Bill Overview
Title: Can’t Cancel Your Own Debt Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits a Member of Congress from receiving student loan cancellation for time served in Congress or from a student loan program established or amended by an act of Congress, or set forth by an executive order or agency action, during the period in which the individual is serving as a Member.
Sponsors: Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]
Target Audience
Population: Members of Congress with student loans
Estimated Size: 535
- This bill specifically affects Members of Congress.
- There are 535 Members in the US Congress, consisting of 100 Senators and 435 Representatives.
- The bill only impacts those who have outstanding student loans or might in the future, who are sitting Members of Congress during any such cancellation.
- Given the nature of the bill, the global target population includes current and any future Members of Congress over time.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily targets Members of Congress who have student loans. However, it sets a precedent and sends a message about student debt forgiveness applicability, which may influence public opinion and behavior even if it doesn't directly impact the broader population economically.
- The practical impact in monetary terms is restricted both by the small target population (535 Members) and the allocated policy budget ($50,000 in Year 1 and $545,000 over 10 years), reflecting conservative financial implications relative to federal spending.
- Given the target group's specific nature (politicians), there's no immediate direct financial impact beyond their profession, but it could have ancillary effects through media coverage and public perception.
- The prevalence of such politicians with student loans varies, and as such, some interviews simulate indirect impacts relating to public opinion and trust which aren't financially centered],
- commonness scores consider how typical or atypical the life situation of simulated interviewees is within the broader population.
Simulated Interviews
Senator (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the policy as it prevents conflicts of interest.
- This policy won't affect me much financially but might offer a good ethical standpoint in negotiations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Congressman (California)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although it affects me financially, it sets a fair ethical boundary.
- I believe it's important to show we're accountable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Senator (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't impact me personally as I don't have student loans.
- It's nevertheless crucial to maintain public trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Congresswoman (Texas)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm disappointed that I can't benefit from loan forgiveness.
- However, it highlights integrity and fairness in office.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Congresswoman (Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While it doesn't affect me directly, it sets a vital precedent.
- Needed for maintaining constituent trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Representative (Ohio)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Dissatisfied since I hoped for debt relief.
- Balancing fairness in governance is important though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Senator (Illinois)
Age: 42 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn't impact my financial situation directly.
- Supports my advocacy for transparency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Congresswoman (Montana)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the ethical approach to policymaking.
- It has no personal impact but is symbolically significant.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Representative (Washington)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Personally would benefit from loan forgiveness but see the value in this policy.
- Vital to prevent any perception of self-serving legislation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Congresswoman (Georgia)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While this won't change my financial situation, it supports ethical governance.
- I'll leverage this as an educational point in politics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000 (Low: $20000, High: $100000)
Year 2: $51000 (Low: $21000, High: $102000)
Year 3: $52000 (Low: $22000, High: $104000)
Year 5: $54000 (Low: $24000, High: $108000)
Year 10: $59000 (Low: $29000, High: $118000)
Year 100: $150000 (Low: $100000, High: $200000)
Key Considerations
- The number of impacted individuals is very small, 535 current members, with possibly fewer having student loans.
- Monitoring compliance may require minimal administrative costs but is largely cost-neutral.
- Potential savings depend heavily on the structure and existence of future loan forgiveness programs.