Manchin Straddles Fence on Student Debt Crisis

By: Mildred Robertson

West Virginia Senator and presidential hopeful Joe Manchin, (Yes, “presidential hopeful”…I said it even though he won’t) is being lambasted by conservatives in his state for his promotion of legislation that would offer student loan debt relief.  The Smarter Debt Act is aimed at establishing an interactive online dashboard at the U.S. Department of Education to provide future and current students with the information they need to navigate the financing of their education. If enacted this legislation would direct the Department of Education to establish an interactive online dashboard that would help users to more easily access information about existing loan forgiveness and repayment programs. 

While the Biden administration has continuously tried to fight the problem of student loan debt, Senator Manchin has been no student debt relief advocate. Over the Summer Senator Manchin voted to repeal Biden’s student loan cancellation plan. He called Biden’s student loan forgiveness proposal excessive and said that there are other ways to help people burdened by student debt.

President Biden supports capping student loan repayment at 5% of the borrower's income. He also proposes forgiving up to $10,000 in federal student loan debt for borrowers making less than $125,000 annually and would forgive $20,000 in loans for Pell Grant recipients under the same income threshold. Manchin opposed those proposals saying “I just thought that it was excessive. I just respectfully disagree on that.”

While Manchin positions himself for a possible run at the Whitehouse as a third-party candidate he must balance his conservative state voters' desires, with the need to appease the more liberal leanings of the rest of the country. But his West Virginia constituents aren’t having it.  One internet commenter said, “That is one of the reasons that Joe can't get reelected in WV. I paid for my education and my son's education and I worked 7 days a week to do it. Why should I have to pay for anyone else's education. (sic) Typical democrat. Tax and spend and put it on the working man.” 

Unfortunately, voters who think like this commenter miss the point that underprivileged people who graduate actually CONTRIBUTE to the economy. Yet their student loans are so burdensome that many graduates can't acquire a job that will allow them to afford to pay the loan AND afford homeownership, buy cars, or live the American dream that education purportedly will provide.  Also, many first-time graduates from underprivileged families take on the burden of reaching back to help their less fortunate relatives, particularly in Black communities.  Further, a well-educated citizenry contributes to the competitiveness of America. Those graduates too, are paying into the tax base....at a higher rate than they would have had they not had an education. 

So I am glad that Manchin has decided to accept the ire of his constituents to do something, however miniscule, to relieve the burden of student debt on those struggling to break into or stay in the middle class. Manchin appears to be positioning himself to pursue another elected office where voters might not be as offended by his still Republican-esque right-leaning political philosophy. Don’t be fooled by his lukewarm attempt to address the issue. He could be a spoiler in the Democratic election by running as a third-party candidate.

He was an unreliable advocate for the everyday American during his tenure as a Senator. He would be just as ineffective at advocating for middle-class Americans in any other capacity. A third-party candidate can only muddy the waters in the 2024 election. That election is way too important to let a candidate’s performative politics cause us to end up with Donald Trump back in the White House. Even the unlikely prospect of Manchin himself winning the seat would be a terrible outcome for our nation.

Santos Expulsion: What Does it Mean?

By: Mildred Robertson 

So, Republicans finally decided to draw a line in the sand. After two previously failed attempts, on Friday, December 3rd nearly half of the Republican House delegation voted to expel New York's 3rd Congressional District Representative, George Santos from Congress. After receiving the House Ethics Committee report finding substantial evidence of wrongdoing, the House voted 311 to 114 to expel him; well above the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution.

Santos refused to resign although he admitted that he "embellished" much of his resume. Texas Democratic Representative Joaquin Castro stated that Santos had lied about almost every aspect of his life and that he should either resign or be expelled from Congress. The House Ethics Committee report found the congressman violated federal law and engaged in a "complex web" of illegal activity concerning his finances. Democrats Robert Garcia and Dan Goldman filed the resolution that resulted in Santos's expulsion.  New York Republican Anthony D'Esposito offered his own motion to force a vote on the expulsion. 

Historically Santos becomes the 21st member of Congress to be expelled. Previously there were 15 expulsions from the Senate and five from the House. Most were related to the Support of the Confederacy. In 2002 Ohio Representative James Traficant was expelled after conviction on 10 felony counts that included taking bribes, filing false tax returns, racketeering, and forcing his congressional staff to perform chores at his farm in Ohio and on his houseboat in Washington, D.C. He served a seven-year prison sentence for his infractions. It remains to be seen whether Santos will be convicted of criminal charges.

It is not as though House Republicans were unaware of Santos' challenges before his election. However, many of Santos' alleged misdeeds were hidden from the voters before he won the seat. 

So how was he able to survive two previous votes to expel him? It was all about maintaining power. In the final vote, only two Democrats voted against the resolution to expel Santos yet 112 Republicans voted to allow him to keep his seat. The GOP voting against his expulsion would like us to believe the vote was based upon their desire to let the people of his district decide in the next election. However, Santos was important to the Republican's razor-thin majority, and losing his seat may jeopardize any future legislation they plan to pass or block. Furthermore, his district is a swing district, and there is no guarantee that the electorate will send another Republican to replace him. 

I am not sure what was the final straw that made a plurality of Republicans decide to vote to remove this demonstrably flawed politician from Congress. Republican House leadership voted to save Santos to avoid winnowing their party's slim House majority. They were joined by the hard-right conservative caucus to hold on to Santos, while moderate and mainstream conservatives took the opportunity to distance themselves from the serial liar.  There is no reason Santos should have ever been seated, but at least now we know that there are some lines that many partisan Republicans will not cross, even if only for their own survival.