> More often than not, politics is about optics, not solutions. This was doomed to fail from the beginning and I bet they knew it. Status quo continues, crisis remains, talking points for the next election cycle established. Sorry guys, we couldn't get it through this time, but next time, trust us, we'll succeed.
Also points scored in the last election. IIRC, this plan was announced a single month before the 2022 election. They got to benefit from the votes of people who thought they were getting their loans forgiven, without ever actually doing that.
Only because the plan was opposed on equally political grounds. The idea was a welcomed one by the people who voted for the politicians in favor of it, and not welcomed by the ones they didn't vote for, so the points went where they belonged.
If it was so certain that they had no intention of going through with it, why not call their bluff and turn the responsibility for killing it back on them?
Also, people don't shoplift just once for fun. A "relatively small loss" is quite large by the tenth time it happens because nobody got punished.
EDIT: For "posting too fast," I would like to address the below comment. For the "it would be cheaper," you should look at how much rehab and counseling costs. For drugs, a 30-day rehab can hit as much as $27K, even if shoplifting rehab (if there was such a thing) would be cheaper. But even if it was cheaper, property crime has a recidivism rate of 78%.
But secondly, you try to rationalize the cost of the stolen item to the cost of imprisonment. This doesn't quite make sense, because A. It values the losses of time, security, customer inconvenience, etc. to the store at $0; B. The store is paying taxes for... what, when they have no guarantee of safety; and C. Apparently the value of justice being served is $0 as well (it's only worth imprisonment if there's lots of money involved - but then, of course, why imprison anyone for their third DUI that didn't involve property damage?).
I don't see how. The cost of housing a prisoner in the US varies wildly by state, but the average is $40k/yr.
> A "relatively small loss" is quite large by the tenth time it happens because nobody got punished
Again, those 10 events probably amount to an order of magnitude less than the $40k it would cost to house the prisoner.
I'd much rather prison be reserved for violent offenders who are judged unsafe to keep anywhere else.