Search News


Browse Archives

News

Political Maneuvering on Student Loans

January 17, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

With the 110th Congress preparing to vote today on its first significant piece of higher education legislation, Washington crackled Tuesday with vintage, and in some ways predictable, politicking. But much of it had a through-the-looking-glass feel to it.

First, you had Democrats in the House of Representatives scrambling to explain away a perceived flaw in their proposal to halve the interest rate on federally subsidized loans for undergraduate borrowers within five years.

As critics (read: lenders) noted that the legislation ( H.R. 5), as written, would let the interest rate zoom back up to the current 6.8 percent in January 2012, after just six months at the low of 3.4 percent, Democratic staffers explained that budget rules and fiscal realities required that compromise. They also said they fully expected to find money in the intervening years to make the cut permanent.

Student-aid lobbyists generally gave them the benefit of the doubt, though some said they had been misled, or at least underinformed, about the legislation’s particulars.

As the Democrats struggled with the newly rediscovered challenges of governing, Republicans found themselves in the equally unaccustomed role of loyal opposition.

Rep. Howard P. (Buck) McKeon (R-Calif.), now the senior Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, complained about the Democrats’ plan to bring the student loan bill to the House floor without first seeking the approval of the education panel, which McKeon headed just 30 days ago but on which he is now second fiddle. McKeon described the legislation as “well-intentioned” but “badly flawed.”

He said he hoped Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), who is running the committee now that Democrats control the House, would see fit to amend the bill with legislation that McKeon introduced Tuesday, which would put in place many of the disclosure requirements and other measures aimed at controlling college prices that Republicans tried to incorporate into a measure to extend the Higher Education Act that passed the House last year but ultimately stalled.

But in virtually the same breath, McKeon acknowledged that no such amendment would be possible, because Democrats, eager to notch an early victory in their vaunted “first 100 hours” agenda, have structured the rules for for today’s vote in a way that bars changes to the legislation.

In a letter to Miller, McKeon derided the “closed process through which the bill has been sent to the floor,” which he said would make cooperation between the parties not “merely difficult, but impossible.”

His cries of the unfairness of that legislative tactic – “This is quite a departure from the way our panel has brought higher education proposals to the floor in years past, and I am hopeful the trend does not continue in the weeks and months to come” -- struck some observers of Tuesday’s goings-on as ironic, given the frequency with which Republicans engaged in similar antics during their 12 years in charge of Congress.

A comparable reaction greeted the White House’s announcement Tuesday that the Bush administration, too, would oppose the student loan legislation because it is misdirected to help college graduates (borrowers of subsidized loans don’t pay interest while they are in college) who have “higher lifetime earnings” who don’t need more aid as much as “students and their families who are struggling to meet current and future educational expenses.”

Instead of encouraging more borrowing by lowering interest rates, the White House said in its Statement of Administration Policy, “the Administration would support efforts to direct savings to additional grant support for low-income students.”

It was difficult Tuesday to find a higher education lobbyist who did not note with irony that this White House, working with the Republican-led Congress, had failed to increase spending on the Pell Grant, the primary aid program for low-income students, for the last five years, which is seemingly about to become six.  

All of Tuesday’s maneuvering aside, the student loan legislation is expected to pass the House handily. The only real question is how many Republicans will join the unified Democrats in approving the bill.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Political Maneuvering on Student Loans

  • Interest rates on student loans
  • Posted by feudi pandola on January 17, 2007 at 8:15am EST
  • Last week one of our student came to me with an alternative loan she took from the largest lender in the nation. The interest rate was 13.72%! Rates this high are unconscionable and place a tremendous burden on our students. I have to agree with the Dems and Ted Kennedy on this one. These interest rates are way too high and should be cut in half. Loan default rates have gone down tremendously over the past decade. There is no moral or capitalistic justification for rates this high...period!

  • But Feudi...
  • Posted by AC on January 17, 2007 at 8:45am EST
  • They're only talking about cutting interest rates on federal subsidized loans (and not even the federal unsubsidized or parent PLUS loans), not private ones.

    This plan only benefits those who have already graduated from college. It doesn't encourage students who are shut out of college because of costs to enroll.

  • Predictable
  • Posted by PS on January 17, 2007 at 9:00am EST
  • Every time Republicans are in power, they rely more on loans through banks on the premise that the private sector is more efficienct. But yet, interest rates rise. But when the Democrats are in power, loans go back to the government and student loan interest rates go down.

    The fact is that the government does a much better and more efficient job at administering and delivering student loans, as evidenced by the lower interest rates. Banks are motivated by profit and, thus, will raise the interest rates as high as the government will allow them to. And when Republicans are in power, this rate can be very high. I would much rather have the government administering a student loan to me at 3% rather than going to a bank at 8%....and still guaranteed by the government anyway, even if I default!

    Here is the central flaw in the Republican philosophy on student loans. If government should be guided by market principles, as McKeon suggests, than logic dictates one should go with the more efficient provider who provides the loan at the lowest interest rate, which is always the government. In this case, the better provider is the government.

    Senator McKeon, who receives a lot of money from banks that provide student loans, is more motivated by campaign contributions than any kind of logic, though, which is why is advocates higher interest rates and an inefficient and bloated system run by banks. Why on earth would anyone actually want higher student loan rates for our college students? At what point did this Senator become more motivated by lining his own pockets at the expense of college students?

  • Dems cut student interest rates
  • Posted by That guy Paulie on January 17, 2007 at 9:15am EST
  • Great ! If each of my 3 children borrow $80,000 to go to PUBLIC college in their state of residence for a BA, they get to pay %3 and not %6. Think of the savings....
    Thank God the Dems are back !

  • student interest rates are at historically...
  • Posted by J.Rocker on January 17, 2007 at 9:45am EST
  • ...low levels! The current 6.8 percent is lower than but six of the 42 years of the stafford loan's existence. Furthermore, the dem's plan doesnt address the issue of college affordability. Colleges and universities have gigantic endowments. Taxpayers should start demanding that these institutions delve into their own coffers, not our wallets!

  • Posted by Mark Kantrowitz , Publisher at FinAid.org on January 17, 2007 at 9:45am EST
  • The interest rate cuts will not lead to increased borrowing, contrary to the White House statement, since subsidized Stafford loan eligibility is dictated by financial need. This proposal may be flawed, but not for that reason.

  • Proactive FA Counseling
  • Posted by Sandra at Global Financial Aid Services on January 17, 2007 at 9:45am EST
  • After reading the Bill I see what AC is saying. It does only cover subsidized loans. Additionally, the rate goes down over time. A loan for which the first disbursement is between July 1, 2007 and July 1, 2008 would carry a 6.12% rate.

    Now, more than ever, it is important that colleges and universitie incorporate proactive financial aid counseling so that potential students fully understand their future obligations and get all the financial aid they are qualified to receive that carries the least burden.

  • Proactive FA counselling ?
  • Posted by That guy Paulie on January 17, 2007 at 10:45am EST
  • Ok...does everyone fully understand his future obligations ?....good...Eddie, You cover the door. The truck is in the alley. Suzie, blow the safe, grab the cash and we'll meet at the city college bursar's office to pay this semester's tution. OK...synchronize watches....NOW !

  • Posted by Ted on January 17, 2007 at 11:10am EST
  • Mark Kantrowitz: Interest rate cuts can lead to increased student borrowing in the same way they lead to more expensive cars and houses -- people decide they can afford more. They go to more expensive schools, and schools decide they can raise tuition because loan limits have risen and/or monthly payments will stay the same even with higher loans.
    PS: Your arguments lead to the conclusion that car loans, home mortgages etc should be made by the government too. In fact, everything can be done cheaper by the government because we don't need profits. Chaves is trying that in Venezuela.

  • Silly, ridiculous & delusional
  • Posted by B.D. on January 17, 2007 at 11:35am EST
  • " .. Suzie, blow the safe, grab the cash and we’ll meet at the city college bursar’s office to pay this semester’s tution .."

    Even USA Today --

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/college/2007-01-12-college-tuition-usat_x.htm

    knows that it is the *principal costs* of college that are the real problem -- not the interest costs.

    If the principal costs were NOT rising so rapidly -- less borrowing would be required. That is Finance 101 -- something anyone with 0.1% of common sense knows.

    When are Ms. Pelosi and her Democrat friends going to ask their funders, the higher-ed unions, why college costs keep rising so rapidly? When?

    As noted repeatedly by Vedder --

    http://collegeaffordability.blogspot.com/

    thanks to easy lending, there are too many marginal colleges with too many marginal students who are burdened with college debt.

    And to those who say, "raise taxes on the rich" -- that still does not solve the problem of principal costs.

    Edu-crats only know, "more, more, more money" They have no self-control when it comes to money. They are like alcoholics in a liquor store.

    My advice to my nieces: save your money, work two jobs, live at home as long as you can, start at a community college like I did, and if the instructor seems like a moron on Day 1 to drop the class immediately.

    Edu-crats and their friends: the world is not your personal ATM. Someone has to pay the bill. Prepare for hard times.

  • Posted by Jim on January 17, 2007 at 11:51am EST
  • The only "winners" in the great loan debate will be the banks, they can't lose. What does the word "guaranteed" mean? It means that the banks can't lose because if a student defaults the government pays the bill and goes back on the student for repayment. Nothing like an incentive to lend money.

    Yes, lower the rate, more students will borrow, not borrow more individually, but more people will borrow because it is "cheap money" these people will not be the poor person, it will be the middle to upper class person, who has figured out that stafford loans are "cheap money"

    In this way, more people who vote will be happy and happy people vote for who is in power. God bless Democrats.

    What needs to be done is increase the PELL grant's purchasing power and decrease the eligibility (income levels) for guaranteed
    student loans. If you really want to help poor people, then help poor people.

    There was a study that was done that indexed PEll to a person AGI on their tax return. The FAFSA form would be done away with and therefore much of the filing burders that families face. This was "good stuff" and it was suggested that loans could be indexed that way. The whole idea here is that a student and their families could tell how much federal financial aid they could receive long before Johnnie was to go to college. Planning is a concept.

  • Oh, PS. How wrong you are.
  • Posted by Scott on January 17, 2007 at 12:20pm EST
  • The reason Rep. (he's not a Senator) McKeon and others (including many Democrats) support the FFEL program is because it can adapt to student needs much more flexibly than any government program can. Why? Because they are not constrained by Federal budget rules. The Federal Direct Loan Program can't offer students interest rate breaks for on-time payments, or direct withdrawal, or any number of other borrower benefits offered by FFEL providers. The argument about the cost of capital is only a small part of the whole debate. And if the government loan program is so good, why does it continue to lose so many schools every year? You can't blame school as lender programs, there are only a hundred of those, and more than 1,000 schools have left Direct Lending since it was created.

    You're also wrong about banks setting interest rates. The Federal government sets interest rates for both DL and FFELP. That's why the House Democrats are having this debate. If you're concerned about interest rates on alternative student loans you ought to focus more on the cost of college, as some of the other comments do. The increased reliance on loans has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats, it has to do with the 65 percent increase in college tuition rates over the past decade.

    The Dem proposal won't help any student make it into college. It won't even help those students in repayment that much either. Since the 3.4 percent rate is only effective for six months, no borrower will save more than a couple of dollars every month. What a waste of time and money. They could put all that money into Pell and make a real difference but instead it's politics as usual: politics comes first, good policy comes last.

  • Posted by PJ on January 17, 2007 at 1:00pm EST
  • There would be a greater impact if they left the rates alone, which at 6.8% is reasonable, but raised loan limits. The current limits don't provide enough dollars and force students to borrow private loans. Private lenders provide an invaluable service in offering private loans and unless the feds provide higher limits, students will always need private lenders. Sure, we can reduce lender profits but they'll make up for it where they can - private loans. Will students be better off then?

  • et tu, Scott?
  • Posted by PS on January 17, 2007 at 2:25pm EST
  • There is absolutely no - I repeat, no - evidence that the FFEL program is more adaptative to student needs. Period. The Direct Loan program actually does offer breaks on direct withdrawals (I know, because I got a .25% discount via this option) and other incentives, including consolidation. Wrong again, Scott. Finally, I never said banks set interest rates...anywhere. Through lobbying efforts, they have significant influence over the setting of interest rates. Since people like McKeon are more interested in serving the needs of bankers than students, banks have always advocated for higher interest rates and people like McKeon will vote accordingly.

    If McKeon was interested in the welfare of students instead of the welfare of banks, he would advocate the system with the lower interest rate, whether it be FFEL or Direct Loans. But I guess some people are more interested in lining the pockets of friends and bankers than helping enhance college affordability.

    By offering lower interest rates, the Direct Loan is clearly a better option for students. When banks start lowering their interest rates below Direct Student Loans, I'll change my mind. But everyone knows that will never happen.

  • Remember the S&L crisis?
  • Posted by B.D. on January 17, 2007 at 4:20pm EST
  • When someone tells me how great government programs are -- I remind of them of the savings and loan crisis, Freddie Mac, FEMA fraud in New Orleans, Randy Cunningham, Bill "that woman" Clinton, et al.

    When there is competition, consumers win. How often does that have to be repeated? Or are we just to be like the Soviet Union?

  • "Oppose" or "Veto"?
  • Posted by Reversed at Nakeddebt.org on January 17, 2007 at 4:20pm EST
  • It seems like the big argument against this plan is that it is not a comprehensive, long term solution to every educational access problem we have in this country.

    So we shouldn't do anything? At all?

    And one question I have is, does "oppose" mean "veto"?

    The White House said flat out that they would veto another 100 Hours trophy: stem cell legislation.

    Here, they just oppose it. Are they consulting with the lending industry before announcing veto plans?

    I don't mean to be cynical. Other angles on this are quite welcome.

  • student loan
  • Posted by Anne , teacher at Eureka City Schools on January 17, 2007 at 7:20pm EST
  • My 19 year old daughter had to borrow $6000 to pay tuition for the spring semester. She will end up paying Bank of America $16,000 for the privelege. They are charging 17% interest.

    I am sickened over this.

  • Posted by MYSTIFIED on February 2, 2007 at 11:40am EST
  • I am an adult student with three children and while I am trying to make a better life for my family, student loans are killing me!!! Despite the fact that I have a 3.65 GPA, I am unable to get a scholarship anywhere!!! I have exhausted my aggregate limit for loans and so with a year left, I had to finance the rest myself. My husband and I have impeccable credit at 790 and 890 and so we applied for a "student loan" at Bank of America and they came back with an unbelievable offer of 16.27% interest. Are they kidding?? I have a credit card at 5.9% for the life of the card, so why in the world would I take their crappy offer? I say this because there are students who would have no choice but to pay the ridiculous interest. Sallie Mae, the leader in the student loan business, would not give me a loan for less than 13%. Anyway, I guess we can chock it up to this being the "American Way" and be done with it. The politicians say they want to help, but they don't. Even with two children in college, I still do not qualify for anything. Enough said!!!