to break the union monopoly, modernize port operations, and embrace automation. Policymakers must step in to introduce reforms that will bring balance to labor negotiations, promote technological advancement, and prevent unions from holding the entire economy hostage. America’s place in the global economy depends on it.

The Biden-Harris administration has benefitted from the situation that since before the pandemic, job openings in the US have far exceeded the total number of unemployed people. Markets have been buoyed by the fact that as people lost their jobs, they were able to replace them with those that had been previously unfillable. In addition, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been giving a significant additional boost to the economy.

For these reasons, the terrible Biden-Harris economic policies have been pushed into the background, which include:

1) severely increased regulation — including restrictions on mergers and acquisitions, SEC burdens, NLRB restrictive labor policies, etc.;  2) substantial tariffs; 3) threats of, and implementation of, higher taxes;  and 4) legislation directing the use of wasteful and inefficient green energy policies

But they could only be lucky for so long. Now that the excess jobs in the economy have mostly been filled, leading to increasing unemployment rates and weakening of the GDP, the terrible Biden-Harris economic policies are beginning to be felt. And there is no end in sight. Should Kamala Harris win the election in November, and these policies continue, I believe there could be a severe recession. The market realizes that there is no reason for companies to invest, and prospects for the future have turned quite gloomy.

 Even with Trump winning in November, unless he is able to materially reduce regulation, keep taxes low, and avoid his debilitating tariffs, there could still be a recession ahead.

The lesson we have learned is clear: high regulation, along with the threat of higher taxes, can only be severely detrimental to the economy.

1. Seal the border, and stop the migrant invasion

 This is absolutely correct, although the devil is in the details as to how this could be done.

 2. Carry out the largest deportation operation in American history

Though it is certainly beneficial to having a deportation program, creating a huge new government bureaucracy to effect this would be a huge mistake. In contrast, a carefully targeted program of selected deportation could be very valuable, especially in letting people know that future immigrants entering illegally will be prosecuted. 

3. End inflation, and make America affordable again

This is a very understandable statement — “ to end inflation” — but without an indication of the specific policies to accomplish this, it is somewhat meaningless. This is especially true given that some of Trump’s stated policies such as protectionism and keeping and increasing tariffs would be highly inflationary.

4. Make America the dominant energy producer in the world, by far!

I couldn’t agree more. This is also very easy to accomplish by just eliminating Biden’s ridiculous restrictions on fossil fuel permitting drilling and leasing.

5. Stop outsourcing, and turn the United States into a manufacturing superpower.

This is possibly the most ignorant of these platform considerations. Outsourcing has been historically responsible for keeping inflation under control and for allowing American workers to focus their capabilities on higher-end employment. The United States is currently a major manufacturing superpower, with its manufacturing capability and output close to its highest ever in U.S. history. The manufacturing that is done in this country, i.e. high end products, is already here. Inducing lower value-add manufacturing will not only reduce wages of American workers, but increase prices to domestic manufacturers, thereby making them less capable of competing in the world markets.

6. Large tax cuts for workers and no tax on tips

Large tax cuts are always a good thing for economic growth, but given the current state of the deficit and debt there would need to be a rational way to pay for these. Also sometimes the devil is in the details as to what constitutes a tax cut for workers – it must undoubtedly be structured as a rate cut rather than a handout, so that growth will result.

The concept of “no tax on tips” is a nonsensical, not-well-thought-through idea. There is no reason that tips should be taxed less highly then other forms of income. Furthermore, administration of such a position would be extraordinarily difficult. It would also induce all parts of the economy to reorient their compensation in the form of tips rather than normal wages.

7. Defend our constitution, our Bill of Rights, and our fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms.

Again, although the specifics aren’t laid out, this is a clear and important platform component. 

8. Prevent World War Three, restore peace in Europe and in the Middle East, and build a great Iron Dome missile defense shield over our entire country- all made in America.

“Prevent World War Three and restore peace in Europe and in the Middle East” are great sentiments, but I have seen no policy proposals that would even begin to address these. A strong US military that uses overwhelming power to subdue Iran and its proxies could work, but I haven’t heard anything like this from Trump.

A great Iron Dome missile defense shield over our entire country sounds like it could be a good idea, but my guess is that it is ridiculously impractical. And that it should be all “made in America” is an economically ignorant concept. When we pay much more than we need to in order to accomplish any task (which is what “made in America” actually means), then we are much less likely to accomplish this at any feasible and reasonable cost.

9. End the weaponization of government against the American people

This is very important. Big government overburdening regulation has been devastating to the growth of the U.S. economy. Scaling back the powers of government agencies and their overpowering ability to destroy companies by pushing never ending, ever-growing regulation, must be stopped.

10. Stop the migrant crime epidemic, demolish the foreign drug cartels, crush gang violence, and lock up violent offenders.

Stopping the flow of illegal migrants, as noted in point #1, is critically important.  But the entire concept of a migrant crime epidemic is just plain false. Though there are some highly publicized and horrific crimes perpetrated by illegal migrants, the statistics on immigrant crime is crystal clear. Illegal immigrants commit crimes at rates significantly lower than native-born Americans. This is consistent with what seems rational– that is, if you’re an illegal alien, and want to stay in this country, you keep a low profile and avoid criminal activity. It should also be noted that legal immigrants commit crimes at even substantially lower rates than illegal immigrants.

11. Rebuild our cities, including Washington DC, making them safe, clean, and beautiful again

This could be good or bad depending on the actual implementation of such a thing. How are our cities to be rebuilt? Who will pay for it? And to what extent can the federal government be effective in what is clearly a state and local problem (except for Washington DC)?

12. Strengthen and modernize our military making it, without question, the strongest and most powerful in the world 

Without question, this is one of the most important platform items given the volatility of the world today, and further considering the disdain in which our country is now viewed militarily by the likes of Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea.

13. Keep the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency

The dollar will remain the world’s reserve currency as long as the U.S. does not allow its financial strength to deteriorate, such as by allowing continuing deficits, ever growing debt, and increasing socialist tendencies which are degrading America’s growth prospects. 

14. Speak for and protect Social Security and Medicare with no cuts, including no changes to the retirement age

Again, this is an extraordinarily economically ignorant platform position. This position basically requires that Social Security benefits for existing beneficiaries will decline by approximately 22% when the Social Security fund runs dry in approximately 10 years. The Social Security system as presently constituted pays to existing beneficiaries far in excess of the actuarial value that they contributed. And this excess is being paid for by present workers, who therefore will have nothing left from their contributions to pay retirement benefits to themselves. Rational fixes, such as those proposed by Nikki Haley, would include raising the retirement age, making the annual inflation adjustment more rational, and potentially adding a little more means-testing to the system. These adjustments would be phased in, and would not affect current beneficiaries or those within a few years of retirement. But if fixes are not made, then in ten years, existing beneficiaries will bear the brunt of the refusal to fix the system now.

15. Cancel the electric vehicle mandate and cut costly and burdensome regulations

This is absolutely critical and important. The electric vehicle mandate, on any rational cost-benefit analysis, is wasteful beyond belief. It also interferes with the freedom of Americans to buy what they want to buy. As the Supreme Court has indicated in the Obamacare case, the federal government cannot force U.S. citizens to buy what they don’t want to buy. 

Cutting costly and burdensome regulations are critical. Cost benefit analysis would clearly show that agencies have irrationally instituted regulations by making unsupportable calculations of cost benefit. These regulations must be eliminated.

16. Cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children

This is an extremely important and necessary platform position, although we must be careful to not trample freedom of speech and other rights while doing so.

17. Keep men out of women’s sports 

This is absolutely absolutely important, and supported by an overwhelming percentage of Americans.

18. Deport pro- Hamas radicals and make our college campuses safe and patriotic again

I fully agree, insofar as pro-Hamas radicals are clearly defined as those violating individual and property rights of others, and not just exercising their rights of free speech.

19. Secure our elections, including same-day voting, voter identification, paper ballots, and proof of citizenship

Securing our elections is critically important, including proof of citizenship, before one is entitled to vote. I believe however, that reasonable people can disagree on details, and I hope that these details can be accomplished in a bipartisan way.

20. Unite our country by bringing it to new and record levels of success

This is a feel-good ending to the platform, which will be accomplished by proper consideration and implementation – or not – of the first 19 provisions.

College loan forgiveness is, at its core, a wealth transfer. Despite what the left would have you believe, it simply takes from those who have little and gives to those who have much. The Biden administration estimates that 27.6 million borrowers (around 64% of all borrowers) will have some or all of their debt forgiven. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (UBS), college graduates make on average $67,860 per year compared to $38,800 per year for non-graduates, which is a 65% gap. Biden’s plan necessitates taking from those in society who are already in the lowest income bracket to give to the college graduates of the country.

So, not only is it morally and ethically wrong, it’s also just bad policy from an economic perspective. It sends the wrong message to borrowers who willingly took out loans to finance their education. When individuals take on debt, they have a responsibility to repay it. Forgiving student loans undermines personal accountability and discipline, creating a moral hazard by encouraging future students to borrow more, assuming their debts will also be forgiven someday. This would fuel inflation in higher education costs and perpetuate a cycle of debt and forgiveness. And it is also a slap in the face to those who have already paid their debts,

It is also illegal. President Biden does not have statutory authority to forgive debt, except by direction of laws passed by Congress (as the Constitution makes perfectly clear). “Justification” for his forgiveness is to claim as his authority laws that were clearly never intended for that purpose.

Forgiveness also does not deal with the root cause of spiraling costs, which are directly linked to the Federal government guaranteeing student loans, without a single thought given to the loan recipients ability to repay like any private entity would do. A study published by the New York Federal Reserve Bank found a direct connection between federal student aid and tuition increases, every dollar of subsidized student loans, increased  tuition by about 65 cents.

Student loan forgiveness is not a solution but a short-sighted and lazy attempt to buy votes. It is an illegal action which fails to address the root causes of rising education costs and unfairly shifts the burden on taxpayers who did not benefit from higher education loans.