Americans’ trust in science now deeply polarized, poll shows

By SETH BORENSTEIN and HANNAH FINGERHUT

January 26, 2022

1 of 4

A laboratory technician prepares COVID-19 patient samples for semi-automatic testing at Northwell Health Labs, March 11, 2020, in Lake Success, N.Y. Republicans' faith in science is falling as Democrats rely on it even more with a trust gap in science and medicine widening substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic, new survey data shows. It’s the largest gap in nearly five decades of polling by the General Social Survey, a widely respected trend survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago that has been measuring confidence in institutions since 1972. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)


WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans’ faith in science is falling as Democrats rely on it even more, with a trust gap in science and medicine widening substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic, new survey data shows.

It’s the largest gap in nearly five decades of polling by the General Social Survey, a widely respected trend survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago that has been measuring confidence in institutions since 1972.

That is unsurprising to more than a dozen scientists reached for comment by The Associated Press, but it concerns many of them.

“We are living at a time when people would rather put urine or cleaning chemicals in their body than scientifically vetted vaccines,” University of Georgia meteorology professor Marshall Shepherd told the AP in an email. “That is a clear convergence of fear, lack of critical thinking, confirmation bias and political tribalism.”

Science used to be something all Americans would get behind, Rice University historian Douglas Brinkley said.

“But we now see it falling prey to the great partisan divide,” he said. “The world of science should be a meeting house where right and left can agree on data. Instead, it’s becoming a sharp razor’s edge of conflict.”

Overall, 48% of Americans say they have “a great deal” of confidence in the scientific community, the 2021 General Social Survey data shows. Sixty-four percent of Democrats say that, compared with roughly half as many Republicans, 34%. The gap was much smaller in 2018, when 51% of Democrats and 42% of Republicans had high confidence.

The poll also found a gap emerging on confidence in medicine, driven primarily by increasing confidence among Democrats. Forty-five percent of Democrats said they had a great deal of confidence in medicine, compared with 34% of Republicans.

The deepening polarization was not evident for other institutions asked about on the poll, according to Jennifer Benz, deputy director of The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

“It’s certainly plausible that this is a result of how politicized the pandemic became in the months between when it emerged and when the survey ran,” Benz said. “It is definitely a stark change for these particular trends on confidence in scientific leaders and leaders in medicine, to see this degree of polarization.”

The data suggest Republicans and Democrats are following the cues of their leaders, said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.

“We’ve seen so much criticism (and worse) leveled at medical experts since the beginning of the pandemic from the former president, other Republican leaders and the conservative media, and just the opposite from the current president, Democratic leaders, and the mainstream and liberal media,” Leiserowitz told the AP in an email.

Kelvin Droegemeier, former science adviser to President Donald Trump, said he thinks the pandemic increased the general public’s insight into how scientific research works but the ever-evolving science probably seemed chaotic at times and the urgency of the pandemic complicated policymaking.

“We hear ‘follow the science,’ but which results? The challenge lies in how to best use the scientific results, recognizing that what appears to be an ‘answer’ one day may be overturned, wholly or partly, another day,” Droegemeier told the AP in an email.

That messiness, sometimes weak communication and political philosophies play into the trust gap, said Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences, which was set up by President Abraham Lincoln to offer the federal government expert advice.

Scientists and policy makers tend to be conservative — not politically but in terms of being cautious and wary of risk — pushing safety, masks and vaccines while “Republicans as a group value individual liberty,” McNutt said.

“So no wonder that Republicans are less supportive of the scientifically conservative decisions in the face of uncertainty,” she told the AP in an email.

John Holdren, who was President Barack Obama’s science adviser, said he blames GOP leaders’ “nonstop denial and deception.”

The consequence of declining trust in the scientific community among Republicans is clear: AP-NORC polling shows Republicans continue to be less likely than Democrats to be vaccinated.

Sudip Parikh, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest general science organization, said it’s clear that science has become a wedge issue for many politicians. Some have tied themselves to it, he said, and others have seen value in shooting at it “because it helps them politically.”

“It’s easy in the abstract to trust science,” Parikh said. “When there are things that come out of that the data that challenge what you are hoping the policy answer would be, you get divergence from wanting to trust the science.”

Parikh said he found it ironic that much of the distrust in science is spread by technology — social media, smartphones — that only exists because of scientific advances.

Famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson agreed: “The struggle continues, trying to get the general public to embrace all of the science the way they unwittingly embrace the science in their smartphones.”

___

The General Social Survey has been conducted since 1972 by NORC at the University of Chicago. Sample sizes for each year’s survey vary from about 1,500 to about 4,000 adults, with margins of error falling between plus or minus 2 percentage points and plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. The most recent survey was conducted Dec. 1, 2020, through May 3, 2021, and includes interviews with 4,032 American adults. Results for the full sample have a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

Facing the prospect of a Black woman justice, right-wing media goes berserk, corporate media goes wobbly

By

 Dan Froomkin

 -

January 27, 2022 

President Biden’s intent to nominate a Black woman to fill Justice Stephen Breyer’s emptying seat on the Supreme Court has freaked out right-wing media, sending the likes of Tucker Carlson and Larry Kudlow into torrential rants of racist and misogynistic froth and whiny white grievance.

That’s not really so shocking. It’s laughable, ironic, and pathetic, given how 108 of the 115 people who have served on the Court have been white guys, and how overdue such a nomination is.

But what is shocking is that the New York Times treated as a serious, debatable proposition the view that Black women have been overrepresented in Biden’s judicial nominations.

The Times article by Michael D. Shear and Charlie Savage focused on how Biden’s promise “underscores how much Black women have struggled to become part of a very small pool of elite judges in the nation’s higher federal courts.”

But Shear and Savage then went on to respectfully relate the argument that there is something off about Biden’s attempt to fix that. They wrote:

Half of Mr. Biden’s first 16 nominees for federal appeals courts have been Black women — as many as all previous presidents combined had appointed. That emphasis has attracted scrutiny from across the ideological spectrum.

And to illustrate this “scrutiny from across the ideological spectrum,” they quoted a seriously compromised Republican operative:

But conservatives like the National Review legal commentator Ed Whelan have pointed out that the number of Black women Mr. Biden has nominated is strikingly disproportionate to the available pool of Black women with law degrees.

According to a 2021 profile of the legal profession by the American Bar Association, just 4.7 percent of American lawyers are Black and 37 percent of lawyers are female. The report did not break out Black women in particular, but the implication is that roughly 2 percent of American lawyers are both Black and female.

Steve Vladeck, the prolific and perspicacious University of Texas law professor, was quick off the mark Wednesday night to call out the Times:

Others on Twitter also criticized the Times for quoting Whelan — and compounding their mistake by not explaining who he is.

Whelan, after all, is the guy who was forced to apologize and take a leave from the think tank he runs after he peddled a conspiracy theory on social media as part of the PR campaign to cast doubt on the veracity of a sexual assault allegation against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

By contrast to the Times, the Washington Post focused on how the appointment would be “a milestone in the country’s history.”

Seung Min Kim and Ann E. Marimow quoted Democratic Sen. Patty Murray saying “The court should reflect the diversity of our country, and it is unacceptable that we have never in our nation’s history had a Black woman sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.”

The Freak Out

The prospect of a Black woman Supreme Court justice is eliciting a particularly visceral response from right-wing media, raising two questions that political journalists should really address:

• Why are they so freaked out exactly? (Hint: Black. Woman.)
• Is there no limit to the racism and misogyny that can be expressed on Fox and elsewhere without negative consequences? (Although, sadly, their open embrace of replacement theory indicates the answer is no.)

Tucker Carlson, as HuffPost reported, spent “12 minutes railing against President Joe Biden’s vow to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court.”

He mocked Biden for not picking a Pacific Islander or a trans woman instead. And in a classic example of projection, Carlson said

You almost got the impression that Joe Biden believes all Black women are the same. They’re identical.

Not much later, he illustrated my point exactly:

So you have to wonder at this point, since we are going by skin color and gender, why Joe Biden is ignoring the obvious choice. Why doesn’t bite and strike a real blow for equity and just nominate Bridget Floyd, George Floyd’s sister.

He put this photo up on the screen.

Larry Kudlow was outraged. “I am offended by President Biden’s woke promise to appoint an African-American female,” he said.

He had an alternative proposition: “that Joe Biden would consider the most eminently qualified person, including white people. That’s right, white people.”

This was followed by a sound bite from Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

Kudlow continued:

Instead, in Biden-world, we will end racism by being racist. We will end prejudice by being prejudiced. We will end divisions by being divisive. I think it’s a travesty. I think it disqualifies Biden from being president. I think it’s much worse than big government socialist spending, or tax hikes, or central planning regulators, or ending fossil fuels, or open borders.

Yup, that’s right: “Joe Biden shouldn’t be president. This racial prejudice is totally un-American.”

Sean Hannity went on the attack.

Tomi Lahren took a racist shot.

And Maria Bartiromo seriously insisted that “speculation” was “rising” that Biden would pick Kamala Harris and maybe nominate Hillary Clinton as vice president. It is, but it’s nuts.

The Counter-Backlash

Lucky for us, we have people like Elie Mystal and Nicole Hannah-Jones to put the racist, sexist right-wing meltdown into context.

They’ve been on a roll on Twitter and TV. A tiny sample:

The Coverage Going Forward

I worry about how this story will be reported on by our corporate media because it touches on some issues that it typically avoids, elides, or screws up.

This nomination ought to spur all sorts of important discussions – about racial justice in general, but also specifically about the need for redress, and the notion that Biden is trying to fix something that remains broken.

I mean, you sometimes do need to redress historical wrongs. You do need to acknowledge the past, and how it continues to influence the present. Those are not crazy ideas.

But our elite newsrooms just aren’t comfortable going there. You could see that in their resistance to addressing the actual substance of critical race theory – while gleefully reporting about how clever it is for Republicans to demonize it.

The substance of critical race theory, as it happens, is highly relevant to the nomination of a Black woman justice, as Nikole Hannah-Jones explained:

Similarly, coverage of the Supreme Court’s decision to reopen the debate about affirmative action has avoided the central issue of racial justice, focusing instead on whether “diversity” justifies giving some preferences to under-represented groups.

Robert Barnes and Nick Anderson of the Washington Post were far from alone in framing the issue as one of “whether universities may consider the race of applicants when trying to build diverse student bodies.”

That is indeed what a lot of the arguing is about, but it’s important to remember that affirmative action (as I wrote in a 1998 primer for the Washington Post) was born of the civil rights movement, and is the nation’s most ambitious attempt to redress its long history of racial and sexual discrimination.

It’s still needed because the playing field is not level yet. Granting modest advantages to minorities and women is more than fair, given hundreds of years of discrimination that benefited whites and men.

But our big newsrooms don’t like to address the playing field issue anymore – something most vividly illustrated by the one exception to the rule: the epic 2014 Atlantic essay by Ta-Nehisi Coates, making the case for reparations.

“America was built on the preferential treatment of white people—395 years of it. Vaguely endorsing a cuddly, feel-good diversity does very little to redress this,” Coates wrote.

Celebrating muckraker Morton Mintz’s 100th birthday

By

 Dan Froomkin

 -

January 26, 2022 

Morton MIntz

Morton Mintz is turning 100 today, a good excuse to briefly review his extraordinary career as a pioneering hero of investigative reporting in medicine and public health.

As a reporter at the Washington Post for 30 years – from 1958 to 1988 – Mintz relentlessly exposed corporate crime and misconduct, particularly in the drug, tobacco and automotive industries.

In 1962, Mintz broke the story of the consequences of using thalidomide, the sedative/tranquilizer that caused thousands of babies to be born armless, legless or limbless to women who had taken the drug during the first trimester of pregnancy.

As he wrote in a 2013 essay, “The story dealt a lasting blow to the then widely-held notion that science and technology always or nearly always produce benign results.”

His continued to report on unsafe medicines and medical devices, most notably the Dalkon Shield, an intrauterine birth control device that seriously injured tens of thousands of women.

In his book, “AT ANY COST; Corporate Greed, Women and The Dalkon Shield” Mintz wrote that he saw the Dalkon Shield story as proof of “the chasm between the flesh-and-blood person and the paper corporate person.”

He famously concluded: “The human being who would not harm you on an individual, face-to-face basis, who is charitable, civic-minded, loving, and devout, will wound or kill you from behind the corporate veil.”

After leaving the Post, Mintz became a powerful critic of the corporate media. In a 1991 essay, he wrote about how a “built-in, chronic tilt chills mainstream press coverage of grave, persisting, and pervasive abuses of corporate power.” He called out “pathetically inadequate coverage of life-threatening corporate misconduct.”

In an email to a fellow journalist, Mintz wrote: “It’s long seemed to me that, in my experience, too many reporters, too much of the time, failed to ask themselves a simple two-word question: ‘What’s important?’”

He was one of the founders of NiemanWatchdog.org, a website that operated between 2004 and 2012. It posed questions that journalists should ask to hold the powerful accountable. I was deputy editor.

The most lasting lesson I learned from Mintz was about the value of congressional oversight – and the terrible cost of its absence.

I once asked him how he was able to break so many incredible stories.

“I stayed until the end of the hearings,” he said.

He spoke nostalgically about the virtuous circle that used to exist between journalists and the heads of congressional committees, one playing off the other to advance important investigations.

And he explained how much the country was suffering from the collapse of congressional oversight.

At the Post, Mintz was a real reporter’s reporter – and distinctly not an editor’s reporter. He was a proud union member, at one point writing a series of Guild bulletins documenting the Washington Post Co.’s own corporate greed under the headline “The Fruits of Your Labor.” He once wrote a letter to then-editor Ben Bradlee complaining that his editors had subjected him to “morale-crushing discouragement and nibblings to death.”

I posted a note on the Washington Post alumni Facebook page about Mintz’s upcoming birthday.

Eugene L Meyer, a former longtime Post reporter, wrote:

Mort is an exemplar and an inspiration. He always spoke truth to power, was an important voice in our Wash Post Guild unit. He was a bottomless pit of (appropriate) outrage. His achievements were hall-of-fame monumental. We are all in his debt.

John Schwartz, now a science reporter for the New York Times, wrote:

They say never meet your heroes, but meeting Mintz was a joy. I’d taken up the FDA beat at the Post and marveled at his work on thalidomide and on the early smoking lawsuits. He missed nothing. We talked and emailed and he was helpful and provided insights that helped me immeasurably on tough topics that he knew more about than I ever would. When we finally did meet, he startled a little and said, “John, I had a completely different mental image of you!”

“I know,” I said. “I write taller.” And we had a good laugh.

And Nell Henderson, economics editor at the Wall Street Journal, emailed:

Happy Birthday Mort!

Hope you’re well and enjoying your long life surrounded by family, friends and fans.

When I joined the Washington Post’s Business Section in 1984, your desk was between our section and Woodward’s office overlooking the Russian embassy.

I was in awe of your work, exposing defects in the making and selling of public dangers like the Dalkon Shield and defective arthritis medicines and heart valves.

Thank you for being tireless, persistent and stubborn in your determination to make the world safer for us all.

And thank you for inspiring all the journalist around you, including me.

All the best,

Nell Henderson

Happy birthday from me, too, Mort. You’re one of the greats.

Amazon Endorses Federal 

Cannabis Legalization

The retail giant of Amazon is putting its support behind Rep. Nancy Mace

 and her introduction of the States Reform Act.

Shutterstock

Amazon said this week that it supports a Republican congresswoman’s proposal to end the prohibition of marijuana on the federal level, the company’s latest embrace of legalization. 

In a tweet posted on Tuesday, Amazon said it was “pleased to endorse” a bill introduced by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC).

“Like so many in this country, we believe it’s time to reform the nation’s cannabis policy and Amazon is committed to helping lead the effort,” the company said. 

Mace introduced the legislation, called the “States Reform Act,” in November, saying at the time that “Washington needs to provide a framework which allows states to make their own decisions on cannabis moving forward.”

The bill would remove cannabis from Schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act, a law that has kept weed illegal on the federal level and has made some states hesitant to pursue their own cannabis laws. 

“Today, only three states lack some form of legal cannabis,” Mace said in her November announcement. “My home state of South Carolina permits CBD, Florida allows medical marijuana, California and others have full recreational use, for example. Every state is different. Cannabis reform at the federal level must take all of this into account. And it’s past time federal law codifies this reality.”

Mace said that her bill would enshrine protections for veterans who have used cannabis to treat their PTSD, and would be respectful of each state’s own unique laws.

“This is why I’m introducing the States Reform Act, a bill which seeks to remove cannabis from Schedule I in a manner consistent with the rights of states to determine what level of cannabis reform each state already has, or not,” she continued in her announcement. “This bill supports veterans, law enforcement, farmers, businesses, those with serious illnesses, and it is good for criminal justice reform. Furthermore, a super-majority of Americans support an end to cannabis prohibition, which is why only three states in the country have no cannabis reform at all. The States Reform Act takes special care to keep Americans and their children safe while ending federal interference with state cannabis laws. Washington needs to provide a framework which allows states to make their own decisions on cannabis moving forward. This bill does that.”

On Tuesday, Mace touted the bill’s endorsement from Amazon, saying the company “is making a common-sense decision that many other businesses, large and small, agree with.”

“Amazon employs nearly a million U.S. workers, and this opens up their hiring pool by about 10 percent. Cannabis reform is supported by over three quarters of the American public, and the States Reform Act is something both sides of the aisle can get behind,” Mace said.

For Amazon, America’s second largest employer, the endorsement is yet another sign of the company’s weed-friendly stance.

Last June, Amazon said that it would “no longer include marijuana in our comprehensive drug screening program for any positions not regulated by the Department of Transportation, and will instead treat it the same as alcohol use.” In September, the company went further, saying it was reinstating “employment eligibility for former employees and applicants who were previously terminated or deferred during random or pre-employment marijuana screenings.”

The are also emerging signs that the company is set to ramp up its pro-marijuana lobbying efforts, with Politico reporting in July that cannabis groups “are pinning their hopes on Amazon using its experienced lobbying team and deep pockets to support their efforts, believing it could help them launch ad campaigns and persuade lawmakers opposed to legalization—especially those who represent states where cannabis is legal—to change their minds.”

Covax, the UN-Backed Vaccine Initiative, Is Reportedly Out of Money

A shipment of vaccines provided for Sudan by COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (Covax) is received by local officials at Khartoum International Airport late on August 5, 2021.

EBRAHIM HAMID / AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

BYJake Johnson, 

Common Dreams

January 25, 2022

Since the first coronavirus vaccines were administered in late 2020, public health campaigners have been warning that trickles of charitable donations from rich countries to the developing world will never be enough to ensure equitable, worldwide access to the lifesaving shots.

Now the vehicle through which many such donations have flowed — Covax — is reportedly out of money, a potential disaster for low-income countries that have come to depend on the United Nations-backed initiative

The lack of funds is especially worrisome as pharmaceutical companies and the governments of rich nations continue to deny the developing world the ability to produce vaccines on their own soil.

Seth Berkley, chief executive of Gavi — the vaccine alliance that helped form Covax — told the Financial Times on Monday that Covax will no longer be able to accept new dose donations that come without syringes or other components because it doesn’t have any cash left to afford such items, which donor countries often don’t provide.

Asked how much money the project has left, Berkley answered bluntly: “None.”

Combined with its repeated failures to meet delivery targets, Covax’s financial woes added fuel to the argument that a vaccination effort reliant upon the charitable whims of rich countries and profit-seeking pharmaceutical companies was always destined to fall short.

“This is why the charity model of vaccine delivery cannot work. We hoarded doses, made big promises, and yet…” Gregg Gonsalves, an epidemiologist at the Yale School of Public Health, tweeted in response to Berkley’s comments. “Share the technology NOW for mRNA Covid-19 vaccines.”

“Pfizer and Moderna are prolonging this pandemic with their greed,” he added, singling out the U.S.-based pharmaceutical companies that produce the only mRNA coronavirus vaccines on the market.

Despite benefiting massively from public funding, the corporations have refused to share their vaccine recipes with the world — and the Biden administration has thus far declined to use its legal authority to force their hands.

The companies have also lobbied aggressively against a patent waiver that would pave the way for developing countries to produce generic coronavirus vaccines without fear of legal retribution. A handful of rich nations — including members of the European Union and the United Kingdom — have sided with Big Pharma by stonewalling the proposed waiver at the World Trade Organization.

World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said Monday that Covax delivered its billionth coronavirus vaccine dose earlier this month, and Berkley predicted in recent remarks that the next billion will roll out in the coming four or five months.

Since its inception in 2020, the vaccine delivery effort has been hindered by internal dysfunction as well as pharmaceutical companies not living up to their contractual obligations, leaving Covax with fewer doses than expected. And doses have also frequently arrived in recipient countries later than planned or close to their expiration dates, leading to significant waste.

“Don’t get me wrong, Covax delivering a billion doses is a great achievement. But their aim was to deliver two billion [in 2021],” Max Lawson, head of inequality policy at Oxfam International and co-chair of the People’s Vaccine Alliance, noted last week.

“In our view,” he added, “the key problem is a deep lack of accountability, combined with a supine naivete by Covax leadership in response to pharma companies and rich nations. This led to overly rosy projections throughout 2021 and this is continuing today.”

Berkley said last week that Covax will need $5.2 billion to fund its vaccination efforts this year, as the world continues to fight the highly transmissible Omicron variant — and looks ahead to potential new mutations in the future.

“We need this money now because we know that without it, we will face further delays in accessing and securing supplies and helping countries deliver vaccines into arms,” said Berkley.

But experts and campaigners argue Covax’s struggles make clear that far more ambitious action — from technology transfers to suspension of intellectual property protections to regional manufacturing initiatives — is needed to produce enough vaccine doses to meet global needs and ensure equal distribution.

To date, just 9.7% of people in low-income countries have received at least one coronavirus vaccine dose, according to Our World in Data. One recent analysis estimated that the world needs around 22 billion additional mRNA doses to end the global pandemic.

“The way to end a pandemic is to close the inequalities that are existing,” Winnie Byanyima, executive director of UNAIDS, said during a virtual event last week. “Instead, rich countries have chosen to take a different path of expanding inequalities.”

“We are not going to be out of this,” she added, “until we close those inequalities.”

U.S. Donates 400 Million More Vaccine Doses

January 26, 2022  By Taegan Goddard 

“White House officials announced Wednesday that the United States has donated more than 400 million doses of coronavirus vaccines to other countries under the Biden administration,” the Washington Post reports.

USA

Canceling student debt is a women's issue — we hold two-thirds of the burden

BY SARA GUILLERMO, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 01/26/22

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

© Getty Images


News this week that lawmakers are pressuring the administration to release a promised memo outlining his authority to cancel student debt is encouraging to many young people, especially women, who don't see their actions as mattering in politics.

While many young women may not think of themselves as political, there's one subject that unites them. It's student loan debt. I am hopeful that more people will want to discuss this issue as part of a generational shift in politics. It’s time for young people to broaden the conversation about this issue, including on social media with #VentYourDebt.

How bold would it be if this administration canceled student debt? I ask because we need big, bold, audacious ideas to change the political landscape for young women. Student loan debt is a sure-fire way to ignite their political interest.

I lead an organization readying a generation of young women for political office. I’m still paying off my student loans and I often meet women in a similar position. When I meet young women who don’t see politics as relevant to them, I ask them about their debt. It starts a constructive conversation about how they need to be in power to change things.

One of the things I hear most often from young women who want a political career is “I want to go to law school.” It is not always a bad idea, but it also comes with a preconceived notion of what a political leader looks like. It is also a guaranteed way to take on a hefty student debt load. And there are other ways to learn how to lead, and to gather the experience you need to win an election.

The news that loan servicer Navient agreed to cancel $1.7 billion in student loans is a drop in the ocean. The nation's student loan ledger now totals more than $1.7 trillion. Women hold about two-thirds of that debt. While college education costs went up 103 percent since 1987, median income rose by 14 percent in the same time.

A recent study showed women hold an average of $31,276 in student debt. That leaves a monthly payment of about $307 the year after graduation. Women graduating with a bachelor’s degree expect to earn $35,338 on average. That’s 20 percent less than men. It makes meeting the loan obligation challenging. It’s harder than ever with inflation pushing up the cost of living.

We’re holding women back from reaching their full potential. This is a bipartisan issue. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) introduced a bill on student loans last year. It's no coincidence that she is a young woman. And young women are growing tired of waiting for Congress, which is majority male, to act on this issue.

Women appear more likely to work across the aisle to pass policies. They show more spirit of collaboration. They seem to get more policy written and passed than men do. If we want gender parity in elected office, we need women to win on both sides of the aisle. If we want to address student debt it seems we need them to win for us too.

The cost of running for office makes it hard to run and win, though. Many city council campaigns raise hundreds of thousands of dollars. It costs millions of dollars to win a congressional seat. That's why many young women choose to start out local. They run for a school board or a community board and then build their experience from there. It's not all about running for office, either. They might gain experience working on somebody else's campaign. They might work for a legislator. Or they might find their political power in other ways like by organizing in their community. But they are demonstrating more grit than I've seen in more than a decade of doing this work. They see the stakes.

Meanwhile, Congress can expand Pell Grants for low-income students to reduce their debt. Legislators can increase funding for public colleges and universities. The Department of Education can help women enroll more in income-driven repayment options. Institutions can address both the academic and holistic financial needs of students. That includes childcare. It's going to take a huge effort to solve the student debt crisis. But we all know it is worth it for women and for society at large.

Sara Guillermo is CEO of IGNITE, America's largest and most diverse organization for young women's political leadership.

Biden must release a nearly year-old student debt memo and 'immediately' cancel up to $50,000 in loans before payments resume, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, and 83 other Democrats say

Ayelet Sheffey

FEBRUARY 4: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaks during a press conference about student debt outside the U.S. Capitol on February 4, 2021 in Washington, DC. Also pictured, L-R, Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY), Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA). The group of Democrats re-introduced their resolution calling on President Joe Biden to take executive action to cancel up to $50,000 in debt for federal student loan borrowers. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

85 Democratic lawmakers called on Biden to release a long-awaited memo on his legal ability to cancel student debt broadly.

They also urged him to "immediately" cancel up to $50,000 in student debt per borrower before payments resume on May 1.

Redacted documents found Biden has had the memo since at least April but is choosing not to release it.

It's been eight months since White House officials saw a memo detailing whether President Joe Biden can legally cancel student debt broadly. Dozens of Democratic lawmakers are tired of waiting for its results.

On Wednesday, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer, along with Reps. Pramila Jayapal, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, and Katie Porter, led 79 of their Democratic colleagues in demanding Biden release the memo outlining his legal ability to cancel federal student debt broadly, along with "immediately" canceling up to $50,000 in student debt per borrower.

"Publicly releasing the memo outlining your existing authority on cancelling student debt and broadly doing so is crucial to making a meaningful difference in the lives of current students, borrowers, and families," the lawmakers wrote. "It has been widely reported that the Department of Education has had this memo since April 5, 2020 after being directed to draft it."

White House chief of staff Ron Klain told Politico last April that Biden had asked Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to create a memo on the president's legal authority to forgive $50,000 in student loans per person. As Insider reported in November, redacted documents obtained by the Debt Collective, the nation's first debtors' union, indicated that the memo has existed since April 5, and White House officials have seen what is says but have yet to make its contents public.

Even before those documents were revealed, though, Democrats were calling for the release of the memo to give 43 million federal student-loan borrowers needed relief. In October, Minnesota Rep. Omar gave the Education Department two weeks to release it, but that deadline came and went with no response.

"Millions of borrowers across the country are desperately asking for student debt relief," Omar had told Insider. "We know the President can do it with the stroke of a pen. We were told over six months ago that they were just waiting on a memo to determine whether they would give relief, and weeks since we sent a letter asking them to do so. Release the memo. Cancel student debt."

New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez said during a roundtable on Wednesday that "it would be good to be publicly known" whether Biden has the legal authority to cancel student debt.

"I have not read the memo, but it is my view that the memo should ultimately certify that the president has the authority to do exactly what we're advocating for," Menendez said.

And beyond the release of the memo, the push for broad student-loan forgiveness continues to amplify. As Warren previously told Insider, her proposal to cancel $50,000 in student loans per borrower would completely eliminate debt for 36 million, or 84%, of all federal borrowers.

"This is the single most effective executive action President Biden could take to jumpstart our economy and begin to narrow the racial wealth gap," she said.

While Biden promised during his campaign to approve $10,000 in student-loan forgiveness per borrower, he has remained largely silent on that promise since taking office. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki recently said Biden would sign a bill passed by Congress to cancel student debt, but his promise to do so "immediately" remains unfulfilled. He even ignored a question on that promise during his first solo press conference of the year.

Still, while Biden extended the pause on student-loan payments through May 1, giving borrowers an additional 90 days of relief, lawmakers want to ensure millions of Americans will not be stuck with monthly bills they cannot afford.

They wrote that "eliminating debt before the pause ends is a commonsense step so that millions of borrowers have more breathing room in their family budgets and our national economy is not further held back."

A Majority of Voters Support Extending the Pause on Student Loan Payments

By Ahmad Ali

In December of last year, the Biden administration announced it would extend the pause on federally-held student loan payments through May 1st of 2022. New polling from Data for Progress finds that, by a +35-point margin, a majority of voters support the current pause on student loan payments. Support includes a majority of Democrats and Independents by margins of +76 and +31 points, respectively.






We also find that, by a +26-point margin, a majority of voters support extending the pause on federally-held student loan payments through December 31, 2022 — the end of the year. Support includes a majority of Democrats and Independents by margins of +68 and +19 points, respectively.

Ahmad Ali (@UhmadAli) is Press Secretary at Data for Progress. 

JANUARY 26, 2022

 

Over 80 Democrats Say It’s Time for Biden to Cancel $50,000 of Student Debt

Rep. Ayanna Pressley speaks as Sen. Elizabeth Warren looks on during a press conference about student debt outside the U.S. Capitol on February 4, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

DREW ANGERER / GETTY IMAGES

BYSharon Zhang, Truthout

PUBLISHEDJanuary 27, 2022

Over 80 Democrats have demanded that President Joe Biden cancel a portion of student debt and release an Education Department memo on his legal authority to do so, in an effort led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts) and Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and Chuck Schumer (D-New York) this week.

In a letter to the president, the lawmakers wrote that Biden should immediately cancel up to $50,000 of student debt per borrower – a move that would boost the economy and provide a lifeline to the millions of Americans with student loans. The lawmakers emphasized that the president should act with urgency, as student loan payments are due to restart in three months.

“Canceling $50,000 of student debt would give 36 million Americans permanent relief and aid the millions more who will eventually resume payments their best chance at thriving in our recovering economy,” the lawmakers said. “In light of high COVID-19 case counts and corresponding economic disruptions, restarting student loan payments without this broad cancellation would be disastrous for millions of borrowers and their families.”

Data released on Thursday shows that the U.S. economy was on an upswing last year despite the pandemic; restarting student loan payments could impede that process. The data also demonstrates that the payment pause, which was in place for all of 2021, didn’t stop the economy from beginning to recover from the impact of the pandemic.

Meanwhile, resuming payments will have an enormous impact on many borrowers’ lives. Thousands of borrowers have reported that student loan payments take a large portion of their income, making it difficult to afford bills and essentials. A recent report for Warren and Schumer found that borrowers will lose out on $85 billion annually once loan payments resume.

The burden of student debt is holding back nearly an entire generation from being able to make financial decisions freely, even impeding upon borrowers’ ability to buy a house. Canceling this debt could raise homeownership rates and credit scores; such a move would also likely result in a higher gross domestic product (GDP).

“[T]he enduring weight of student loan debt has negated opportunities for many borrowers to truly transform their lives and our country,” the lawmakers wrote. “More than 80 percent of borrowers with student loan debt report that it holds them back from being able to afford a home. Without this debt, many would be in a better position to begin saving for homeownership as well as retirement and starting a business.”

The lawmakers also urged Biden to release a memo assessing the legality of canceling student debt via executive order. Although the Education Department prepared the memo in April, the administration refused to publicly acknowledge it for months. Ultimately, the existence of the memo was uncovered by the Debt Collective through a Freedom of Information Act request, but the contents of the document were completely redacted.

“Publicly releasing the memo outlining your existing authority on cancelling student debt and broadly doing so is crucial to making a meaningful difference in the lives of current students, borrowers, and their families,” the lawmakers wrote. Debt activists have also been organizing efforts to pressure Biden on the issue.

The Biden administration’s refusal to release the memo has led debt activists to speculate that the document confirms that the president has the legal authority to cancel student debt with a stroke of his pen – but that he doesn’t actually want to do so.

On the campaign trail, Biden promised to cancel up to $10,000 in student debt per borrower, a promise he has repeatedly come under fire for breaking. Last week, Biden dodged a question from a journalist who asked him about his plan to cancel student loans during a press conference; the president answered a second question from the reporter, said nothing about the student loan question and promptly left the conference.

Many progressives and activists say that even cancelling up to $10,000 of debt per borrower wouldn’t be enough. Student debt cancellation advocates like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), who signed on to the Democrats’ letter this week, have encouraged Biden to cancel student debt completely.