Latest news with #LaborandPensions
NBC News
18-06-2025
- Business
- NBC News
Three student loan changes in Republican bill: Getting out of debt would be 'extremely hard,' advocate says
Republicans' 'big beautiful' bill, if enacted as drafted, would make some of the biggest changes to the federal student loan system in decades. GOP House and Senate lawmakers' proposals would eliminate several repayment plans, keep borrowers in debt longer and roll back relief options for those who become unemployed or run into another financial challenge. The House advanced its version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in May. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions released its budget bill recommendations related to student loans on June 10. Senate lawmakers are preparing to debate the massive tax and spending package. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said his party's plans would lift the burden on taxpayers of subsidizing college graduates' loan payments. ″[Former President Joe] Biden and Democrats unfairly attempted to shift student debt onto taxpayers that chose not to go to college,' Cassidy said in a statement on June 10. He said his committee's bill would save an estimated $300 billion out of the federal budget. However, consumer advocates say that the legislation will deepen a lending crisis in which millions of borrowers are already struggling to pay off the debt from their education. 'It's not about fiscal responsibility, it's about doing some funny math that justifies tax cuts,' said Astra Taylor, co-founder of the Debt Collective, a union for debtors. 'It's going to be extremely hard for people to get out of debt with these changes,' Taylor said. Here are three big proposals in the GOP bills to overhaul federal student lending. 1. Fewer repayment plans, larger bills Under the Republican proposals, there would be just two repayment plan choices for new borrowers, compared with roughly a dozen options now. Student loan borrowers could either enroll in a standard repayment plan with fixed payments, or an income-based repayment plan known as the ' Repayment Assistance Plan,' or RAP. Under RAP, monthly payments would typically range from 1% to 10% of a borrower's income; the more they earn, the bigger their required payment. There would be a minimum monthly payment of $10 for all borrowers. A typical student loan borrower with a college degree could pay an extra $2,929 per year if the Senate GOP proposal of RAP is enacted, compared with the Biden administration's now-blocked SAVE plan, according to a recent analysis by the Student Borrower Protection Center. The new plan would fail to provide many borrowers with an affordable monthly bill — the goal of Congress when it established income-driven repayment plans in the 1990s, said Michele Zampini, senior director of college affordability at The Institute for College Access & Success. 'If Republicans' proposed 'Repayment Assistance Plan' is the only thing standing between borrowers and default, we can expect many to suffer the nightmarish experience of default,' Zampini said. 2. Longer timelines to loan forgiveness As of now, borrowers who enroll in the standard repayment plan typically get their debt divided into 120 fixed payments, over 10 years. But the Republicans' new standard plan would provide borrowers fixed payments over a period of between 10 years and 25 years, depending on how much they owe. For example, those with a balance exceeding $50,000 would be in repayment for 15 years; if you owe over $100,000, your fixed payments will last for 25 years. Meanwhile, current income-driven repayment plans now conclude in loan forgiveness after 20 years or 25 years. But RAP wouldn't lead to debt erasure until 30 years. 'Thirty years is your adult life,' Taylor said. If RAP becomes law, she said, 'We anticipate an explosion of senior debtors.' 3. Fewer ways to pause bills House and Senate Republicans are also calling for the elimination of the economic hardship and unemployment deferments. Those deferments allow federal student loan borrowers to pause their monthly bills during periods of joblessness or other financial setbacks, often without interest accruing on their debt. Under both options, which have existed for decades, borrowers can avoid payments for up to three years. Under the Senate Republicans' proposal, student loans received on or after July 1, 2026, would no longer qualify for the unemployment deferment or economic hardship deferment. The House plan does away with both deferments a year earlier, on July 1, 2025. 'These protections enable borrowers to stay in good standing on their loans while they get back on their feet,' Zampini said. 'Without them, borrowers who suddenly can't afford their payments will have little recourse, and many will likely enter delinquency and eventually default,' she said.
CNBC
18-06-2025
- Business
- CNBC
3 student loan changes in Republican bill: Getting out of debt would be 'extremely hard,' advocate says
Republicans' "big beautiful" bill, if enacted as drafted, would make some of the biggest changes to the federal student loan system in decades. GOP House and Senate lawmakers' proposals would eliminate several repayment plans, keep borrowers in debt for longer and roll back relief options for those who become unemployed or run into another financial challenge. The House advanced its version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in May. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions released its budget bill recommendations related to student loans on June 10. Senate lawmakers are preparing to debate the massive tax and spending package. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said his party's plans would lift the burden on taxpayers of subsidizing college graduate's loan payments. "Biden and Democrats unfairly attempted to shift student debt onto taxpayers that chose not to go to college," Cassidy said in a statement on June 10. He said his committee's bill would save an estimated $300 billion from the federal budget. More from Personal Finance:'SALT' deduction in limbo as Senate Republicans unveil tax planHow Senate GOP 'no tax on tips' proposal differs from House planSenate tax bill includes $1,000 baby bonus in 'Trump accounts' However, consumer advocates say that the legislation will deepen a lending crisis in which millions of borrowers are already struggling to pay off the debt from their education. "It's not about fiscal responsibility, it's about doing some funny math that justifies tax cuts," said Astra Taylor, co-founder of the Debt Collective, a union for debtors. "It's going to be extremely hard for people to get out of debt with these changes," Taylor said. Here are three big proposals in the GOP bills to overhaul federal student lending. Under the Republican proposals, there would be just two repayment plan choices for new borrowers, compared with roughly a dozen options now. Student loan borrowers could either enroll in a standard repayment plan with fixed payments, or an income-based repayment plan known as the "Repayment Assistance Plan," or RAP. Under RAP, monthly payments would typically range from 1% to 10% of a borrower's income; the more they earn, the bigger their required payment. There would be a minimum monthly payment of $10 for all borrowers. A typical student loan borrower with a college degree could pay an extra $2,929 per year if the Senate GOP proposal of RAP is enacted, compared to the Biden administration's now-blocked SAVE plan, according to a recent analysis by the Student Borrower Protection Center. The new plan would fail to provide many borrowers' with an affordable monthly bill — the goal of Congress when it established income-driven repayment plans in the 90s, said Michele Zampini, senior director of college affordability at The Institute for College Access & Success. "If Republicans' proposed 'Repayment Assistance Plan' is the only thing standing between borrowers and default, we can expect many to suffer the nightmarish experience of default," Zampini said. As of now, borrowers who enroll in the standard repayment plan typically get their debt divided into 120 fixed payments, over 10 years. But the Republicans' new standard plan would provide borrowers fixed payments over a period between 10 years and 25 years, depending on how much they owe. For example, those with a balance exceeding $50,000 would be in repayment for 15 years; if you owe over $100,000, your fixed payments will last for 25 years. Meanwhile, current income-driven repayment plans now conclude in loan forgiveness after 20 years or 25 years. But RAP wouldn't lead to debt erasure until 30 years. "Thirty years is your adult life," Taylor said. If RAP becomes law, she said, "We anticipate an explosion of senior debtors." House and Senate Republicans are also calling for the elimination of the economic hardship and unemployment deferments. Those deferments allow federal student loan borrowers to pause their monthly bills during periods of joblessness or other financial setbacks, often without interest accruing on their debt. Under both options, which have existed for decades, borrowers can avoid payments for up to three years. Under the Senate Republicans' proposal, student loans received on or after July 1, 2026, would no longer qualify for the unemployment deferment or economic hardship deferment. The House plan does away with both deferments a year earlier, on July 1, 2025. "These protections enable borrowers to stay in good standing on their loans while they get back on their feet," Zampini said. "Without them, borrowers who suddenly can't afford their payments will have little recourse, and many will likely enter delinquency and eventually default," she said.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Cassidy in a bind as RFK Jr. blows up vaccine policy
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has put Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) in a political bind, squeezed by his loyalty to President Trump and commitment to medicine. Cassidy, the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, publicly wavered over Kennedy's confirmation, sharply criticizing his views before eventually voting for him. Cassidy said he secured a series of promises about vaccine safety, including for Kennedy to not undercut public confidence in vaccines. 'If Mr. Kennedy is confirmed, I will use my authority … to rebuff any attempts to remove the public's access to lifesaving vaccines without ironclad, causational scientific evidence that can be defended before the mainstream scientific community and before Congress,' Cassidy said on the Senate floor in February, just after he voted to advance Kennedy's nomination out of committee. Cassidy said Kennedy also pledged to keep in place a pivotal independent advisory panel on vaccine policy. 'If confirmed, [Kennedy] will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) without changes,' Cassidy said. On Monday, Kennedy fired the entire 17-member panel, arguing a 'clean sweep' was needed to purge conflicts of interest and help restore trust in vaccinations and public health. The move was an unprecedented escalation in Kennedy's quest to reshape the nation's vaccine policy and seemingly ignored one of the key promises Cassidy said he extracted from the longtime anti-vaccine activist. However, the second-term Louisiana senator and medical doctor did not publicly confront the Kennedy this week, pointing to his political vulnerabilities as he runs for reelection in 2026 and hopes to survive the deep red state's GOP primary. Robert Hogan, department chair and political science professor at Louisiana State University, said it seems clear that Kennedy is playing Cassidy for a fool — but that won't matter to GOP primary voters. 'You would think that that would hurt him electorally, but … I think ultimately, what could have hurt him is if he had stuck with his professional standards and the standards of the medical community' and spoken out against Kennedy, Hogan said. 'Keep in mind that in Louisiana, just a few days ago voted to make ivermectin available without a prescription. … Republicans are all in on this kind of thing and in that kind of environment, especially in a nomination battle where they are going to be the vast majority of people voting … it doesn't pay at all to push Kennedy on these matters,' Hogan said. Cassidy spent three decades as a practicing gastroenterologist before being elected to the House in 2009 and the Senate six years later. He won his 2020 election in a landslide, but he committed a cardinal sin in today's Republican party when, in 2021, he voted to convict Trump of impeachment for trying to incite a riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6. After his vote against Trump, state Republicans changed the rules to create a closed primary, where only Republicans and people who aren't registered in any other party can vote. Since Trump's reelection, Cassidy has tried to make amends. He's supported every controversial Cabinet nominee and touted his visits to the White House to brief Trump. Cassidy reported raising $1.36 million during the first quarter of 2025 with $7.5 million cash on hand. His campaign said it was the most ever by an incumbent Louisiana senator at this early stage in the campaign. Trump has so far largely stayed quiet on the race, but The Associated Press reported last month that Trump and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) have discussed having the president support Rep. Julia Letlow (R) as a primary challenger to Cassidy. State Treasurer John Fleming (R), a former House member who is also a medical doctor, has already launched his primary campaign against Cassidy. Hogan said Fleming is a formidable opponent. 'If it comes down to, they're equal on every other dimension except [Fleming] did not vote to impeach Trump? That's the message, I think that will come through very clear to Republican voters,' Hogan said. Cassidy declined to comment for this article. He hasn't said much about Kennedy's latest move, telling reporters only that he is having conversations with the secretary. He also wouldn't say if Kennedy violated their agreement and instead pointed to a social media post. 'Of course, now the fear is that the ACIP will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion,' Cassidy wrote on the social platform X. 'I've just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I'll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case.' Firing ACIP members is far from the first time Kennedy has flouted Cassidy's guardrails. Earlier this month, Kennedy bypassed ACIP entirely when he declared pregnant women and healthy children don't need COVID-19 vaccines. He canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in mRNA vaccine contracts and forced out the head of the Food and Drug Administration's vaccines division. As part of his commitment to Cassidy, Kennedy agreed to testify upon request on a quarterly basis. Yet he declined to do so when Cassidy requested a hearing in April following massive layoffs at HHS. Instead, he testified weeks later during a budget hearing on the HHS appropriations request. Cassidy pointed out it was the first time 'in at least two decades' an HHS secretary testified to the HELP Committee about a budget request. Before the start of the hearing, Cassidy gave Kennedy a clear sign of support when he walked to the front of the hearing room and shook Kennedy's hand in front of a barrage of cameras. While Cassidy largely avoided the issue of vaccines during the hearing, Democrats did not. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) accused Kennedy of misleading senators and the public about his support for vaccines. 'If I were the chairman, who believes in vaccines and voted for you because he believed what you said about supporting vaccines, my head would be exploding,' Murphy said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
12-06-2025
- Health
- The Hill
Cassidy in a bind as RFK Jr. blows up vaccine policy
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has put Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) in a political bind, squeezed by his loyalty to President Trump and commitment to medicine. Cassidy, the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, publicly wavered over Kennedy's confirmation, sharply criticizing his views before eventually voting for him. Cassidy said he secured a series of promises about vaccine safety, including for Kennedy to not undercut public confidence in vaccines. 'If Mr. Kennedy is confirmed, I will use my authority … to rebuff any attempts to remove the public's access to lifesaving vaccines without ironclad, causational scientific evidence that can be defended before the mainstream scientific community and before Congress,' Cassidy said on the Senate floor in February, just after he voted to advance Kennedy's nomination out of committee. Cassidy said Kennedy also pledged to keep in place a pivotal independent advisory panel on vaccine policy. 'If confirmed, [Kennedy] will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) without changes,' Cassidy said. On Monday, Kennedy fired the entire 17-member panel, arguing a 'clean sweep' was needed to purge conflicts of interest and help restore trust in vaccinations and public health. The move was an unprecedented escalation in Kennedy's quest to reshape the nation's vaccine policy and seemingly ignored one of the key promises Cassidy said he extracted from the longtime anti-vaccine activist. However, the second-term Louisiana senator and medical doctor did not publicly confront the Kennedy this week, pointing to his political vulnerabilities as he runs for reelection in 2026 and hopes to survive the deep red state's GOP primary. Robert Hogan, department chair and political science professor at Louisiana State University, said it seems clear that Kennedy is playing Cassidy for a fool — but that won't matter to GOP primary voters. 'You would think that that would hurt him electorally, but … I think ultimately, what could have hurt him is if he had stuck with his professional standards and the standards of the medical community' and spoken out against Kennedy, Hogan said. 'Keep in mind that in Louisiana, just a few days ago voted to make ivermectin available without a prescription. … Republicans are all in on this kind of thing and in that kind of environment, especially in a nomination battle where they are going to be the vast majority of people voting … it doesn't pay at all to push Kennedy on these matters,' Hogan said. Cassidy spent three decades as a practicing gastroenterologist before being elected to the House in 2009 and the Senate six years later. He won his 2020 election in a landslide, but he committed a cardinal sin in today's Republican party when, in 2021, he voted to convict Trump of impeachment for trying to incite a riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6. After his vote against Trump, state Republicans changed the rules to create a closed primary, where only Republicans and people who aren't registered in any other party can vote. Since Trump's reelection, Cassidy has tried to make amends. He's supported every controversial Cabinet nominee and touted his visits to the White House to brief Trump. Cassidy reported raising $1.36 million during the first quarter of 2025 with $7.5 million cash on hand. His campaign said it was the most ever by an incumbent Louisiana senator at this early stage in the campaign. Trump has so far largely stayed quiet on the race, but The Associated Press reported last month that Trump and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R) have discussed having the president support Rep. Julia Letlow (R) as a primary challenger to Cassidy. State Treasurer John Fleming (R), a former House member who is also a medical doctor, has already launched his primary campaign against Cassidy. Hogan said Fleming is a formidable opponent. 'If it comes down to, they're equal on every other dimension except [Fleming] did not vote to impeach Trump? That's the message, I think that will come through very clear to Republican voters,' Hogan said. Cassidy declined to comment for this article. He hasn't said much about Kennedy's latest move, telling reporters only that he is having conversations with the secretary. He also wouldn't say if Kennedy violated their agreement and instead pointed to a social media post. 'Of course, now the fear is that the ACIP will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion,' Cassidy wrote on the social platform X. 'I've just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I'll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case.' Firing ACIP members is far from the first time Kennedy has flouted Cassidy's guardrails. Earlier this month, Kennedy bypassed ACIP entirely when he declared pregnant women and healthy children don't need COVID-19 vaccines. He canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in mRNA vaccine contracts and forced out the head of the Food and Drug Administration's vaccines division. As part of his commitment to Cassidy, Kennedy agreed to testify upon request on a quarterly basis. Yet he declined to do so when Cassidy requested a hearing in April following massive layoffs at HHS. Instead, he testified weeks later during a budget hearing on the HHS appropriations request. Cassidy pointed out it was the first time 'in at least two decades' an HHS secretary testified to the HELP Committee about a budget request. Before the start of the hearing, Cassidy gave Kennedy a clear sign of support when he walked to the front of the hearing room and shook Kennedy's hand in front of a barrage of cameras. While Cassidy largely avoided the issue of vaccines during the hearing, Democrats did not. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) accused Kennedy of misleading senators and the public about his support for vaccines. 'If I were the chairman, who believes in vaccines and voted for you because he believed what you said about supporting vaccines, my head would be exploding,' Murphy said.
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifying during his Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions confirmation hearing on January 30, 2025 in Washington, DC Credit - Kevin Dietsch—Getty Images When Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. began his tenure as Health and Human Services Secretary, he pledged, 'We won't take away anyone's vaccines.' However, recent policy changes under his leadership—coupled with the unprecedented dismissal of all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on June 9—have proven that statement false, raising grave concerns for our nation's COVID-19 response and broader vaccine policies. These shifts not only jeopardize public health but also threaten to erode trust in our health institutions at a critical time. In May 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced a new COVID-19 vaccine framework, limiting access to updated vaccines for Americans aged 65 and older or those with specific risk factors. Furthermore, Secretary Kennedy announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for 'healthy' children or pregnant women—bypassing the standard ACIP review process. Compounding these changes, the abrupt removal of ACIP's entire panel of independent experts, who have guided evidence-based vaccine policy for decades, risks destabilizing a cornerstone of public health. These actions collectively restrict access to a vital tool for saving lives and undermine confidence in our health systems. Read More: What to Know About RFK Jr. Removing All Experts From CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee During my tenure as Surgeon General under the first Trump administration, we faced significant public health challenges, from addressing the opioid epidemic by increasing access to Naloxone to launching Operation Warp Speed for the COVID-19 vaccine development effort. The vaccines developed under Trump's first term have proven to be one of our most effective defenses against COVID-19; yet, the current administration's new policies limit their availability, potentially leaving millions vulnerable. The dismissal of ACIP's experts—without a clear plan for replacing them with qualified scientists—further jeopardizes trust in the institutions tasked with protecting Americans. The major flaw in the new vaccine framework is its narrow assessment of risk. Although the immediate dangers of COVID-19 have lessened, it remains a leading cause of death and hospitalization, claiming nearly 50,000 lives in the U.S. in 2024—more than breast cancer or car accidents. The fact is, 75% of Americans have risk factors, such as obesity or diabetes, that increase their vulnerability to severe COVID outcomes. However, the burden is now placed on individuals to self-identify as high risk, creating confusion and inconsistency in access. Unlike other countries with centralized systems for identifying at-risk individuals, the U.S. expects patients—many of whom lack easy access to healthcare—to navigate eligibility alone. Risk assessment should also consider individual circumstances beyond underlying health conditions. A 58-year-old bus driver or healthcare worker faces significantly greater exposure than someone working remotely. By limiting vaccines to specific groups based solely on preexisting health status, the policy overlooks these critical contextual differences. Secretary Kennedy's team argues that there is insufficient evidence to support updated COVID-19 vaccines for healthy Americans under 65, but this claim is flatly unfounded. Years of real-world data demonstrate that vaccines save lives and reduce hospitalizations across all age groups. During the 2023 to 2024 fall and winter season, 95% of those hospitalized for COVID had not received an updated vaccine. While the administration cites other countries' more restrictive vaccine policies, such comparisons ignore the unique health landscape in the U.S., which includes higher obesity rates, worse maternal health outcomes, and uneven healthcare access. The policy also neglects the issue of Long COVID, which affects millions with debilitating symptoms lasting months or years. Though older adults are at higher risk for severe acute infections, Long COVID disproportionately impacts adults aged 35 to 49—and children are also affected. Vaccination reduces the risk of developing Long COVID, an essential reason many healthy individuals choose to stay up-to-date with their vaccines. Read More: What's the Risk of Getting Long COVID in 2024? Particularly concerning is the decision to end COVID vaccine recommendations for 'healthy' pregnant women, which contradicts the FDA's own guidance. Pregnant women face heightened risks of severe COVID outcomes, including death, pre-eclampsia, and miscarriage. Vaccination during pregnancy is crucial—not just for maternal health but also for protecting infants under six months, who cannot be vaccinated and rely on maternal antibodies for protection. Decades of research confirm that vaccines, including COVID vaccines, safely transfer antibodies to newborns, lowering their risk of severe illness. The dismissal of ACIP's members amplifies these concerns. ACIP has been a trusted, science-driven body that ensures vaccines are safe and effective, saving countless lives through its transparent recommendations. Its members, rigorously vetted for expertise and conflicts of interest, provide independent guidance critical to public health. Removing them without clear evidence of misconduct risks replacing qualified scientists with less experienced voices. This move fuels vaccine hesitancy and skepticism about public health decisions, particularly when paired with the bypassing of ACIP's review process for the new COVID vaccine policies. These changes create uncertainty about who can access vaccines. Without clear CDC recommendations, insurance companies may impose their own coverage criteria, potentially increasing costs for a vaccine that was previously free for most Americans. Healthcare providers, lacking federal guidance and ACIP's expertise, may struggle to advise patients, leading to a confusing and inequitable system that limits choice—hardly the 'medical freedom' Secretary Kennedy claims to champion. Ultimately, these actions threaten to erode trust in public health. FDA officials argue the new framework enhances transparency, yet bypassing ACIP's review and dismissing its members undermines that aim. Extensive data demonstrate that updated vaccines lower hospitalization and death rates, yet this evidence was sidelined. Such actions breed skepticism, making it harder to unite Americans around shared health goals. The stakes are high, but a better path is possible. Restoring trust requires transparent, evidence-based policymaking that prioritizes access to life-saving tools. I urge Secretary Kennedy and the administration to reconsider this framework, reinstate ACIP's role in vaccine policy, and ensure any new appointees are qualified, independent experts. If concerns about ACIP exist, they should be addressed through reform, not dissolution. Healthcare providers and community leaders must also educate patients about vaccination benefits, particularly for vulnerable groups like pregnant women and those with high exposure. Individuals can take action by staying informed, discussing vaccination with their doctors, and advocating for clear, equitable access to vaccines. By working together—government, providers, and citizens—we can protect lives, reduce the burden of Long COVID, and rebuild confidence in our public health system. We must seize this opportunity to unite around science and ensure a healthier, safer, and prosperous future for all Americans. Contact us at letters@
