ReportWire

Tag: iab-financial assistance

  • Penn State Scandal Fast Facts | CNN

    Penn State Scandal Fast Facts | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the Penn State sexual abuse scandal. On November 4, 2011, a grand jury report was released containing testimony that former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky sexually abused eight young boys over a period of at least 15 years. Officials at Penn State purportedly failed to notify law enforcement after learning about some of these incidents. On December 7, 2011, the number of victims increased to 10. Sandusky was found guilty in 2012.

    Included is a timeline of accusations, lists of the charges against Sandusky, a list of involved parties, a post grand jury report timeline, information about The Second Mile charity and Sandusky with links to the grand jury investigation.

    Jerry Sandusky

    Birth date: January 26, 1944

    Birth place: Washington, Pennsylvania

    Birth name: Gerald Arthur Sandusky

    Marriage: Dorothy “Dottie” (Gross) Sandusky (1966-present)

    Children: (all adopted) E.J., Kara, Jon, Jeff, Ray and Matt. The Sanduskys also fostered several children.

    Occupation: Assistant football coach at Penn State for 32 years before his retirement, including 23 years as defensive coordinator.

    Initially founded by Sandusky in 1977 as a group foster home for troubled boys, but grew into a non-profit organization that “helps young people to achieve their potential as individuals and community members.”

    May 25, 2012 – The Second Mile requests court approval in Centre County, Pennsylvania, to transfer its programs to Arrow Child & Family Ministries and shut down.

    August 27, 2012 – The Second Mile requests a stay in their petition to transfer its programs to Arrow Child & Family Ministries saying, “this action will allow any pending or future claims filed by Sandusky’s victims to be resolved before key programs or assets are considered for transfer.”

    March 2016 – After years of dismantling and distributing assets to Arrow Child & Family Ministries and any remaining funds to the Pennsylvania Attorney General to hold in escrow, the organization is dissolved.

    Source: Grand Jury Report

    1994-1997 – Sandusky engages in inappropriate conduct with different boys he met separately through The Second Mile program.

    1998 – Penn State police and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare investigate an incident in which the mother of an 11-year-old boy reported that Sandusky showered with her son.

    1998 – Psychologist Alycia Chambers tells Penn State police that Sandusky acted the way a pedophile might in her assessment of a case in which the mother of a young boy reported that Sandusky showered with her son and may have had inappropriate contact with him. A second psychologist, John Seasock, reported he found no indication of child abuse.

    June 1, 1998 – In an interview, Sandusky admits to showering naked with the boy, saying it was wrong and promising not to do it again. The district attorney advises investigators that no charges will be filed, and the university police chief instructs that the case be closed.

    June 1999 – Sandusky retires from Penn State after coaching there for 32 years, but receives emeritus status, with full access to the campus and football facilities.

    2000 – James Calhoun, a janitor at Penn State, tells his supervisor and another janitor that he saw Sandusky sexually abusing a young boy in the Lasch Building showers. No one reports the incident to university officials or law enforcement.

    March 2, 2002 – Graduate Assistant Mike McQueary tells Coach Joe Paterno that on March 1, he witnessed Sandusky sexually abusing a 10-year-old boy in the Lasch Building showers. On May 7, 2012, prosecutors file court documents to change the date of the assault to on or around February 9, 2001.

    March 3, 2002 – Paterno reports the incident to Athletic Director Tim Curley. Later, McQueary meets with Curley and Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz. McQueary testifies that he told Curley and Schultz that he saw Sandusky and the boy engage in anal sex; Curley and Schultz testify they were not told of any such allegation. No law enforcement investigation is launched.

    2005 or 2006 – Sandusky befriends another Second Mile participant whose allegations would form the foundation of the multi-year grand jury investigation.

    2006 or 2007 – Sandusky begins to spend more time with the boy, taking him to sporting events and giving him gifts. During this period, Sandusky performs oral sex on the boy more than 20 times and the boy performs oral sex on him once.

    2008 – The boy breaks off contact with Sandusky. Later, his mother calls the boy’s high school to report her son had been sexually assaulted and the principal bans Sandusky from campus and reports the incident to police. The ensuing investigation reveals 118 calls from Sandusky’s home and cell phone numbers to the boy’s home.

    November 2008 – Sandusky informs The Second Mile that he is under investigation. He is removed from all program activities involving children, according to the group.

    November 4, 2011 – The grand jury report is released.

    November 5, 2011 – Sandusky is arraigned on 40 criminal counts. He is released on $100,000 bail. Curley and Schultz are each charged with one count of felony perjury and one count of failure to report abuse allegations.

    November 7, 2011 – Curley and Schultz are both arraigned and resign from their positions.

    November 9, 2011 – Paterno announces that he intends to retire at the end of the 2011 football season. Hours later, university trustees announce that President Graham Spanier and Coach Paterno are fired, effective immediately.

    November 11, 2011 – McQueary, now a Penn State receivers’ coach, is placed on indefinite administrative leave.

    November 14, 2011 – In a phone interview with NBC’s Bob Costas, Sandusky states that he is “innocent” of the charges and claims that the only thing he did wrong was “showering with those kids.”

    November 15, 2011 – The Morning Call reports that in a November 8, 2011, email to a former classmate, McQueary says he did stop the 2002 assault he witnessed and talked with police about it.

    November 16, 2011 – Representatives of Penn State’s campus police and State College police say they have no record of having received any report from McQueary about his having witnessed the rape of a boy by Sandusky.

    November 16, 2011 – A new judge is assigned to the Sandusky case after it is discovered that Leslie Dutchcot, the judge who freed Sandusky on $100,000 bail, volunteered at The Second Mile charity.

    November 21, 2011 – It is announced that former FBI Director Louis Freeh will lead an independent inquiry for Penn State into the school’s response to allegations of child sex abuse.

    November 22, 2011 – The Patriot-News reports that Children and Youth Services in Pennsylvania has two open cases of child sex abuse against Sandusky. The cases were reported less than two months ago and are in the initial stages of investigation.

    November 22, 2011 – The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts announces that all Centre County Common Pleas Court judges have recused themselves from the Sandusky case. This is to avoid any conflicts of interest due to connections with Sandusky, The Second Mile charity, or Penn State.

    November 30, 2011 – The first lawsuit is filed on behalf of a person listed in the complaint as “John Doe,” who says he was 10 years-old when he met Sandusky through The Second Mile charity. His attorneys say Sandusky sexually abused the victim “over one hundred times” and threatened to harm the victim and his family if he alerted anyone to the abuse.

    December 2, 2011 – A victim’s attorneys say they have reached a settlement with The Second Mile that allows it to stay in operation but requires it to obtain court approval before transferring assets or closing.

    December 3, 2011 – In an interview with The New York Times, Sandusky says, “If I say, ‘No, I’m not attracted to young boys,’ that’s not the truth. Because I’m attracted to young people – boys, girls – I …” His lawyer speaks up at that point to note that Sandusky is not “sexually” attracted to them.

    December 7, 2011 – Sandusky is arrested on additional child rape charges, which raises the number of victims from eight to 10 people. He is charged with four counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and two counts of unlawful contact with a minor. He also faces one new count of indecent assault and two counts of endangering a child’s welfare, in addition to a single new count of indecent assault and two counts of corruption of minors.

    December 8, 2011 – Sandusky is released on $250,000 bail. He is placed under house arrest and is required to wear an electronic monitoring device. He is also restricted from contacting the victims and possible witnesses, and he must be supervised during any interactions with minors.

    December 13, 2011 – Sandusky enters a plea of not guilty and waives his right to a preliminary hearing.

    December 16, 2011 – A hearing is held for Curley and Schultz. McQueary testifies he told university officials that he saw Sandusky possibly sexually assaulting a boy in 2002. Following the testimony, the judge rules that the perjury case against Curley and Schultz will go to trial. The incident is later said to have happened in 2001.

    January 13, 2012 – Curley and Schultz enter pleas of not guilty for their failure to report child sex abuse.

    January 22, 2012 – Paterno dies at the age of 85.

    February 14, 2012 – Penn State says that the Sandusky case has cost the university $3.2 million thus far in combined legal, consultant and public relations fees.

    June 11, 2012 – The Sandusky trial begins. On June 22, Sandusky is found guilty on 45 counts after jurors deliberate for almost 21 hours. His bail is immediately revoked, and he is taken to jail.

    June 30, 2012 – McQueary’s contract as assistant football coach ends.

    July 12, 2012 – Freeh announces the findings of the investigation into Penn State’s actions concerning Sandusky. The report accuses the former leaders at Penn State of showing “total and consistent disregard” for child sex abuse victims, while covering up the attacks of a longtime sexual predator.

    July 23, 2012 – The NCAA announces a $60 million fine against Penn State and bans the team from the postseason for four years. Additionally, the school must vacate all wins from 1998-2011 and will lose 20 football scholarships a year for four seasons.
    – The Big Ten Conference rules that Penn State’s share of bowl revenues for the next four seasons – roughly $13 million will be donated to charities working to prevent child abuse.

    August 24, 2012 – “Victim 1” files a lawsuit against Penn State.

    September 20, 2012 – Penn State hires Feinberg Rozen LLP (headed by Kenneth Feinberg who oversaw the 9/11 and BP oil spill victim funds).

    October 2, 2012 – McQueary files a whistleblower lawsuit against Penn State.

    October 8, 2012 – An audio statement from Sandusky airs in which he protests his innocence and says he is falsely accused.

    October 9, 2012 – Sandusky is sentenced to no less than 30 years and no more than 60 years in prison. During the hearing, Sandusky is designated a violent sexual offender.

    October 15, 2012 – Plaintiff “John Doe,” a 21-year-old male, files a lawsuit against Sandusky, Penn State, The Second Mile, Spanier, Curley and Schultz. Doe alleges that he would not have been assaulted by Sandusky if officials, who were aware he was molesting boys, had not covered up his misconduct.

    November 1, 2012 – The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania files eight charges against former Penn State President Spanier. The charges include perjury and endangering the welfare of a child. Former university Vice President Schultz and former Athletic Director Curley face the same charges, according to Attorney General Linda Kelly.

    November 15, 2012 – The Middle States Commission on Higher Education lifts its warning and reaffirms Penn State’s accreditation.

    January 30, 2013 – Judge John M. Cleland denies Sandusky’s appeal for a new trial.

    July 30, 2013 – A judge rules that Spanier, Curley and Schultz will face trial on obstruction of justice and other charges.

    August 26, 2013 – Attorneys announce Sandusky’s adopted son and six other victims have finalized settlement agreements.

    October 2, 2013 – The Superior Court of Pennsylvania denies Sandusky’s appeal.

    October 28, 2013 – Penn State announces it has reached settlements with 26 victims of Sandusky. The amount paid by the university totals $59.7 million.

    April 2, 2014 – The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania also denies Sandusky’s appeal.

    September 8, 2014 – NCAA ends Penn State’s postseason ban and scholarship limits. The $60 million fine and the 13 years of vacated wins for Paterno remain in place.

    January 16, 2015 – The NCAA agrees to restore 111 of Paterno’s wins as part of a settlement of the lawsuit brought by State Senator Jake Corman and Treasurer Rob McCord. Also, as part of the settlement, Penn State agrees to commit $60 million to the prevention and treatment of child sexual abuse.

    December 23, 2015 – A spokeswoman for the State of Pennsylvania employee retirement system says Sandusky will receive $211,000 in back payments and his regular pension payments will resume. This is the result of a November 13 court ruling that reversed a 2012 decision to terminate Sandusky’s pension under a state law that allows the termination of pensions of public employees convicted of a “disqualifying crime.” The judge said in his ruling that Sandusky was not employed at the time of the crimes he was convicted of committing.

    January 22, 2016 – A three-judge panel reverses the obstruction of justice and conspiracy charges against Spanier, Curley and Schultz, and the perjury charges against Spanier and Curley.

    May 4, 2016 – A new allegation purports Paterno knew that his assistant coach Sandusky was sexually abusing a child as early as 1976, according to a new court filing. The ongoing lawsuit, filed in 2013, seeks to determine whether Penn State or its insurance policy is liable for paying Sandusky’s victims. At least 30 men were involved in a civil settlement with Penn State, and the number of victims could be higher.

    May 6, 2016 – CNN reports the story of another alleged victim who explains how he was a troubled young kid in 1971 when Sandusky raped him in a Penn State bathroom. He says his complaint about it was ignored by Paterno.

    July 12, 2016 – Newly unsealed court documents allege that Paterno knew about Sandusky’s abuse and that he dismissed a victim’s complaint.

    August 12, 2016 – In a bid for a new trial, Sandusky testifies at a post-conviction hearing claiming his lawyers bungled his 2012 trial. On the stand, Sandusky describes what he said as bad media and legal advice given to him by his former lawyer, Joseph Amendola.

    November 3, 2016 – The Department of Education fines Penn State $2.4 million for violating the Clery Act, a law that requires universities to report crime on campuses. It’s the largest fine in the history of the act.

    March 13, 2017 – Curley and Schultz plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of endangering the welfare of children in exchange for the dismissal of felony charges.

    March 24, 2017 – Spanier is found guilty on one misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child. Spanier was acquitted of more serious allegations, including conspiracy charges and a felony count of child endangerment.

    June 2, 2017 – Spanier and two other former administrators are sentenced to jail terms for failing to report a 2001 allegation that Sandusky was molesting young boys. Spanier whose total sentence is four to 12 months incarceration, will be on probation for two years and must pay a $7,500 fine, according to Joe Grace, a spokesman for Pennsylvania’s attorney general’s office.

    – Curley is sentenced to seven to 23 months’ incarceration and two years’ probation, Grace said. He will serve three months in jail followed by house arrest and pay a $5,000 fine.

    – Schultz is sentenced to six to 23 months’ incarceration and two years’ probation. He will serve two months in jail, followed by house arrest and pay a $5,000 fine, according to Grace.

    January 9, 2018 – Penn State reports that the total amount of settlement awards paid to Sandusky’s victims is now over $109 million.

    February 5, 2019 – In response to an appeal for a new trial that also questions the validity of mandatory minimum sentencing, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania orders Sandusky to be re-sentenced. The request for a new trial is denied.

    April 30, 2019 – US Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick vacates Spanier’s 2017 conviction for endangering the welfare of a child. Spanier was set to be sentenced on the one count conviction, instead, the court ordered the conviction be vacated because it was based on a criminal statute that did not go into effect until after the conduct in question. The state has 90 days to retry him, according to court documents. The following month, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro appeals the judge’s decision to throw out the conviction.

    November 22, 2019 – Sandusky is resentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison, the same penalty that was previously overturned. The initial sentence of at least 30 years in prison was overturned by the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which found that mandatory minimum sentences were illegally imposed.

    March 26, 2020 – The US Office for Civil Rights finds that Penn State failed to protect students who filed sexual harassment complaints. OCR completed the compliance review after it was initially launched in 2014, and found that the University violated Title IX for several years, in various ways. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announces that the US Department of Education and the university have entered into a resolution agreement that compels Penn State to address deficiencies in their complaint process, reporting policy requirements, record keeping, and training of staff, university police and other persons who work with students.

    December 1, 2020 – Spanier’s conviction is restored by a federal appeals court.

    May 26, 2021 – A judge rules that Spanier will start his two month prison sentence on July 9. Spanier reports to jail early and is released on August 4 after serving 58 days.

    Sandusky Verdict

    Victim 1
    Count 1 – guilty: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 2 – guilty: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 3 – guilty: Indecent Assault (Felony 3)
    Count 4 – guilty: Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 1)
    Count 5 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 6 – guilty: Endangering Welfare of Children (Felony 3)

    Victim 2
    Count 7 – not guilty: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 8 – guilty: Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 2)
    Count 9 – guilty: Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 1)
    Count 10 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 11 – guilty: Endangering Welfare of Children (Misdemeanor 1)

    Victim 3
    Count 12 – guilty: Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 2)
    Count 13 – guilty: Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 3)
    Count 14 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 15 – guilty: Endangering Welfare of Children (Felony 3)

    Victim 4
    Count 16 – ****DROPPED****: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 17 – guilty: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 18 – ****DROPPED*****: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 19 – ****DROPPED*****: Aggravated Indecent Assault (Felony 2)
    Count 20 – guilty: Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 2)
    Count 21 – guilty: Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 1)
    Count 22 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 23 – guilty” Endangering Welfare of Children (Felony 3)

    Victim 5
    Count 24 – not guilty: Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 25 – guilty: Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 3)
    Count 26 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 27 – guilty: Endangering Welfare of Children (Felony 3)

    Victim 6
    Count 28 – not guilty: Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 29 – guilty: Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 3)
    Count 30 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 31 – guilty: Endangering Welfare of Children (Misdemeanor 1)

    Victim 7
    Count 32 – guilty: Criminal Attempt to Commit Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 2)
    Count 33 – ****DROPPED****: WITHDRAWN BY PROSECUTORS (unlawful contact with minors)
    Count 34 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 35 – guilty: Endangering Welfare of Children (Misdemeanor 1)

    Victim 8
    Count 36 – guilty: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 37 – guilty: Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 2)
    Count 38 – guilty: Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 1)
    Count 39 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 40 – guilty: Endangering Welfare of Children (Misdemeanor 1)

    (Due to 2nd indictment, counts start over with Victims 9 and 10)

    Victim 9
    Count 1 – guilty: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 2 – guilty: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 3 – guilty: Indecent Assault (Felony 3)
    Count 4 – guilty: Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 1)
    Count 5 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 6 – guilty: Endangering Welfare of Children (Felony 3)

    Victim 10
    Count 7 – guilty: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 8 – guilty: Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse (Felony 1)
    Count 9 – guilty: Indecent Assault (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 10 – guilty: Unlawful Contact with Minors (Felony 1)
    Count 11 – guilty: Corruption of Minors (Misdemeanor 1)
    Count 12 – guilty: Endangering Welfare of Children (Felony 3)

    Source link

  • Andrew Yang Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    Andrew Yang Fast Facts | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Here is a look at the life of Andrew Yang, entrepreneur and former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.

    Birth date: January 13, 1975

    Birth place: Schenectady, New York

    Birth name: Andrew M. Yang

    Father: Kei-Hsiung Yang, researcher at IBM and GE

    Mother: Nancy L. Yang, systems administrator

    Marriage: Evelyn (Lu) Yang (2011-present)

    Children: Two sons

    Education: Brown University, B.A. in Economics, 1996; J.D. Columbia University School of Law, 1999

    Religion: Protestant

    His parents are originally from Taiwan.

    The primary proposal for his political platform was the idea of universal basic income (UBI). This “Freedom Dividend” would have provided every citizen with $1,000 a month, or $12,000 a year.

    Yang established Freedom Dividend, a pilot program to push for universal basic income, in which he personally funds monthly cash payments.

    Is featured in the 2016 documentary, “Generation Startup.”

    His campaign slogan was “MATH,” or “Make America Think Harder.”

    In 1992, he traveled to London as a member of the US National Debate Team.

    After graduating from Columbia, Yang practiced law for a short time before changing his career focus to start-ups and entrepreneurship.

    2002-2005 – Vice president of a healthcare start-up.

    2006-2011 – Managing director, then CEO, of Manhattan Prep, a test-prep company.

    2009 – Kaplan buys Manhattan Prep for more than $10 million.

    September 2011 – Founds Venture for America, a non-profit which connects recent college graduates with start-ups. Leaves the company in 2017.

    2012 – Is recognized by President Barack Obama as a “Champion of Change.”

    April 2012 – Ranks No. 27 on Fast Company’s list of 100 Most Creative People in Business.

    February 4, 2014 – His book, “Smart People Should Build Things: How to Restore Our Culture of Achievement, Build a Path for Entrepreneurs, and Create New Jobs in America,” is published.

    May 11, 2015 – Obama names Yang an ambassador for global entrepreneurship.

    November 6, 2017 – Files FEC paperwork for a 2020 presidential run.

    February 2, 2018 – Announces his run for president via YouTube and Twitter.

    April 3, 2018 – His book, “The War on Normal People,” is published.

    March 2019 – Yang explores the possibility of using a 3D hologram to be able to campaign remotely in two or three places at once.

    January 4, 2020 – Launches a write-in campaign for the Ohio Democratic primary in March of 2020 after failing to fully comply with the state’s ballot access laws.

    February 11, 2020 – In New Hampshire, Yang suspends his presidential campaign.

    February 19, 2020 – CNN announces that Yang will be joining the network as a political commentator.

    March 5, 2020 – Launches Humanity Forward, a nonprofit group that will “endorse and provide resources to political candidates who embrace Universal Basic Income, human-centered capitalism and other aligned policies at every level,” according to its website. Yang also announces that he will launch a podcast.

    December 23, 2020 – Files paperwork to participate in New York’s 2021 mayoral race, according to city records.

    January 13, 2021 – Yang announces his candidacy for New York City mayor.

    June 22, 2021 – Yang concedes the New York City mayoral race.

    October 4, 2021 – Yang announces in a blog post that he is “breaking up” with the Democratic Party and has registered as an independent

    July 27, 2022 – Yang, along with former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, and a group of former Republican and Democratic officials form a new political party called Forward.

    September 12, 2023 – Yang’s political thriller “The Last Election,” co-written with Stephen Marche, is published.

    2020 hopeful wants holograms to campaign in multiple cities

    Source link

  • How to choose the best student loan repayment plan | CNN Politics

    How to choose the best student loan repayment plan | CNN Politics


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Millions of borrowers are required to make their monthly student loan payment for the first time in three-plus years in October, but there are several repayment plans available that could make the transition easier.

    Borrowers will be on the same payment plan they were before the pandemic pause started in March 2020, but they may want to consider switching to a different plan if their financial situation has changed.

    Plus, there’s also a new repayment plan, known as SAVE (Saving on a Valuable Education), that launched this summer and could potentially lower monthly payments for millions of borrowers.

    Borrowers can use Federal Student Aid’s online “Loan Simulator” to compare their estimated payments under different repayment plans. They can switch plans at any time, for free, by contacting their student loan servicer or by submitting an application to Federal Student Aid.

    Here are some things to consider when exploring your payment options:

    Standard 10-year plan: When entering repayment for the first time, borrowers are automatically enrolled in the Standard Repayment Plan. These payments are based on how much debt a borrower has and sets a fixed monthly amount to ensure it’s all paid off, with interest, in 10 years.

    Income-driven plans: If a borrower is struggling to afford monthly payments, an income-driven plan – of which there are four types, including the new SAVE plan – may be a good option. These plans calculate monthly payments based on a borrower’s income and family size and are meant to keep payments affordable for low-income borrowers. Monthly bills could be as low as $0.

    Other non-income-related plans: The extended and graduated repayment plans could also lower a borrower’s monthly payment without calculating the amount based on income. They could be a good option for people who will eventually earn high salaries. The extended plan will spread payments over as many as 25 years. The graduated plan usually has a 10-year term, but payments start small and grow over time.

    Income-driven repayment plans could be good options for borrowers who feel as though their monthly payment is too high on the 10-year standard plan or on the extended and graduated plans. The four plans are called SAVE, Pay As You Earn, Income-Based Repayment and Income-Contingent Repayment.

    Under these income-driven plans, a borrower is required to pay a certain portion of their discretionary income, or what income is left after paying for family necessities such as rent, food and clothes.

    Generally, monthly payments under an income-driven plan go up when a borrower’s income goes up – or payments go down when a borrower has less discretionary income. Borrowers are required to recertify every year, which means payments will adjust if their income or family size has changed.

    The newest income-driven plan, SAVE, offers the most generous terms when it comes to lowering a borrower’s monthly bill. Once fully phased in next year, it will require some borrowers with undergraduate loans to pay just 5% of their discretionary income, down from the 10% required by most income-driven plans. SAVE also includes an interest subsidy so that debts don’t grow while a borrower makes payments.

    Borrowers enrolled in income-driven repayment plans may also see their remaining student loan debt forgiven after making enough qualifying payments. The time to forgiveness varies by borrower and plan but won’t be longer than 25 years’ worth of payments.

    Eligibility for the income-driven repayment plans depends on what kind of federal student loans a borrower has, their income and when the loans were taken out. Most federal student loan borrowers are eligible for SAVE.

    Borrowers enrolled in the Standard Repayment Plan will usually pay the least amount over time. That’s because they will be finished paying in 10 years, leaving less time for interest to accrue.

    Borrowers may pay even less over time if they “prepay.” They are allowed to pay an extra amount, in addition to what’s required, at any time. Because of interest, this could also lower the total amount they end up paying under the Standard Repayment Plan.

    Parents who borrow to help finance their child’s education may have federal Parent PLUS loans, which are not eligible for all of the repayment plans.

    Like with other loans, borrowers with Parent PLUS loans are enrolled in the Standard Repayment Plan by default and are eligible to switch into the graduated and extended plans.

    Parent PLUS loans are not eligible for income-driven plans – but there is a workaround. If borrowers first consolidate their Parent PLUS loans into a Direct Consolidation Loan, they are then allowed to enroll in one type of income-driven plan – the Income-Contingent Repayment Plan – according to the Institute of Student Loan Advisors, a nonprofit that offers free student loan assistance.

    Parent PLUS borrowers will not be able to enroll in the newest income-driven plan, SAVE, even if they consolidate.

    It’s worth noting that the Income-Contingent Repayment Plan will close next year to new borrowers, except to those with consolidation loans that repaid a Parent PLUS loan, according to Department of Education rules.

    Marriage could result in a significant increase for borrowers enrolled in an income-driven plan because a spouse’s income will be included in the payment calculation.

    But some married borrowers who file taxes separately can shield their spouse’s income to get a lower monthly student loan payment. This is true under the SAVE, Income-Based Repayment and Income-Contingent Repayment plans.

    Borrowers enrolled in the 10-year standard plan won’t see a change after getting married.

    The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program could be a great option for borrowers with a lot of student loan debt who work for a nonprofit organization or the government.

    Qualifying borrowers will see their remaining student debt canceled after making 120 monthly payments. But they must be enrolled in the SAVE, Pay as You Earn, Income-Based or Income-Contingent plans.

    Borrowers with older, federally owned Federal Family Education Loans (FFEL) are not normally eligible for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. But under a one-time waiver, those borrowers could get credit for past payments if they consolidate their FFEL loans by the end of 2023.

    Source link

  • What happens if you don’t pay your student loans? | CNN Politics

    What happens if you don’t pay your student loans? | CNN Politics


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Student loan payments are due in October for the first time in three-plus years – but for the next 12 months, borrowers will be able to skip payments without facing the harsh financial consequences of defaulting on their loans.

    The Biden administration is providing what it’s called an “on-ramp period” until September 30, 2024. During that time, a borrower won’t be reported as being in default to the national credit rating agencies, which can damage a person’s credit score.

    Think of it as a grace period for missed payments. But interest will still accrue, so borrowers aren’t off the hook entirely.

    Here’s what borrowers need to know:

    Any federal student loan borrower who was eligible for the pandemic-related payment pause, which took effect in March 2020, is eligible for the “on-ramp” period. That includes borrowers with federal Direct Loans, Federal Family Education Loans and Perkins Loans held by the Department of Education.

    Borrowers don’t need to apply for the benefit.

    Normally, a federal student loan becomes delinquent the first day after a payment is missed. Loan servicers will report the delinquency to the three national credit bureaus if a payment is not made within 90 days.

    A loan goes into default after a borrower fails to make a payment for at least 270 days, or about nine months, which can result in further financial consequences.

    A default can further damage your credit score, making it harder to buy a car or house. It could take years to establish good credit again. Borrowers could also see their federal tax refund or even a portion of their paycheck withheld.

    Once in default, the borrower can no longer receive deferment or forbearance and would lose eligibility for additional federal student aid. At that point, the loan holder can also take the borrower to court.

    Because the pandemic payment pause has ended, interest restarted accruing on September 1 after interest rates were effectively set to 0% for three-plus years.

    That means if a borrower misses a payment now, he or she could end up owing more debt over time due to interest.

    As interest builds up, a borrower’s loan servicer may also increase monthly payment amounts to ensure the debt is paid off on time. (This won’t happen to borrowers enrolled in income-driven plans, which calculate payments based on income and family size.)

    And unlike during the pause, a missed payment means that a borrower will miss out on a month’s worth of credit toward student loan forgiveness under certain repayment plans.

    For borrowers enrolled in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, for example, each month during the pause still counted toward the 120 monthly payments required to be eligible for debt forgiveness.

    Before missing a payment, it might be worth considering switching into an income-driven repayment plan that could lower monthly payments.

    A new income-driven repayment plan launched this summer, called SAVE (Saving on a Valuable Education), offers the most generous terms and will likely offer the smallest monthly payment for lower-income borrowers.

    Under SAVE, a single borrower earning $32,800 or less or a borrower with a family of four earning $67,500 or less will see their payments set at $0.

    Borrowers can apply for a new repayment plan whenever they want, for free, but should allow at least four weeks for the change to take effect.

    Borrowers who fell into default before the pandemic pause started in March 2020 can apply for the Department of Education’s “Fresh Start” program.

    If borrowers use Fresh Start to get out of default, their loans will automatically be transferred from the Department of Education’s Default Resolution Group to a loan servicer and returned to an “in repayment” status, and the default will be removed from their credit report.

    To claim these benefits, log in to myeddebt.ed.gov or call 800-621-3115. The process should take about 10 minutes, according to the Department of Education.

    Source link

  • Autoworkers strike deadline nears as negotiators rush to avoid historic walkout | CNN Business

    Autoworkers strike deadline nears as negotiators rush to avoid historic walkout | CNN Business


    Detroit
    CNN
     — 

    With just hours to go before labor contracts expire at America’s three unionized automakers, thousands of autoworkers could walk off the job.

    Those limited, targeted strikes could be enough to grind production to a halt at General Motors, Ford and Stellantis, which builds vehicles under the Jeep, Ram, Dodge and Chrysler brands for North America.

    But the uncertainty and confusion underscore the high stakes, with a possible historic strike at all three major automakers, disruptions to the local and national economies, and, perhaps more than anything, a hint at the future of manufacturing jobs in America.

    The union and the automakers continued to negotiate down to the wire on Thursday. GM made a new offer on Thursday afternoon, including a 20% raise, matching Ford’s offer.

    “We don’t want there to be a strike. We’re ready to work until the deadline,” Ford CEO Jim Farley told CNN. “We’d like to make history by making a historic deal, not having a historic strike,” he said.

    And President Joe Biden himself spoke to leaders of the union and the automakers, as a strike could be politically costly for him, as well.

    UAW President Shawn Fain on Wednesday evening announced plans for those targeted strikes at any company that fails to reach a labor deal with the union before contracts expire at 11:59 pm Thursday. Fain suggested the strategy, including the possibility of ramping up strikes as negotiating continues, would give the UAW more leverage. “We have the power to keep escalating and keep taking plants out,” he said.

    But Farley said on CNN Thursday that striking plants that make critical parts could affect workers at downstream assembly plants.

    “We can’t make a vehicle without an engine or transmission or stamping. So those people will, you know, basically be furloughed,” Farley said.

    Slowing or stopping the production of a few engine or transmission plants at each company could be as effective at stopping operations as a full strike at all plants, according to industry experts.

    One engine or transmission location per company might be enough to shut down nearly three-quarters of the US assembly plants, said Jeff Schuster, global head of automotive for GlobalData, an industry consultant.

    “Two plants per company, you can pretty much idle North America,” he said.

    Halting the companies’ assembly lines would likely happen in less than a week that way, Schuster said.

    One advantage for the union of a targeted strike is the potential to save resources and extend a possible walkout. Striking union members are eligible for $500 a week from the union’s strike fund.

    If all 145,000 UAW members among the three automakers were to strike at the same time, it could cost the fund more than $70 million a week, draining the $825 million fund.

    If the companies shut down operations and lay off members who are not technically on strike, those workers could be eligible to receive state unemployment benefits rather than strike benefits, which could preserve the union’s resources.

    Strikers are not eligible for unemployment benefits, but workers on temporary layoff can receive the benefits, which differ by state but would be less than the union’s $500 strike pay. There also are legal questions in different states about qualifying for unemployment.

    An official with Ford told reporters Thursday that under state law, workers in Michigan and Ohio were not eligible to receive unemployment benefits if they were laid off due to lack of parts at their plant caused by a strike. There are some other states, such as Kentucky and Tennessee, where they would be able to receive unemployment benefits, according to the officials.

    But they said none of the Ford UAW members would be eligible for so-called “sub-pay,” which they typically receive during temporary layoffs. Sub pay is far more lucrative, covering most of the gap between unemployment benefits, typically less than $300 a week, and normal company pay, which can be close to $1,300 a week.

    GM CEO Mary Barra sent a letter to employees Thursday saying the company’s latest offer now includes a 20% raise, with an immediate 10% pay hike. The lower paid temporary employees would get $20 an hour, which represents a 20% raise from the current $16.67 an hour they receive. She called the offer “historic.”

    “We are working with urgency and have proposed yet another increasingly strong offer with the goal of reaching an agreement tonight. Remember: we had a strike in 2019 and nobody won,” she said in the letter.

    Farley told CNN the offer from Ford of a 20% raise over the life of the contract is the most lucrative offer the company has made to the union in the 80 years it has been there. But he said meeting the union’s demands of close to a 40% raise, along with a four-day work week and other benefit improvements, would have been unaffordable.

    Farley blamed the union for the lack of progress in negotiations. But the union has blamed the companies for waiting until the end of August or early September to make their first counteroffers.

    The union came up with the 40% raise request based on the increase in the pay of CEOs at the three automakers over the last four years. Ford CEO pay rose 21%, from $17 million for Farley’s predecessor Jim Hackett in 2019, to $21 million for Farley last year. (Farley is the lowest compensated of the three CEOs.)

    Asked why the union workers shouldn’t get the same increases, Farley responded, “We’re really open to huge increases.” As to the 40% increases for CEOs, Farley responded, “I wasn’t CEO four years ago, but we have put on the table huge increases, double digit increases.”

    Ford has not had a strike since 1978; it has more UAW workers than the other two automakers.

    President Joe Biden spoke with Fain and leaders of the major auto companies “to discuss the status of ongoing negotiations,” the White House said Thursday.

    The White House declined to say Wednesday that Biden would support UAW workers if they chose to strike.

    “I’m gonna leave it at, [Biden] believes the auto workers deserve a contract that sustains middle class jobs and wants the parties to stay at the table, to work round the clock to get a win-win agreement,” Council of Economic Advisors Chair Jared Bernstein told reporters during Wednesday’s White House press briefing.

    Biden became directly involved in 11th hour negotiations a year ago to stop engineers and conductors at the nation’s major freight railroad from going on strike and was credited by both sides with a deal being reached at that time. But Biden and Congress had power under a different labor law to keep workers on the job by imposing a contract, a power he used later in the year when rank-and-file rail workers rejected the deal he brokered and again threatened to strike

    The autoworkers fall under a different labor law, one that leaves Biden with no power to stop a walkout. And he has limited influence with the UAW, which has been critical of his push to have the industry convert to electric vehicles, a move that could cost members jobs in the long run.

    In a statement midday Thursday, GM said it remains in “good faith negotiations” with the UAW but cautioned that a strike would be disruptive to its business.

    “Any disruption would negatively impact our employees and customers, and would have an immediate ripple effect across our communities,” a company spokesperson said.

    One sticking point in negotiations is that wages are only part of the gap between the two sides. In some ways it might be the least difficult problem to solve, said Patrick Anderson, CEO of Anderson Economic Group, a Michigan research firm.

    “The difference between the automakers and the unions on wages is a gap that could be closed,” said Anderson. “The differences involving non-wage demands are a gulf, not a gap.”

    The union is attempting to reverse deep concessions that go back as far as 2007. At the time, years of losses had left Ford nearly out of cash, and GM and Chrysler were on their way to bankruptcy and federal bailouts.

    The number one concession the union wants to end is a lower tier of wages and benefits for workers hired since 2007. While top pay for those newer hires, who today make up a majority of membership, is the same as the $32.32 paid to more senior members, it takes many more years to reach that level.

    The union also wants to restore traditional pension plans for those hired since 2007, as the more senior workers now receive, as well as the same retiree health care coverage. And to protect members from rising prices, it wants a return of the cost-of-living adjustments to pay that all employees lost in 2007.

    Even Fain calls those demands “ambitious,” but he said they’re driven by record or near record profits at the automakers.

    Pandemic supply chain disruptions and shortages of some parts, particularly computer chips, have led to record car prices. The average purchase price of a new car in August was nearly $48,000, according to Edmunds. That’s up 30% from August of 2019.

    Automakers have used their limited supply of parts to build vehicles loaded with options to maximize profits. That’s produced a strong bottom line. General Motors reported record profits in 2022, and Ford posted near-record profits as well. Stellantis, a European-based automaker formed in 2021 by the merger of Fiat Chrysler and PSA Group, had 2022 profits up 26% compared to its first year of combined operations.

    A strike that halts production nationwide could also be costly for the automakers at a time of strong demand by car buyers and strong competition from nonunion automakers such as Tesla and foreign brands. GM said it lost $2.9 billion during its 2019 strike.

    While the automakers have done their best to build up inventory at dealerships, car buyers could have trouble finding some of the models they want and could have to wait longer for their choice of colors and options. And limited supplies could put upward pressure on some vehicle prices.

    – CNN’s DJ Judd contributed to this report

    Source link

  • More remote workers are willing to move in order to find affordable housing | CNN Business

    More remote workers are willing to move in order to find affordable housing | CNN Business


    Washington, DC
    CNN
     — 

    Housing is less affordable than it has been in about four decades. But buying or renting a home might be even less affordable now if it weren’t for the continuing impact of remote and hybrid workers that resulted from the pandemic, according to a recent study by Fannie Mae.

    The study, which was an analysis of Fannie Mae’s monthly National Housing Survey, with questions asked among more than 3,000 mortgage holders, owners, and renters between January and March this year, looked at how remote and hybrid work has changed over the past few years and its impact on housing.

    More people are willing to move to less expensive areas further away from offices in city centers than a few years ago, according to the report. Continuing remote and hybrid work, at levels remarkably unchanged from two years ago, is enabling people to move toward housing affordability, the study found.

    The report also revealed that “affordability” is the most important factor in finding a place to live, both for renters and homeowners.

    At the beginning of the year, 22% of remote and hybrid workers said they would be willing to relocate to a different region or increase their commute. Only 14% such workers were willing to do so in the third quarter of 2021, which is used as a comparison throughout the study and was when many workplaces attempted a “return to work” until the Omicron variant of Covid-19 pushed many employers’ plans back that winter.

    Workers who are able to break their ties to living in an area because of its proximity to work are able to spread out, reducing the competition for a historically low number of homes for sale that could push prices even higher.

    The research showed that among remote workers, all age and income groups have grown more willing to relocate or live farther away from their workplace since 2021. But younger workers — those between 18 and 34 — are significantly more willing than those older than them to live or commute a further distance from their work, with the share willing to do so jumping from 18% in 2021, to 30% in 2023.

    “We believe this greater willingness to live farther from the … workplace may be an indication that some workers are feeling more secure about their remote work situation … or their ability to find another job if their current employer were to change its policies,” wrote the researchers, in a summary.

    This is good news for remote workers during a time of crushingly low levels of home affordability.

    Remote and hybrid work may be here to stay. Or, it’s here long enough for people to buy or rent a new home because of it, the researchers found.

    Despite the demands by leaders of some prominent companies that workers need to head into the office or head out the door, the share of fully remote and hybrid workers has remained surprisingly constant in the post-pandemic era, according to the study.

    In the first part of the year, 35% of respondents worked fully remote or worked a hybrid mix of some time at a workplace and some time at home. That was only slightly down from 36% in 2021.

    While the share of workers going to a work site or office every day was unchanged at 49% in both 2021 and in 2023, the share of people working fully remote ticked up to 14% this year from 13% in 2021.

    Homeowners continue to be slightly more likely to work from home than renters. And those with more education and higher incomes are also more likely to have a work-from-home situation, which is consistent with 2021, the study found.

    Only 30% of lower-income people, earning 80% of the area median income, could work remotely or hybrid in 2021, and that dropped to 27% by this year. Meanwhile 42% of upper-income people, those making 120% of the area median income, were able to work from home in 2021 and that number did not change in 2023.

    Lower-income people — who are in most need of access to lower-cost housing, found further away from a city’s core — are also those least likely to work remotely, according to the survey.

    With housing affordability taking a hit over the past few years as rents rose, home prices stayed elevated and mortgage rates soared to a 22-year high, it is not surprising that “affordability” was the top factor for people when picking a new home, at 36%. This was a big jump from 2014, the last time the question was asked, when the top consideration was “neighborhood” at 49%.

    Homeowners and renters both showed growth in prioritizing “affordability,” but the increase was greatest among renters, shooting up from 21% in 2014 to 46% in 2023.

    “The change in preference for renters is truly remarkable, since not only did it more than double, but it represented a complete reversal of the relative importance of neighborhood cited by consumers as the top consideration in 2014,” wrote the researchers.

    In addition, despite the talk about moving for more space, “home size” as a factor for picking a next home was unchanged and still outweighed by “affordability.”

    “The striking shift toward affordability as the top consideration among overall survey respondents for their next move substantiates the need of households to find ways to manage around the significant rise in mortgage rates, home prices, and rents of the past few years,” the researchers wrote.

    And this is impacting where people look for a home and what they prioritize when they are searching.

    “Home affordability may also be a reason why we saw an increase in remote workers’ willingness to relocate or live farther away from their workplace, particularly given that, historically, a shorter commute to denser job markets was considered a premium amenity,” the researchers wrote.

    The suburbs are increasingly where people want to be, the report found, which is part of an ongoing trend since 2010. And that share has grown between 2021 and 2023.

    The researchers say the change to the housing market brought about by remote workers holds broader implications for the link between housing and the labor market.

    The growing share of remote-working renters and homeowners willing to live farther from their work location gives employers access to a wider labor market, which could be useful if a downturn in economic activity led to greater rates of job loss.

    “Having access to a larger labor market may also reduce the adverse effect on local home prices when a major employer or industry contracts,” the researchers wrote.

    Source link

  • Georgia is now the only state with work requirements in Medicaid | CNN Politics

    Georgia is now the only state with work requirements in Medicaid | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Georgia is now the only state in the US to implement work requirements in its Medicaid program – a feat many Republican lawmakers nationwide will be closely monitoring.

    But unlike GOP-led states’ prior attempts to impose work mandates in Medicaid, Georgia’s effort is expected to increase the number of people with health insurance, rather than strip coverage away from an untold number of low-income residents. That allowed it to pass muster in court, though critics still deride the program as complicated, ineffective and expensive.

    Pathways to Coverage, which began July 1, comes as House Republicans in Congress are pushing to expand work requirements in the nation’s safety net programs, particularly Medicaid and food stamps.

    There is no federal work mandate in Medicaid, but 13 states received permission during the Trump administration to require existing enrollees to work, volunteer or meet other criteria to retain their health insurance. In Arkansas, the only state that implemented work requirements and terminated coverage, more than 18,000 people were disenrolled in 2018 before its waiver was voided by a federal court.

    States paused their initiatives because of litigation or the Covid-19 pandemic, and then the Biden administration withdrew the waiver approvals. But Georgia challenged the withdrawal, and a federal judge ruled in the state’s favor in August 2022, allowing it to implement Pathways to Coverage.

    Georgia has among the nation’s strictest eligibility requirements for Medicaid. It is one of 10 states that has not expanded the program to all low-income adults under the Affordable Care Act. Parents only qualify if they make less than 31% of the federal poverty level for a family of three – or about $7,700 this year, according to KFF, a health policy research organization.

    Under Pathways to Coverage, adults making up to 100% of the federal poverty level – about $14,600 for an individual – can enroll if they work, participate in job training or community service, take higher education classes or meet other criteria for at least 80 hours a month.

    “In our state, we want more people to be covered at a lower cost with more options for patients,” Gov. Brian Kemp said in his State of the State address in January.

    Just how many people are expected to gain coverage varies. In his speech, Kemp said up to 345,000 Georgians are potentially eligible for the program, while the state Department of Community Health said the state has budgeted for an estimated enrollment of 100,000 residents in the first year.

    Interest in the program is continuing to grow, said the department, which is working with insurers, community groups and others to get the word out.

    Others, however, estimate far fewer people will gain coverage. The state funds allotted for the program in the current fiscal year will allow about 47,500 to enroll, according to the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, a left-leaning advocacy group.

    Fully expanding Medicaid would cover far more people and at a lower cost to the state, said Leah Chan, the institute’s director of health justice. Some 482,000 Georgians earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level – or about $20,100 for an individual – could gain coverage.

    Also, the federal government covers a larger share of the costs of the full expansion enrollees and would temporarily provide a boost in federal funding for existing traditional Medicaid participants under a provision of the American Rescue Plan Act aimed at enticing holdout states to expand.

    If Georgia fully expanded Medicaid, each newly eligible enrollee would cost the state about $496, Chan said. But under Pathways to Coverage, each will cost $2,490 because the program does not qualify for the enhanced federal match.

    “It doesn’t make sense for us to implement a program that’s going to cover fewer people at a higher cost when we have an option that could close the coverage gap and draw down millions and millions – some estimates say billions – in federal dollars,” Chan said.

    Plus, it could be tough for low-income residents, particularly those in rural areas of the state where many of the uninsured live, to work enough hours consistently to qualify, she said. And those who do may get tripped up in submitting the necessary monthly documentation.

    Another issue: There are no exemptions for parents of dependent children or other caregivers, said Joan Alker, executive director of the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University. Other states that sought to implement work requirements during the Trump administration had such exemptions.

    “A small number of people may get coverage, but the likelihood of them retaining that coverage for a while is not very high,” Alker said. “And this is an especially problematic structure for parents.”

    Georgia officials, however, say Pathways to Coverage is the right program for the state.

    “This approach is Georgia-centric and ensures we can expand Medicaid coverage to those who were previously ineligible without forcing others off their preferred private insurance,” the state Department of Community Health said in a statement to CNN. “Unlike the top-down approach of traditional Medicaid expansion, Georgia Pathways was developed by Georgians and is run by Georgians to address our state’s specific needs.”

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    Source link

  • Watchdog agency increases its pandemic unemployment benefits fraud estimate to as much as $135 billion | CNN Politics

    Watchdog agency increases its pandemic unemployment benefits fraud estimate to as much as $135 billion | CNN Politics


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    As much as $135 billion in fraudulent Covid-19 pandemic unemployment insurance claims were likely paid out, according to a report released Tuesday by the US Government Accountability Office.

    The whopping figure, which equates to as much as 15% of total unemployment benefits distributed during the pandemic, is a notable bump up from the $60 billion the watchdog agency had previously estimated in January.

    In comments on a draft of the GAO report, the Department of Labor said the office is likely overestimating the actual amount of fraud. However, the department’s Office of Inspector General in February said in testimony before a House committee that at least $191 billion in pandemic unemployment benefits payments could have been improper, with “a significant portion attributable to fraud.”

    The GAO pushed back on the department’s assertions in its report and stood by the methodology used.

    “Given that not all potential fraud will be investigated and adjudicated through judicial or other systems, the full extent of UI fraud during the pandemic will likely never be known with certainty,” the GAO report said. “Therefore, it is appropriate to rely on estimates, such as ours, to make more comprehensive conclusions about the extent of fraud in the UI programs during the pandemic.”

    The findings released on Tuesday shed light on the numerous schemes to steal money from a range of hastily implemented pandemic relief programs, which have drawn the attention of congressional lawmakers and prompted legislative action. Last year, President Joe Biden signed two bipartisan bills into law aimed at holding individuals who commit fraud under pandemic relief programs accountable.

    “My message to those cheats out there is this: You can’t hide. We’re going to find you. We’re going to make you pay back what you stole and hold you accountable under the law,” the president said at the time.

    The House of Representatives also passed a bill in May that would help recover fraudulent unemployment insurance benefits paid out during the pandemic. The bill, however, has not been brought to a vote in the Senate.

    Fraud within the nation’s unemployment system skyrocketed after Congress enacted a historic expansion of the program in March 2020. State unemployment agencies were overwhelmed with record numbers of claims and relaxed some requirements in an effort to get the money out the door quickly to those who had lost their jobs.

    But the enhanced payments and lax controls quickly attracted criminals from around the world. States and Congress subsequently tightened their verification requirements in an attempt to combat the fraud, particularly in the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program, which allowed freelancers, gig workers and others to collect benefits for the first time.

    More than $888 billion in federal and state unemployment benefits were paid from the end of March 2020 through early September 2021, when all the pandemic enhancements ended nationwide, according to the Labor Department Office of Inspector General.

    The GAO report said the “unprecedented demand for benefits and need to quickly implement the new programs increased the risk of fraud.”

    Other pandemic relief programs were also the target of criminals. The GAO in May flagged 3.7 million recipients of Small Business Administration funds as having “warning signs consistent with potential fraud.” The SBA doled out $1 trillion to help small businesses during the pandemic through measures including the Paycheck Protection Program and Covid-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan program. More than 10 million small businesses were assisted.

    Some of the fraudulent claims have been recouped. States identified $5.3 billion in fraudulent unemployment benefits overpayments and has recovered $1.2 billion, according to the GAO.

    A Justice Department spokesperson told CNN on Tuesday that as of August 30, the department has charged more than 3,000 people for pandemic related fraud.

    Source link

  • How Biden’s SAVE student loan repayment plan can lower your bill | CNN Politics

    How Biden’s SAVE student loan repayment plan can lower your bill | CNN Politics


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    While the Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program in late June, a separate and significant change to the federal student loan system is moving ahead.

    Eligible borrowers can now enroll in a new income-driven repayment plan that could lower their monthly bills and reduce the amount they pay back over the lifetime of their loans.

    If borrowers apply this summer, the changes to their bills would take effect before payments resume in October after the yearslong pandemic pause.

    Once the plan, which Biden is calling SAVE (Saving on a Valuable Education), is fully phased in next year, some people will see their monthly bills cut in half and remaining debt canceled after making at least 10 years of payments.

    Unlike Biden’s blocked one-time forgiveness program, the new repayment plan will provide benefits for both current and future borrowers who sign up for it.

    But the benefits will come at a cost to the government. Estimates vary, depending on how many borrowers end up enrolling in the plan, ranging from $138 billion to $475 billion over 10 years. As a comparison, Biden’s student loan forgiveness program was expected to cost about $400 billion.

    The SAVE repayment plan has gone through a formal rulemaking process at the Department of Education. The agency has previously created several other income-driven repayment plans in the same manner without facing a successful legal challenge.

    Some parts of the SAVE plan will be implemented this summer and others will take effect in July 2024. Here’s what borrowers need to know.

    Currently, there are several different kinds of income-driven repayment plans for borrowers with federal student loans. The new SAVE plan will essentially replace one of those, known as REPAYE (Revised Pay As You Earn), while the others are phased out for new borrowers.

    Under these plans, payments are based on a borrower’s income and family size, regardless of how much outstanding student debt is owed.

    There is also a forgiveness component. After making at least 10 years of payments, a borrower’s remaining balance is wiped away.

    Borrowers must have federally held student loans to qualify for the SAVE repayment plan. These include Direct subsidized, unsubsidized and consolidated loans, as well as PLUS loans made to graduate students.

    Parents who took out a federal PLUS loan to help their child pay for college are not eligible for the new repayment plan.

    Borrowers with Federal Family Education Loans, known as FFEL, or Perkins Loans that are held by a commercial lender rather than the government will need to consolidate into a Direct loan in order to qualify.

    Private student loans do not qualify for the new SAVE repayment plan or any other federal repayment plan.

    Borrowers can apply for the SAVE plan by submitting a recently updated application for income-driven repayment plans found here.

    The application may be available intermittently during an initial beta testing period, according to the Department of Education. If the application is not available, try again later.

    Applications submitted during the beta period will not need to be resubmitted once a full website launches later this summer.

    Borrowers can expect to receive an email confirmation after applying.

    People who are already enrolled in the REPAYE repayment plan will be automatically switched to the SAVE plan.

    Borrowers can log in to StudentAid.gov and go to their My Aid page to see what repayment plan they are enrolled in.

    The Department of Education says that it will process applications submitted this summer before payments resume in October.

    “It may take your servicer a few weeks to process your request, because they will need to obtain documentation of your income and family size,” according to the department’s website.

    Under the SAVE plan, monthly payments can be as small as $0.

    Other income-driven repayment plans already offer a $0 monthly payment for some borrowers. But the new SAVE plan lowers the qualifying threshold.

    A single borrower earning $32,800 or less or a borrower with a family of four earning $67,500 or less will see their payments set at $0 if enrolled in SAVE.

    Increase in protected income threshold: Like in existing income-driven repayment plans, a borrower’s discretionary income, generally what’s left after paying for necessities like housing, food and clothing, will be shielded from student loan payments.

    The new SAVE plan recalculates discretionary income so that it’s equal to the difference between a borrower’s adjusted gross income and 225% of the poverty level. Existing income-driven plans calculate discretionary income as the difference between income and 150% of the poverty level.

    This change will result in lower payments for borrowers.

    Interest limit: Under the new payment plan, unpaid interest will not accrue if a borrower makes a full monthly payment.

    That means that a borrower’s balance won’t increase even if the monthly payment doesn’t cover the monthly interest. For example: If $50 in interest accumulates each month and a borrower has a $30 payment, the remaining $20 would not be charged.

    Lower payments for married borrowers: Married borrowers who file their taxes separately will no longer be required to include their spouse’s income in their payment calculation for SAVE. This could lower monthly payments for two-income households.

    Automatic recertification: Borrowers will now be able to allow the Department of Education to access their latest tax return. This will make the application process easier because borrowers won’t have to manually provide income or family size information. It will also allow the department to automatically recertify borrowers for the payment plan on an annual basis.

    Cut payments in half: Payments on loans borrowed for undergraduate school will be reduced from 10% to 5% of discretionary income.

    Borrowers who have loans from both undergraduate and graduate school will pay a weighted average of between 5% and 10% of their income based upon the original principal balances of their loans.

    For example, a borrower with $20,000 from their undergraduate education and $60,000 from graduate school will pay 8.75% of their income, according to a fact sheet provided by the Biden administration.

    Shorter time to forgiveness: Currently, borrowers who pay for 20 or 25 years under an income-driven repayment plan will see their remaining balance wiped away.

    Under the new SAVE plan, those who borrowed $12,000 or less will see their debt forgiven after paying for just 10 years. Every additional $1,000 borrowed above that amount would add one year of monthly payments to the required time a borrower must pay.

    Borrowers who consolidate their loans will receive partial credit for their previous payments toward forgiveness.

    Borrowers will also automatically receive credit toward forgiveness for certain periods of deferment and forbearance, as well be given the option to make additional “catch-up” payments to get credit for all other periods of deferment or forbearance.

    Automatically enroll struggling borrowers: Borrowers who are 75 days late on their payments will be automatically enrolled in the best income-driven plan for them, as long as they have agreed to allow the Department of Education to securely access their tax information.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    Source link

  • Biden’s student loan policies continue to face legal challenges | CNN Politics

    Biden’s student loan policies continue to face legal challenges | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Legal challenges are continuing to target some of President Joe Biden’s student loan policies.

    While the president’s major student loan forgiveness program was blocked by the Supreme Court in late June, the Biden administration is also facing lawsuits over some of its other policy changes aimed at making it easier for borrowers to pay back their loans.

    On Monday, the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked new provisions that were meant to be implemented in July, which would make it easier for borrowers to get their debts erased when they’re misled or defrauded by their college under a rule known as borrower defense to repayment.

    The rule has been in place for decades. But the lawsuit targets new provisions – including one allowing for automatic debt discharges a year after a college’s closure date and another that bans colleges from requiring borrowers to agree to mandatory arbitration – which are now blocked.

    The emergency injunction request was made by Career Colleges and Schools of Texas, a group of for-profit universities. The appeals court order did not explain the reasoning for the decision but said that the case will be heard on November 6.

    Student loan borrowers may still submit applications for debt relief under the borrower defense rule during this time, but the Department of Education “will not adjudicate or process affected applications under the new regulations while the court’s order is in place,” according to the agency’s website.

    Aaron Ament, president of the nonprofit National Student Legal Defense Network, warned that “countless students are at risk of being taken advantage of by higher ed profiteers” until the protections are restored.

    Meanwhile, in a separate lawsuit filed last week, two conservative groups sued to stop the Biden administration from carrying out a one-time adjustment to some borrowers’ accounts, which was aimed at more accurately counting certain payments made previously under an income-driven repayment plan.

    These plans calculate payments based on a borrower’s income and family size – regardless of the person’s total outstanding debt. Generally, they lower monthly payments to help borrowers avoid defaulting on their loans and wipe away remaining balances after qualifying payments are made for 20 to 25 years.

    What the administration has referred to as “fixes” are expected to result in the cancellation of $39 billion worth of federal student loan debt for 804,000 borrowers, according to the Department of Education.

    The lawsuit, which was filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance on behalf of the conservative groups Cato Institute and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, argues that one-time adjustment “is substantively and procedurally unlawful” – similar, it says, to the broader student loan forgiveness program struck down by the Supreme Court.

    The Department of Education announced in July – weeks after the other forgiveness program was blocked – that it would begin to notify the 804,000 borrowers of their forthcoming debt cancellation.

    But the one-time adjustment had been planned for more than a year. First announced in April 2022, the move was meant to help borrowers whose payments were miscounted and were already eligible for debt relief under an income-driven repayment plan.

    The changes followed a Government Accountability Office report that found that the Department of Education had trouble tracking borrowers’ payments and hadn’t done enough to ensure that all eligible borrowers receive the forgiveness to which they are entitled. In fact, 7,700 loans in repayment, or about 11% of loans analyzed, could have potentially already been eligible for forgiveness.

    In a statement sent to CNN, the Department of Education said the lawsuit “is nothing but a desperate attempt from right wing special interests to keep hundreds of thousands of borrowers in debt, even though these borrowers have earned the forgiveness that is promised through income-driven repayment plans.”

    This latest legal challenge does not appear to immediately impact the Biden administration’s new income-driven repayment plan known as SAVE (Saving on a Valuable Education), which launched last week.

    Once the SAVE plan is fully phased in, which is expected to happen next year, some borrowers could see their monthly bills cut in half and remaining debt canceled after making at least 10 years of payments.

    Source link

  • Lawsuit seeks to halt Medicaid terminations in Florida | CNN Politics

    Lawsuit seeks to halt Medicaid terminations in Florida | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Two consumer advocacy groups filed a lawsuit in a Florida federal court Tuesday seeking to halt the state’s termination of residents’ Medicaid benefits.

    The suit is the first in the nation to challenge states’ resumption of reviewing Medicaid enrollees’ eligibility and dropping those deemed no longer qualified. The process, which Congress had suspended for three years during the Covid-19 pandemic, restarted as early as April, depending on the state.

    The Florida Health Justice Project and the National Health Law Program filed the lawsuit on behalf of three Floridians in US District Court in Jacksonville against the state’s Agency for Health Care Administration and the Department of Children and Families. The residents are a 25-year-old woman and her 2-year-old daughter, who has cystic fibrosis, as well as a 1-year-old girl.

    The plaintiffs argue that the notices the agencies are sending to inform enrollees that they are no longer eligible are confusing and don’t provide sufficient explanation as to why they are losing coverage.

    “As a result, Plaintiffs and class members are losing Medicaid coverage without meaningful and adequate notice, leaving them unable to understand the agency’s decision, properly decide whether and how to contest their loss of Medicaid coverage, or plan for a smooth transition of coverage that minimizes disruptions in necessary care,” the complaint reads. “Without Medicaid coverage, Plaintiffs are unable to obtain care they need, including prescription drugs, children’s vaccinations, and post-partum care.”

    The advocates are asking the court to require the state to stop terminating enrollees until the agencies provide adequate notice and an opportunity for a pre-termination fair hearing.

    Mallory McManus, deputy chief of staff for the Department of Children and Families, called the lawsuit “baseless.” While she said the state cannot comment on pending litigation, she said the letters to recipients are “legally sufficient.”

    The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services “approved the Department’s redetermination plan based on their regulations. There are multiple steps in the eligibility determination process and the final letter is just one of multiple communications from the Department,” said McManus, adding that the agency “continues to lead on Medicaid determinations and being fiscally responsible.”

    The Agency for Health Care Administration did not immediately return a request for comment.

    Nearly 183,000 Floridians have been issued notices saying they no longer qualify for Medicaid, according to the lawsuit. Hundreds of thousands more will have their coverage reviewed in the coming year.

    In addition to those determined ineligible, nearly 226,000 were dropped for so-called procedural reasons, typically because enrollees did not complete the renewal application, according to KFF, formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation. This often happens because it may have been sent to an old address, it was difficult to understand or it wasn’t returned by the deadline.

    Nearly 898,000 Florida residents have had their coverage renewed, according to KFF.

    Nationwide, more than 5.2 million people have been disenrolled since the so-called Medicaid unwinding began in the spring, according to KFF. Nearly three-quarters of those who have lost coverage were dropped for procedural reasons.

    Source link

  • Biden cancels $72 million in student loan debt for borrowers who went to for-profit Ashford University | CNN Politics

    Biden cancels $72 million in student loan debt for borrowers who went to for-profit Ashford University | CNN Politics


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Even though President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program was blocked by the Supreme Court earlier this year, his administration is moving forward with more targeted student debt cancellations allowed under existing programs.

    The Department of Education said Wednesday that it is canceling $72 million in federal student loan debt for more than 2,300 borrowers who attended the for-profit Ashford University in California.

    Altogether, the Biden administration has approved the cancellation of more than $116 billion of student loan debt for over 3.4 million people – about 1.1 million of whom are borrowers who were misled by a for-profit college and granted relief under a program known as borrower defense to repayment.

    This student debt forgiveness program has been in place for decades and allows people to apply for debt relief if they believe their college misled or defrauded them.

    “My administration won’t stand for colleges taking advantage of hardworking students and borrowers. As long as I am president, we will never stop fighting to deliver relief to borrowers who need it – like those who attended Ashford University,” Biden said in a statement.

    The Department of Education found that Ashford University made “numerous substantial misrepresentations” to borrowers between March 1, 2009, and April 30, 2020. The school is now known as the University of Arizona Global Campus.

    The Education Department’s review was based on evidence presented in court by the California Department of Justice during its successful lawsuit against the school and its parent company at the time, Zovio.

    The court ruled in favor of the state in March 2022, ordering a penalty of more than $22.37 million – which is the subject of an ongoing appeal.

    “As the California Department of Justice proved in court, Ashford relied extensively on high-pressure and deceptive recruiting tactics to lure students,” James Kvaal, the US under secretary of education, said in a press release.

    Borrowers whose debt relief applications have been approved due to this action can expect to receive an email in September. They will not have to make any payments on the loans being discharged when monthly payments resume in October after the expiration of the pandemic-related pause.

    Last year, Biden announced a plan to cancel up to $20,000 of federal student loan debt for low- and middle-income borrowers. The proposal would have forgiven roughly $420 billion for tens of millions of borrowers, but it was knocked down by the Supreme Court and never took effect.

    The Biden administration has been successful in other efforts to provide narrower student debt relief. Not only has it made it easier to apply for debt cancellation under the borrower defense program, but it also expanded eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which wipes away outstanding debt for public sector workers after they make 10 years of qualifying payments.

    In August, the administration launched a new income-driven repayment plan, known as SAVE (Saving on a Valuable Education), that will reduce monthly payments and the amount paid back over time for eligible student loan borrowers.

    Source link

  • Gen Z and Millennials are scrimping. Boomers? Living it up | CNN Business

    Gen Z and Millennials are scrimping. Boomers? Living it up | CNN Business


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    Baby Boomers are living it up, splurging on cruises and restaurants. Younger Americans are struggling just to keep up.

    Bank of America internal data shows a “significant gap” in spending has opened recently between older and younger generations.

    While Baby Boomers and even Traditionalists (born 1928-1945) are ramping up spending, Gen X, Gen Z and Millennials are cutting back as they grapple with high housing costs and looming student debt payments.

    “It’s fairly unusual,” David Tinsley, senior economist at the Bank of America Institute, told CNN in a phone interview.

    Overall, household spending dipped 0.2% year-over-year in May, according to the bank’s card data — but the generational breakdown showed a more varied picture.

    Spending increased by 5.3% for Traditionalists and 2.2% for Baby Boomers. In contrast, spending fell by about 1.5% for younger generations.

    If not for the aggressive spending by Boomers, Tinsley said, overall consumer spending would have been even more negative.

    So, what is going on?

    Older Americans are ramping up spending as they benefit from a spike in Social Security payments.

    Starting in January, Social Security recipients received an 8.7% cost-of-living adjustment, the biggest increase since 1981. That increase — caused directly by high inflation — is boosting the average retirees’ monthly payments by an estimated $146.

    Bank of America spending data shows a noticeable bump in spending by households that received the cost-of-living boost.

    However, the bank noticed the spending surge by older Americans is happening among high-income households too. And those consumers are less likely to be impacted by the spike in Social Security payments.

    “That can’t be the whole story,” Tinsley said of the cost-of-living adjustments.

    To explain the drop in spending by younger Americans, Bank of America pointed to high housing costs. In recent years, rental rates spiked, home prices soared and mortgage rates surged.

    Younger Americans are also much more likely to move than older ones.

    “The people who do move are really facing quite significant cost increases,” said Tinsley.

    Bank of America has noted that older consumers are spending on travel, including hotels, airfare and cruises, now that the Covid emergency is over.

    Due to Covid fears, older generations held back on travel during the pandemic, but now they are “splurging,” Tinsley said.

    Beyond the high cost of living, Bank of America said many younger Americans are also likely bracing for the return of a significant monthly expense: student debt.

    The bipartisan debt ceiling deal included a provision that specifically prevented the Biden administration from extending the pause on federal student loan payments.

    The student debt freeze, in effect since March 2020 when the Covid pandemic erupted, is expected to conclude by the end of August.

    That is particularly painful to younger consumers. Americans are sitting on $1.6 trillion of student debt, according to the New York Federal Reserve, and the vast majority of that student debt is held by those under the age of 49.

    For millions of Gen Z and Millennials, the return of student debt payments will mean less money for spending on restaurants and vacations.

    Some consumers may be starting to pull back on spending ahead of that change, Tinsley said: “It’s coming down the tracks pretty fast now.”

    Source link

  • DeSantis floats new policy proposals on student loans and military readiness | CNN Politics

    DeSantis floats new policy proposals on student loans and military readiness | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Hitting the campaign trail in Iowa on Wednesday for the first time as a presidential candidate, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis road tested new policy ideas for handling student debt and boosting military morale.

    In Salix, Iowa, DeSantis said universities should have to pick up the tab if a former student can’t pay back their loans. Later, in Council Bluffs, DeSantis said that he, if elected, would offer back pay to veterans who reenlist after leaving the military due to Covid-19 vaccine requirements.

    For DeSantis, who provided few details on his first-term agenda in his official launch on Twitter last week and in Tuesday’s campaign kickoff event in Des Moines, Wednesday’s events offered an early glimpse into the ideas he will bring to the race as he seeks to convince Republicans he is best positioned to take on President Joe Biden in 2024. Both suggestions are near to issues DeSantis has championed as governor – overhauling higher education to remove perceived liberal influences and pushing back against coronavirus mitigation measures widely credited with ending the pandemic.

    A DeSantis campaign spokesperson told CNN more specifics on all of DeSantis’ policy proposals will come as the campaign progresses.

    DeSantis’ pitch to remedy the country’s mounting student loan debt – amassing $1.6 trillion nationwide as of last year, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York – he said will force universities to change their approach to preparing students for the workforce. The proposal comes as House Republicans negotiated for student loan payments to restart by the end of August as part of the debt ceiling deal with Biden – a pact DeSantis has criticized.

    “If somebody defaults, the university should pick it up,” he said. “If they were on the hook for it, they would make sure the curriculum was designed to produce people that can be very productive. You’d have a heck of a lot less gender studies going on.”

    DeSantis as governor has banned diversity, equity and inclusion programs at public colleges as well as gender studies majors. DeSantis added that “we do believe in universities, but they got to be done in a good way,” meaning “rooted in the traditional mission of the university classical education.”

    Speaking from a welding warehouse in Western Iowa, DeSantis – himself a product of two Ivy League schools – also highlighted his administration’s efforts to emphasize trade and apprenticeships as an alternative to four-year degrees.

    “It’s sending the message to young people that you’re not better because you got a four-year degree,” he said.

    Later in the day, while touting his time in the US Navy as a JAG officer, DeSantis argued the US military is “indulging woke ideology” that negatively impacts recruitment.

    “They’ve driven off some of our greatest warriors not just through that culture, but also through dumb policies like forcing m-RNA Covid shots on our service members,” DeSantis said.

    In January, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin rescinded the military’s Covid-19 vaccination mandate for troops. The coronavirus vaccine was added to the list of required inoculations in August 2021, leading many conservatives to surmise it would hinder recruitment, a suggestion the Pentagon denied was occurring.

    “Why would you want to drive them off by doing things like forcing them to take a shot that they don’t want and sure enough, many people left,” DeSantis said at the second of four stops across Iowa. “As president, we will restore everybody back who wants to come back and we will give them back pay as a result.”

    Source link

  • How to negotiate your college’s financial aid offer | CNN Business

    How to negotiate your college’s financial aid offer | CNN Business


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    So you want to improve your college’s financial aid package? Fine. Just don’t have your mom call the college to do the negotiating.

    For most high school seniors, “decision day” is May 1, the deadline for students to alert a college or university that they are accepting an offer of admission. For many, if not most, students and their families, finances play a role in that decision.

    The average cost of attending a four-year college in the United States is $25,707 per year, or $102,828 over four years, according to an April 2023 report by Education Data Initiative. Out-of-state students at state schools pay $44,014 per year; while, private, nonprofit university students now average a whopping $54,501 per year.

    But several financial aid officers and college admissions counselors who spoke with CNN said students don’t realize that they can appeal a college’s aid offer — not only by May 1, but all year long. In some cases, filing an official financial aid appeal may even delay the deadline for putting down a deposit. So it can pay off handsomely to haggle.

    Grace Wilson, a freshman now at Northeastern University in Boston, was dismayed when the initial financial aid package offered by the school last year wasn’t what she needed. Her family had a budget of $38,000 per year, but the total cost of attendance was $47,358.

    After a concerted campaign by Wilson, Northeastern offered her an additional federal grant of $9,495, she said, and a work-study arrangement sweetened the deal. For this fall, she has also negotiated a tuition offset for working as a Resident Assistant.

    But there are right, and some very wrong, ways to go about haggling with your chosen college. Here, according to college financial aid and admissions officers, consultants and students, are the steps to take:

    Email, don’t call, and handle it yourself.

    The appeal should be coming from students, not parents, said Miranda McCall, Duke University’s Assistant Vice Provost and Director of Undergraduate Financial Support.

    “We always love to see students take the incentive to understand their offer and take control of their financial future… It is never wrong for a student to take the lead. It’s the first step in the financial confidence that will serve them well after college, too,” McCall told CNN.

    Pleading backfires, use math.

    The amount offered was reached after using formulas, discussion and a standardized form — the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). So, students have to establish why they need more. With the financial aid office, don’t brag or boast: Each school has a different system and preferences, but the general rule is to send an appeal letter for need-based scholarships or funds to the financial aid office and, separately, for merit-based scholarships to the admissions office.

    Explain what has changed in your circumstances.

    Events such as job loss, divorce, sudden death of family members, high unreimbursed medical expenses and more can change the equation. “If there has been a significant reduction in income compared to your application, inform the school’s financial aid office; in some cases, financial aid can increase,” said Phil Asbury, Director of Financial Aid of Northwestern University in Illinois.

    Asbury explained that around 10% of families experience a material shift in circumstances after applying and the university offers an online form for special appeal through its website. Make sure it contains new information, not a second submission of your original application.

    Reach out to professors, coaches or administrators you know at the college.

    Just don’t have your recommendations, or famous alumni, call up, as impressive as you think that might be. Financial aid offers won’t discuss your offer with them.

    Add proof.

    Document a parent’s loss of a job, for example, divorce, or of an unexpected expense. The forms applicants should attach include an income reduction form, federal tax returns and W2 and severance or unemployment benefit paperwork.

    “Include a clear explanation of what has changed financially for the student, with any supporting documentation. The opportunity to increase need-based aid depends on the accuracy of your documented financial change and the financial ability of the school to make a change,” John Leach, Associate Vice Provost for Enrollment and University Financial Aid at Emory University, told CNN.

    Be specific on the amount you need.

    Financial aid officers like to help, and will try to accommodate you if there are funds available. Also, disclosing an amount up front will save a student time if the amounts are too far apart.

    Replace out-of-date information.

    This year’s FAFSA “uses 2021 tax return data and now it’s 2023,” said Vicki Vollweiler, a founder and CEO of College Financial Prep. One of her client’s families went through a divorce during the college application process, she said. That student was able to receive an additional $10,000. “Students definitely should file an appeal and the school might be able to help out and offer more in funding.”

    Document aid offers you received from other colleges.

    “Especially if you get a higher offer from a comparable school, that is a school competitor, [disclose that] they’ve given you a better package. That means there must be some discrepancy,” said Bethany Goldszer, education expert and owner of Stand Out College Prep in New York.

    But make sure the schools are comparable. Comparing a generous offer from a non-competitive school to one from a highly selective one may make the financial aid officers think you don’t understand the value they are offering.

    It’s never too late.

    Northwestern has a “priority deadline” so that the financial office can notify students early, but students can still apply for financial aid all year round. “It doesn’t mean that we run out of funding,” said Asbury. “Don’t get too discouraged if [deadlines] are already past, you can still apply for the financial aid.”

    Source link

  • Virginia school district did not try to withhold students’ National Merit Scholarship recognition, officials say, citing independent report | CNN

    Virginia school district did not try to withhold students’ National Merit Scholarship recognition, officials say, citing independent report | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    An independent investigation shows the Fairfax County Public Schools system in Virginia did not intentionally refrain from notifying some high school students of their National Merit Scholarship recognition in a timely manner, the system superintendent announced Wednesday.

    The school district asked a law firm in January to conduct the investigation over publicized allegations that school staff withheld some notifications to “avoid hurting the feelings of students” who did not receive recognition, according to a statement from the district.

    The investigation found that out of 23 district high schools with students who received commendations in the National Merit Scholarship competition, eight notified the commended students after November 1, which is an early admission deadline for some colleges, the statement reads.

    But the probe found “no evidence” of intentionally withholding commendation notifications or minimizing students’ achievements, or any suggestions that the delays came from racial considerations, the statement reads. The investigation also did not find evidence “suggesting that any later-than-usual notification impaired students’ academic, professional, or financial interests,” the statement reads.

    The law firm’s investigation found that “logistical factors” varying from school to school were responsible for the delays, according to the district.

    “This is not a school-specific concern at this point. Rather, this is a system concern around the policy and procedures that need to be in place to prevent this from happening again,” Superintendent Michelle Reid said about the probe at a public meeting Wednesday.

    Students should have been notified in September as to whether they received commendations for the National Merit Scholarship program, an “academic competition for recognition and college undergraduate scholarships,” the program’s website says.

    Of the approximately 1.5 million entries, some 34,000 of the top 50,000 students nationwide receive commendations recognizing their accomplishments – but this also means they did not reach the semifinalist level and are out of the competition for National Merit Scholarships, according to the program.

    While the program informs semifinalists of their accomplishment directly, it does not do so for commended students – and relies on schools to relay the commendations instead, the Fairfax County district said.

    Independent college counselors previously told CNN that such recognition would likely not tip an admissions decision from a top-tier college, but each school handles such awards differently.

    Virginia’s attorney general had launched his own investigation of the district over the issue in January. The probe first focused on the district’s Thomas Jefferson High School of Science and Technology in Alexandria on suspicion of unlawful discrimination, but later expanded to the entire district over reports that other schools withheld recognition.

    Of the 459 seniors at Thomas Jefferson High School, 393 were either commended or semi-finalists, according to the Fairfax County Public Schools system.

    The school also is being investigated for its admission policies, which commonwealth Attorney General Jason Miyares said in a January statement have significantly reduced the number of Asian American students in recent years.

    Thomas Jefferson High School’s student population ethnicity is nearly 66% Asian, according to the school system.

    Victoria LaCivita, spokeswoman for the attorney general, told CNN regarding the latest report: “It’s encouraging that FCPS is working to be more transparent about the inconsistencies surrounding their National Merit award decisions and process.”

    The attorney general’s office will continue its investigation, she said.

    One parent questioned Reid at Wednesday night’s meeting, claiming a racially disproportionate number of Asian students were not informed of the commendations.

    “A summary of findings identified no discrimination on the basis of race at this point. … At this time the summary of key findings from the investigative review does not show disparate impact,” Reid told the parent.

    School staff members have drafted a new regulation that will ensure students and parents get notified in a timely manner about the merit recognition, Reid said.

    Source link

  • Why is it difficult for children to get a bed at pediatric hospitals? It’s more complicated than you think | CNN

    Why is it difficult for children to get a bed at pediatric hospitals? It’s more complicated than you think | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Effie Schnacky was wheezy and lethargic instead of being her normal, rambunctious self one February afternoon. When her parents checked her blood oxygen level, it was hovering around 80% – dangerously low for the 7-year-old.

    Her mother, Jaimie, rushed Effie, who has asthma, to a local emergency room in Hudson, Wisconsin. She was quickly diagnosed with pneumonia. After a couple of hours on oxygen, steroids and nebulizer treatments with little improvement, a physician told Schnacky that her daughter needed to be transferred to a children’s hospital to receive a higher level of care.

    What they didn’t expect was that it would take hours to find a bed for her.

    Even though the respiratory surge that overwhelmed doctor’s offices and hospitals last fall is over, some parents like Schnacky are still having trouble getting their children beds in a pediatric hospital or a pediatric unit.

    The physical and mental burnout that occurred during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic has not gone away for overworked health care workers. Shortages of doctors and technicians are growing, experts say, but especially in skilled nursing. That, plus a shortage of people to train new nurses and the rising costs of hiring are leaving hospitals with unstaffed pediatric beds.

    But a host of reasons building since well before the pandemic are also contributing. Children may be the future, but we aren’t investing in their health care in that way. With Medicaid reimbursing doctors at a lower rate for children, hospitals in tough situations sometimes put adults in those pediatric beds for financial reasons. And since 2019, children with mental health crises are increasingly staying in emergency departments for sometimes weeks to months, filling beds that children with other illnesses may need.

    “There might or might not be a bed open right when you need one. I so naively just thought there was plenty,” Schnacky told CNN.

    The number of pediatric beds decreasing has been an issue for at least a decade, said Dr. Daniel Rauch, chair of the Committee on Hospital Care for the American Academy of Pediatrics.

    By 2018, almost a quarter of children in America had to travel farther for pediatric beds as compared to 2009, according to a 2021 paper in the journal Pediatrics by lead author Dr. Anna Cushing, co-authored by Rauch.

    “This was predictable,” said Rauch, who has studied the issue for more than 10 years. “This isn’t shocking to people who’ve been looking at the data of the loss in bed capacity.”

    The number of children needing care was shrinking before the Covid-19 pandemic – a credit to improvements in pediatric care. There were about 200,000 fewer pediatric discharges in 2019 than there were in 2017, according to data from the US Department of Health and Human Services.

    “In pediatrics, we have been improving the ability we have to take care of kids with chronic conditions, like sickle cell and cystic fibrosis, and we’ve also been preventing previously very common problems like pneumonia and meningitis with vaccination programs,” said Dr. Matthew Davis, the pediatrics department chair at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

    Pediatrics is also seasonal, with a typical drop in patients in the summer and a sharp uptick in the winter during respiratory virus season. When the pandemic hit, schools and day cares closed, which slowed the transmission of Covid and other infectious diseases in children, Davis said. Less demand meant there was less need for beds. Hospitals overwhelmed with Covid cases in adults switched pediatric beds to beds for grownups.

    As Covid-19 tore through Southern California, small hospitals in rural towns like Apple Valley were overwhelmed, with coronavirus patients crammed into hallways, makeshift ICU beds and even the pediatric ward.

    Only 37% of hospitals in the US now offer pediatric services, down from 42% about a decade ago, according to the American Hospital Association.

    While pediatric hospital beds exist at local facilities, the only pediatric emergency department in Baltimore County is Greater Baltimore Medical Center in Towson, Maryland, according to Dr. Theresa Nguyen, the center’s chair of pediatrics. All the others in the county, which has almost 850,000 residents, closed in recent years, she said.

    The nearby MedStar Franklin Square Medical Center consolidated its pediatric ER with the main ER in 2018, citing a 40% drop in pediatric ER visits in five years, MedStar Health told CNN affiliate WBAL.

    In the six months leading up to Franklin Square’s pediatric ER closing, GBMC admitted an average of 889 pediatric emergency department patients each month. By the next year, that monthly average jumped by 21 additional patients.

    “Now we’re seeing the majority of any pediatric ED patients that would normally go to one of the surrounding community hospitals,” Nguyen said.

    In July, Tufts Medical Center in Boston converted its 41 pediatric beds to treat adult ICU and medical/surgical patients, citing the need to care for critically ill adults, the health system said.

    In other cases, it’s the hospitals that have only 10 or so pediatric beds that started asking the tough questions, Davis said.

    “Those hospitals have said, ‘You know what? We have an average of one patient a day or two patients a day. This doesn’t make sense anymore. We can’t sustain that nursing staff with specialized pediatric training for that. We’re going to close it down,’” Davis said.

    Registered nurses at Tufts Medical Center hold a

    Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center in Boise closed its pediatric inpatient unit in July because of financial reasons, the center told CNN affiliate KBOI. That closure means patients are now overwhelming nearby St. Luke’s Children’s Hospital, which is the only children’s hospital in the state of Idaho, administrator for St. Luke’s Children’s Katie Schimmelpfennig told CNN. Idaho ranks last for the number of pediatricians per 100,000 children, according to the American Board of Pediatrics in 2023.

    The Saint Alphonsus closure came just months before the fall, when RSV, influenza and a cadre of respiratory viruses caused a surge of pediatric patients needing hospital care, with the season starting earlier than normal.

    The changing tide of demand engulfed the already dwindling supply of pediatric beds, leaving fewer beds available for children coming in for all the common reasons, like asthma, pneumonia and other ailments. Additional challenges have made it particularly tough to recover.

    Another factor chipping away at bed capacity over time: Caring for children pays less than caring for adults. Lower insurance reimbursement rates mean some hospitals can’t afford to keep these beds – especially when care for adults is in demand.

    Medicaid, which provides health care coverage to people with limited income, is a big part of the story, according to Joshua Gottlieb, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy.

    “Medicaid is an extremely important payer for pediatrics, and it is the least generous payer,” he said. “Medicaid is responsible for insuring a large share of pediatric patients. And then on top of its low payment rates, it is often very cumbersome to deal with.”

    Pediatric gastroenterologist Dr. Howard Baron visits with a patient in 2020 in Las Vegas. A large portion of his patients are on Medicaid with reimbursement rates that are far below private insurers.

    Medicaid reimburses children’s hospitals an average of 80% of the cost of the care, including supplemental payments, according to the Children’s Hospital Association, a national organization which represents 220 children’s hospitals. The rate is far below what private insurers reimburse.

    More than 41 million children are enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, according to Kaiser Family Foundation data from October. That’s more than half the children in the US, according to Census data.

    At Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, about 55% of patients use Medicaid, according to Dr. David Wessel, the hospital’s executive vice president.

    “Children’s National is higher Medicaid than most other children’s hospitals, but that’s because there’s no safety net hospital other than Children’s National in this town,” said Wessel, who is also the chief medical officer and physician-in-chief.

    And it just costs more to care for a child than an adult, Wessel said. Specialty equipment sized for smaller people is often necessary. And a routine test or exam for an adult is approached differently for a child. An adult can lie still for a CT scan or an MRI, but a child may need to be sedated for the same thing. A child life specialist is often there to explain what’s going on and calm the child.

    “There’s a whole cadre of services that come into play, most of which are not reimbursed,” he said. “There’s no child life expert that ever sent a bill for seeing a patient.”

    Low insurance reimbursement rates also factor into how hospital administrations make financial decisions.

    “When insurance pays more, people build more health care facilities, hire more workers and treat more patients,” Gottlieb said.

    “Everyone might be squeezed, but it’s not surprising that pediatric hospitals, which face [a] lower, more difficult payment environment in general, are going to find it especially hard.”

    Dr. Benson Hsu is a pediatric critical care provider who has served rural South Dakota for more than 10 years. Rural communities face distinct challenges in health care, something he has seen firsthand.

    A lot of rural communities don’t have pediatricians, according to the American Board of Pediatrics. It’s family practice doctors who treat children in their own communities, with the goal of keeping them out of the hospital, Hsu said. Getting hospital care often means traveling outside the community.

    Hsu’s patients come from parts of Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota, as well as across South Dakota, he said. It’s a predominantly rural patient base, which also covers those on Native American reservations.

    “These kids are traveling 100, 200 miles within their own state to see a subspecialist,” Hsu said, referring to patients coming to hospitals in Sioux Falls. “If we are transferring them out, which we do, they’re looking at travels of 200 to 400 miles to hit Omaha, Minneapolis, Denver.”

    Inpatient pediatric beds in rural areas decreased by 26% between 2008 and 2018, while the number of rural pediatric units decreased by 24% during the same time, according to the 2021 paper in Pediatrics.

    Steve Inglish, left, and registered nurse Nikole Hoggarth, middle, help a father with his daughter, who fell and required stiches, inside the emergency department at Jamestown Regional Medical Center in rural North Dakota in 2020.

    “It’s bad, and it’s getting worse. Those safety net hospitals are the ones that are most at risk for closure,” Rauch said.

    In major cities, the idea is that a critically ill child would get the care they need within an hour, something clinicians call the golden hour, said Hsu, who is the critical care section chair at the American Academy of Pediatrics.

    “That golden hour doesn’t exist in the rural population,” he said. “It’s the golden five hours because I have to dispatch a plane to land, to drive, to pick up, stabilize, to drive back, to fly back.”

    When his patients come from far away, it uproots the whole family, he said. He described families who camp out at a child’s bedside for weeks at a time. Sometimes they are hundreds of miles from home, unlike when a patient is in their own community and parents can take turns at the hospital.

    “I have farmers who miss harvest season and that as you can imagine is devastating,” Hsu said. “These aren’t office workers who are taking their computer with them. … These are individuals who have to live and work in their communities.”

    Back at GBMC in Maryland, an adolescent patient with depression, suicidal ideation and an eating disorder was in the pediatric emergency department for 79 days, according to Nguyen. For months, no facility had a pediatric psychiatric bed or said it could take someone who needed that level of care, as the patient had a feeding tube.

    “My team of physicians, social workers and nurses spend a significant amount of time every day trying to reach out across the state of Maryland, as well as across the country now to find placements for this adolescent,” Nguyen said before the patient was transferred in mid-March. “I need help.”

    Nguyen’s patient is just one of the many examples of children and teens with mental health issues who are staying in emergency rooms and sometimes inpatient beds across the country because they need help, but there isn’t immediately a psychiatric bed or a facility that can care for them.

    It’s a problem that began before 2020 and grew worse during the pandemic, when the rate of children coming to emergency rooms with mental health issues soared, studies show.

    Now, a nationwide shortage of beds exists for children who need mental health help. A 2020 federal survey revealed that the number of residential treatment facilities for children fell 30% from 2012.

    “There are children on average waiting for two weeks for placement, sometimes longer,” Nguyen said of the patients at GBMC. The pediatric emergency department there had an average of 42 behavioral health patients each month from July 2021 through December 2022, up 13.5% from the same period in 2017 to 2018, before the pandemic, according to hospital data.

    When there are mental health patients staying in the emergency department, that can back up the beds in other parts of the hospital, creating a downstream effect, Hsu said.

    “For example, if a child can’t be transferred from a general pediatric bed to a specialized mental health center, this prevents a pediatric ICU patient from transferring to the general bed, which prevents an [emergency department] from admitting a child to the ICU. Health care is often interconnected in this fashion,” Hsu said.

    “If we don’t address the surging pediatric mental health crisis, it will directly impact how we can care for other pediatric illnesses in the community.”

    Dr. Susan Wu, right, chats with a child who got her first dose of the Pfizer-BioNtech Covid-19 vaccine at Children's Hospital Arcadia Speciality Care Center in Arcadia, California, in 2022.

    So, what can be done to improve access to pediatric care? Much like the reasons behind the difficulties parents and caregivers are experiencing, the solutions are complex:

    • A lot of it comes down to money

    Funding for children’s hospitals is already tight, Rauch said, and more money is needed not only to make up for low insurance reimbursement rates but to competitively hire and train new staff and to keep hospitals running.

    “People are going to have to decide it’s worth investing in kids,” Rauch said. “We’re going to have to pay so that hospitals don’t lose money on it and we’re going to have to pay to have staff.”

    Virtual visits, used in the right situations, could ease some of the problems straining the pediatric system, Rauch said. Extending the reach of providers would prevent transferring a child outside of their community when there isn’t the provider with the right expertise locally.

    • Increased access to children’s mental health services

    With the ongoing mental health crisis, there’s more work to be done upstream, said Amy Wimpey Knight, the president of CHA.

    “How do we work with our school partners in the community to make sure that we’re not creating this crisis and that we’re heading it off up there?” she said.

    There’s also a greater need for services within children’s hospitals, which are seeing an increase in children being admitted with behavioral health needs.

    “If you take a look at the reasons why kids are hospitalized, meaning infections, diabetes, seizures and mental health concerns, over the last decade or so, only one of those categories has been increasing – and that is mental health,” Davis said. “At the same time, we haven’t seen an increase in the number of mental health hospital resources dedicated to children and adolescents in a way that meets the increasing need.”

    Most experts CNN spoke to agreed: Seek care for your child early.

    “Whoever is in your community is doing everything possible to get the care that your child needs,” Hsu said. “Reach out to us. We will figure out a way around the constraints around the system. Our number one concern is taking care of your kids, and we will do everything possible.”

    Nguyen from GBMC and Schimmelpfennig from St. Luke’s agreed with contacting your primary care doctor and trying to keep your child out of the emergency room.

    “Anything they can do to stay out of the hospital or the emergency room is both financially better for them and better for their family,” Schimmelpfennig said.

    Knowing which emergency room or urgent care center is staffed by pediatricians is also imperative, Rauch said. Most children visit a non-pediatric ER due to availability.

    “A parent with a child should know where they’re going to take their kid in an emergency. That’s not something you decide when your child has the emergency,” he said.

    Jaimie and Effie Schnacky now have an asthma action plan after the 7-year-old's hospitalization in February.

    After Effie’s first ambulance ride and hospitalization last month, the Schnacky family received an asthma action plan from the pulmonologist in the ER.

    It breaks down the symptoms into green, yellow and red zones with ways Effie can describe how she’s feeling and the next steps for adults. The family added more supplies to their toolkit, like a daily steroid inhaler and a rescue inhaler.

    “We have everything an ER can give her, besides for an oxygen tank, at home,” Schnacky said. “The hope is that we are preventing even needing medical care.”

    Source link

  • Biden and Trump agree on one big thing | CNN Politics

    Biden and Trump agree on one big thing | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Joe Biden and Donald Trump are bizarrely on the same page on the top issue so far in the 2024 White House race, as they aim huge, possibly campaign-defining swings at Republicans who they claim will shred retirement benefits.

    The current and former presidents – bitter rivals who agree on little else – are both forcing their foes into political retreats and attempts to whitewash past support for changes that could cut Medicare and Social Security payouts.

    Their strategy is reinforcing a truism of presidential election campaigns that candidates who even entertain the notion of “reforming” these cherished entitlement programs for seniors are playing with fire.

    With typical bluntness, Trump has blasted his potential top rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, as a “wheelchair over the cliff kind of guy” after he voted, as a member of the US House, for non-binding resolutions that would have raised the age at which most seniors can collect their benefits to 70. As a 2012 congressional candidate, he supported privatizing Social Security, CNN’s KFile has reported. But trying to ease his vulnerability on the issue, DeSantis insisted in a Fox News interview last week: “We’re not going to mess with Social Security.”

    Despite his own proposed cuts to these programs as president, Trump has kept up the attacks. “We’re not going back to people that want to destroy our great Social Security system – even some in our own party; I wonder who that might be – who want to raise the minimum age of Social Security to 70, 75 or even 80 in some cases, and who are out to cut Medicare to a level that will be unrecognizable,” he said at the Conservative Political Action Conference last Saturday.

    A few days later, another Republican hopeful gave both Biden and Trump a new opening to exploit.

    Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley was forced to make clear Thursday that her striking and unspecific call the day before for raising the retirement age was only supposed to refer to Americans currently in their 20s, who are in effect a half century away from drawing their pensions. But her clarification won’t protect the former ambassador to the United Nations from Trump, who is splitting his party down the middle, yet again, by pouncing on competitors who have voiced traditional conservative orthodoxy on cutting or changing the programs. Biden is sure to also highlight Haley’s remarks as he claims only he can thwart a secret GOP agenda to kill off the vital programs.

    “I guarantee you, I will protect Social Security and Medicare without any change. Guaranteed,” the president vowed in Philadelphia on Thursday. “I won’t allow it to be gutted or eliminated as MAGA Republicans have threatened to do.”

    Biden browbeat Republicans during his “State of the Union” address last month to confirm on camera that they support shoring up Social Security and Medicare. And he’s anchoring his likely reelection bid on the most forceful campaign by a Democratic candidate in years on the issue. Some of his attacks are fair; others take statements by GOP leaders out of context. But they’re still potent – since both he and Trump know that when conservatives are explaining that they don’t plan to cut Medicare or retirement benefits, they are usually trying to dig out of a losing position.

    And Biden has public opinion on his side. A Fox News poll last month, for instance, showed that Democrats are preferred over Republicans to better handle Medicare (by 23 points) and Social Security (by 16 points). No wonder Biden seems to relish this particular political battlefield.

    The odd confluence of approaches – from a former president who sought to overturn an election and a successor who sees his administration as vital to saving democracy – says so much about each man’s political instincts, backgrounds and campaign strategy. It is also reflects the shifting character of the Republican Party, which Trump has torn from its corporate, ideologically pure conservative roots to build a new coalition that includes working class voters, often in the Midwest, that Biden is battling hard to win back.

    In one sense, possibly the most thorny domestic issue of the years to come should, of course, have a place in a presidential campaign. But when candidates use it to inflame their political bases, it only makes it harder to address in government. This is especially the case with entitlements since they cut into the DNA of each party and have defined the dividing lines between them for decades – at least until Trump came along and took over the GOP.

    Ever since the New Deal reforms of Franklin Roosevelt, who was president from 1933 to 1945, Democrats – through presidents Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama and Biden, especially – have sought to use government power to secure the living standards and health care of less well-off and elderly Americans. Republicans, from 1980s President Ronald Reagan onwards, have increasingly sought to find ways to shift the burden of some of this care to the private sector and to reduce or eliminate government’s role in an attempt to whittle away the New Deal reforms of FDR and the Great Society program of LBJ, who was president in the 1960s. They have often paid a heavy price. Republican President George W. Bush’s failed attempt to partially privatize Social Security contributed to a disastrous second term. And Trump still rails against former House Speaker Paul Ryan, who promoted a similar plan.

    While raising the alarm about threats to social programs for seniors might be a shrewd political tactic – especially in mobilizing older voters more likely to show up at the polls – it usually does nothing to address the program’s increasingly dire solvency challenges.

    The latest Congressional Budget Office projection found that Social Security’s retirement trust fund could be exhausted by 2032. At that point, with fewer workers paying into the program and with a rapidly aging population, benefits could be cut by at least 20%, CNN’s Tami Luhby reported. Medicare is even more precarious since its hospital insurance trust fund, known as Part A, will only be able to fully pay scheduled benefits until 2028, its trustees said in their most recent forecast.

    Biden, who released a new budget on Thursday that will help shape the message of his likely reelection bid, has proposed a plan to raise taxes on people earning more than $400,000 a year to shore up the program and would expand the range of drugs for which its managers can negotiate prices. He says the move would keep Medicare solvent until 2050 and would involve no cuts in benefits. The president also wants to target those who earn more than $400,000 with increasing payroll taxes to secure Social Security for the future. There is an infinitesimal chance, however, that the Republican-led House will agree to tax increases, so Biden’s plan represents more a device to deliver a political message than a viable plan.

    Despite warning his fellow Republicans to avoid cutting these programs, it’s unclear how Trump would save them if he wins back the White House – and doing nothing isn’t an option. And while other Republicans insist they don’t want to cut benefits or raise taxes, it’s unclear how they can square the circle.

    Florida Sen. Rick Scott has now excluded Social Security and Medicare from his proposal for all spending programs to be reviewed every five years. His original plan, released when he was leading the Senate GOP’s campaign arm, sparked the ire of his Republican Senate colleagues, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who quickly identified it as a political liability. That hasn’t stopped Biden from repeatedly claiming that it represents Republican policy.

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has, meanwhile, said that cuts to Social Security and Medicare are “completely off the table” in what he insists must be negotiations with Biden over raising the government’s borrowing limit later this year. But that position has put him in a bind because it means that in order for the GOP to honor their pledge to slash spending, they will probably have to take aim at other social programs that could also prove unpopular with voters.

    America is not the only country staring down a crisis.

    French President Emmanuel Macron sparked nationwide strikes and protests with his plan to raise the retirement age to 64 from 62. Even China’s Communist Party is struggling as a falling birthrate threatens to inflict severe costs on the world’s most dynamic emerging economy.

    Back in the US, whoever wins the 2024 elections for the White House and Congress, there seems no easily identifiable solution to safeguard these vital programs on which millions of Americans depend. And time is running out.

    Source link

  • Not touching Social Security could lead to 20% benefit cut within a decade | CNN Politics

    Not touching Social Security could lead to 20% benefit cut within a decade | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden and House Republicans have promised not to touch Social Security in their battle over cutting spending to address the nation’s debt ceiling crisis.

    While that vow is intended to indicate support of the popular entitlement program, it could actually lead to financial disaster.

    Tens of millions of senior citizens and other recipients could see their benefits slashed by at least 20% within a decade. The latest Congressional Budget Office projection found that Social Security’s retirement trust fund would be exhausted by 2032.

    “There’s a sense in which doing nothing does not preserve Social Security but affects the benefits that are not able to be paid out,” CBO Director Phillip Swagel said at a Bipartisan Policy Center event last month.

    Social Security has long been on shaky financial ground. As the US population ages, there are fewer workers paying into the program and supporting the ballooning number of beneficiaries, who are also living longer. In all, nearly 66 million retired workers, their dependents and survivors, disabled workers and their dependents receive monthly payments.

    Forecasts on when Social Security’s retirement and disability trust funds may be depleted differ by a few years. Social Security’s trustees last year pegged the date at 2035 if Congress doesn’t act.

    However, the entitlement program is also one of the third rails of American politics, so elected officials are hesitant to suggest any changes that could lead to benefit cuts.

    “Pretending this isn’t a problem, that this isn’t current law, is dishonest,” said Gordon Gray, the director of fiscal policy at the right-leaning American Action Forum. “And it is a choice – a number of policymakers are making this choice. And it is a major financial risk to the retirement benefits of tens of millions of Americans.”

    The last time Congress enacted a major overhaul, in 1983, Social Security was only months away from being able to pay full benefits. At that time, Democratic lawmakers who controlled the House agreed with Senate Republicans and GOP President Ronald Reagan to increase payroll taxes and gradually raise the normal retirement age from 65 to 67, among other reforms.

    While Biden has promised to strengthen Social Security and defend it from any cuts by Republicans, he has yet to lay out his vision for protecting the program. Ahead of his full budget release this week, the president on Tuesday unveiled a plan to bolster a key Medicare trust fund – which could be depleted as soon as 2028 – by raising taxes on higher-income earners and allowing Medicare to negotiate prices for even more drugs.

    There are several ways to put Social Security on more solid financial footing, though each has its opponents on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Lawmakers could raise the early retirement age, currently 62, or increase the normal retirement age again. They could hike the payroll tax rate, now 12.4% split between the employer and worker, or lift the cap on income subject to the levy, currently $160,200. Congress could also change the formula of the annual cost-of-living adjustment so it ramps up more slowly.

    However, it’s unlikely anything will be done in the near term, in part because of the current lack of bipartisanship in Washington, said Gary Engelhardt, economics professor at Syracuse University.

    “It’s only going to be more expensive, the longer you wait,” he said. “But Americans have a penchant for waiting to do things politically. So I just feel like nothing’s going to happen in the short run.”

    Source link

  • ‘We are in limbo:’ Student loan borrowers still face months of uncertainty about Biden’s forgiveness program | CNN Politics

    ‘We are in limbo:’ Student loan borrowers still face months of uncertainty about Biden’s forgiveness program | CNN Politics


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    More than 40 million federal student loan borrowers could be eligible for up to $20,000 in debt forgiveness, but they will likely have to wait several more months before the Supreme Court rules on whether President Joe Biden can implement his proposed relief program.

    The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in two cases challenging Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, but justices aren’t expected to issue their decision until late June or early July.

    When the ruling comes will also determine when federal student loan payments, which have been paused due to the pandemic since March 2020, will restart.

    Some borrowers have been anxiously waiting for years to see if Biden would fulfill his campaign pledge to cancel some federal student loan debt. The president finally announced a forgiveness plan last August.

    But after 26 million people applied, the program was blocked by lower courts in November – before any debt could be canceled.

    “In some ways, it feels like we are one step closer now that they’ve heard the oral arguments, but until a decision is made, it still feels like we are in limbo,” said Lindsay Clausen, who has about $68,000 in student loan debt and works as an instructional designer at a university.

    Clausen, 33, filed for relief from Biden’s forgiveness program last fall as soon as the application was open, hoping the forgiveness would help her and her husband save for a new home and expand their family.

    “I felt relief, and then it was like a rug was pulled from underneath me,” Clausen said.

    “Whichever way SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) decides to rule, it will at least be nice to have an answer,” she added.

    The Biden administration has estimated that more than 40 million federal student loan borrowers would qualify for some level of debt cancellation, with roughly 20 million who would have their balance forgiven entirely, if the forgiveness program is allowed to move forward.

    But not everyone with a federally held student loan would qualify.

    Individual borrowers who earned less than $125,000 in either 2020 or 2021 and married couples or heads of households who made less than $250,000 annually in those years could see up to $10,000 of their federal student loan debt forgiven. Those with higher incomes would be excluded.

    If a qualifying borrower also received a federal Pell grant while enrolled in college, the individual is eligible for up to $20,000 of debt forgiveness. Pell grants are a key federal aid program that help students from the lowest-income families pay for college, but these borrowers are still more likely to struggle paying off their student loans.

    Student debt cancellation would deliver financial relief to millions of Americans, potentially helping them buy their first homes, start businesses or save for retirement.

    But those who have already paid off their student loans, or chose not to borrow money to go to college to begin with, would get nothing. And the estimated $400 billion cost of canceling some debt would shift to all taxpayers.

    At last week’s hearing, several of the conservative justices questioned whether that tradeoff is fair, while liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back, arguing how many borrowers “don’t have friends or families or others who can help them make these payments.”

    The back-and-forth on fairness touches on one of the biggest complaints about the nation’s higher education system: many people feel they need to go to college, and as a result borrow money, to get ahead.

    Angel Enriquez, a 30-year-old meteorologist with about $61,000 in student loan debt, is one of those people.

    Angel Enriquez poses for a portrait at Bizzell Memorial Library at the University of Oklahoma on June 3, 2022.

    His parents, immigrants from Mexico, couldn’t afford to help him pay for college. Enriquez was wait-listed at a state school that had a meteorology program, so he instead enrolled at a more expensive school out of state. He is now pursuing a master’s degree, which he felt he needed to stand out in a competitive industry.

    “When you talk about fairness, it’s a complicated argument,” Enriquez said.

    “But if you talk to someone who comes from poverty, or someone who’s a person of color, they are going to benefit from the forgiveness program the most because they’re the ones that have to jump through extra financial hoops in order to get where everyone else in the educated country is,” he said.

    For some students, college degrees do not deliver the step up in the world they hoped for.

    Even though Blake Goddard worked part-time jobs while in college, he still had to borrow nearly $90,000 for his bachelor’s degree in network communications management from DeVry University. In an effort to land a higher-paying job in the information technology industry, he then earned his master’s degree, borrowing another $44,000.

    Despite those degrees, most of his jobs have been temporary contract positions, and many of his co-workers opted for getting lower-cost IT industry certifications rather than a four-year degree.

    Blake Goddard poses for a portrait in his home on June 10, 2022.

    Meanwhile, the Department of Education has found that DeVry University, a for-profit college, misled at least 1,800 borrowers with false advertising about job placement rates.

    While Goddard, 45, considers himself “one of the lucky ones” who would qualify for $20,000 of debt relief, the cancellation wouldn’t make too much of a dent in his more than $150,000 balance.

    His debt, Goddard said, is “so detrimental” to his American dream, which was to buy a house and have a family.

    “I was stupid enough to fall for it,” Goddard said about taking out student loans.

    “I wish we could make it so nobody else in this country falls into the same trap,” he added.

    Now, he’s committed to helping others avoid borrowing so much money for college and volunteers with an organization that helps students pursue careers in STEM fields.

    One criticism of Biden’s one-time forgiveness program is that it would do nothing to address the cost of college for future students.

    A more permanent solution to the college affordability problem would have to be created by Congress, but lawmakers have failed to pass any sweeping measure. A provision to make community college free was dropped from Biden’s Build Back Better agenda before it came to a vote in the House in 2021.

    The Biden administration is also working on changes to existing federal student loan repayment plans, which don’t need congressional approval, and that aim to make it easier for borrowers to pay for college.

    The Department of Education is currently finalizing a new income-driven repayment plan to lower monthly payments as well as the total amount borrowers pay back over time. In contrast to the one-time student loan cancellation program, the new repayment plan could help both current and future borrowers.

    Additionally, in July, changes will be made to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which allows certain government and nonprofit employees to seek federal student loan forgiveness after making 10 years of qualifying payments. The changes will make it easier for some borrowers to receive debt forgiveness.

    If the Supreme Court ultimately gives the student loan forgiveness program the green light, it’s possible the government will begin issuing some debt cancellations fairly quickly. The administration has said it already approved 16 million applications for relief.

    But several of the conservative justices expressed skepticism last week about whether Biden has the power to implement his student loan forgiveness program.

    Lawyers for the government have remained confident that their plan is legal. They point to a 2003 law passed after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that grants the secretary of education power to make sure people are not worse off in respect to their student loans in the event of a national emergency.

    “I’m confident we’re on the right side of the law,” Biden told CNN a day after the oral arguments when asked if he was confident the administration would prevail in the case. “I’m not confident of the outcome of the decision yet.”

    If the Supreme Court strikes down Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, it could be possible for the administration to make some modifications to the policy and try again – though that process could take months.

    The pandemic pause on payments will remain in effect until either 60 days after the Supreme Court’s decision, or late August – whichever comes first.

    Source link