Search News


Browse Archives

News

Budget Deal Raises Odds of Pell Increase

May 17, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Democratic Congressional leaders reached agreement late Tuesday on a 2008 budget resolution that greatly increases the likelihood that lawmakers pass legislation this year that will cut financial support for student loan providers and use the savings to increase financial aid for students. Predictably, the move brought praise from student groups and howls of protest from lenders.

The Congressional action came in a seemingly arcane procedure in which House and Senate leaders, at the urging of the heads of their chambers' education committees, included what is known as "budget reconciliation" language in the spending blueprint they plan to pass this week. Under that language, the House Education and Labor Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee commit to developing legislation by September that would produce at least $750 million in budget savings from the mandatory programs under their jurisdiction.

But by all accounts, the panels' Democratic leaders plan to make changes in the Higher Education Act, which governs most federal higher education programs, that would slash subsidies for student loan providers by many times that (as much as $22 billion, by one proposal) and use the proceeds to increase the maximum Pell Grant and cut the interest rate on student loans, among other goals.

The education committee leaders could try to enact such changes through the normal process of passing the Higher Education Act as a freestanding piece of legislation. But attaching the student aid portions of the Higher Education Act to the budget reconciliation process gives Democratic leaders some key advantages. Budget legislation cannot be filibustered (a common tactic used by opponents of Senate legislation) and it is difficult if not impossible to amend.

So Democratic leaders have virtually ensured themselves that they can get a bill that would achieve their purposes through Congress whether Republicans like it or not -- much as Republican leaders did 15 months ago, when they enacted budget reconciliation legislation that cut $12 billion from the student loan programs to put toward deficit reduction, much to the dismay of college leaders and Democrats.

The budget resolution drafted by Democrats this week calls for increasing spending on education programs by about $3.6 billion in 2008 over the comparable level for 2007, plus another $2 billion in funds advanced for the 2009 fiscal year. While those funds could be put toward multiple uses, college lobbyists are hopeful that much of it would go toward a significant increase in the maximum Pell Grant. Congress increased the maximum grant by $260, to $4,310, in February.

The budget plan over all calls for significantly more domestic spending than President Bush sought in his own 2008 budget, and White House officials have promised to veto a Congressional budget that exceeds his own requests. But a veto could be politically unpalatable for the president if Democrats can portray their plan as bolstering support for popular priorities such as education, health care, and veterans' programs.

While in the last Congress Republicans embraced the wisdom of using the budget process to make changes in the student loan and aid programs and Democrats and student advocates decried it, this time the reverse is true.

“The budget committee’s announcement today means that we now have an excellent opportunity to make college more affordable for American families," said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. "It is no mystery that the federal student aid programs are far less efficient than they should be. Each year, the programs waste billions of taxpayer dollars on excessive subsidies to lenders. That money should be used as intended -- to help parents and students pay for college, not to pad the profits of big banks and lenders."

Republican lawmakers and lenders dismissed the Democrats' characterization that the plan aims to cut into lenders' profits to increase other aid for students, and instead described it as intended to undermine the lender-based Family Federal Education Loan Program and to buttress the federal government's competing direct loan program.

"American students and their families should be concerned about the budget agreement announced yesterday by the Congressional leadership," Joe Below, president of the Consumer Bankers Association, said in a prepared statement. "As a result of it, Congress will cut hundreds of millions from financial aid programs and apparently consider drastic changes to the student loan program relied upon by 80 percent of American student borrowers and, quite possibly, end that program as it is known today.

"Cuts of the magnitude planned by Congressional leaders will raise the cost of borrowing for students by eliminating the ability of student loan lenders to offer borrowers discounts on loan fees and interest rates. The cuts will discourage investment in new technologies to make repaying a student loan easier and will lead to poor quality service. Most importantly, the leadership apparently wants to end the FFEL program and force all students who need loans to borrow from a government monopoly, the William D. Ford Direct Loan program."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Budget Deal Raises Odds of Pell Increase

  • Nothing new under the sun
  • Posted by Bob , An FAO & former lender on May 17, 2007 at 8:45am EDT
  • To all of our legitimate, professional, heavily invested lender friends...Don't give up. My student loans helped me get through a bachelors and masters degrees and I have paid them back. Remember the 90's when DL was first proposed; many of guarantee agencies went out of business (e.g.DHELP and Maryland) as schools moved over to DL and everyone was proclaiming gloom and doom. What happened was a shakeup that made the industry more innovative and efficient. The folding of the loan application into the FAFSA, MPN's, EFT, online certification and entrance/exit counseling. The FEDS stole your expertise to have a go at their own program (DL) and it has not been able to keep up. I worked at a year 1 DL school and it was not pretty. We were in for five years and got out when we saw the many innovations that occurred in FFELP. The feds scrambled to keep up and they were bleeding schools from the program, not because of revenue sharing which was not happening yet, but because FAO's saw that the competition between the programs was a good thing. Many FAO's felt that they finally had options for their students. When the dust settles those who are invested in helping students will still be standing.

  • Thank you Bob
  • Posted by Lender Rep on May 17, 2007 at 10:05am EDT
  • Thank you Bob for your words of encouragement. We do want what is best for students and families regardless of what others are saying. We do dominate conferences because schools do not have the money to send the people and therefore we tend to out number them. One comment was about that and how upset they were that 60% were lenders and 40% FA at a conference. Well maybe that is just proof of how tight school budgets are these days. Knowing that when I go into a school, I am always hoping I have helped them in some way and I could care less if I get one more loan out of it. We are all in this profession for our love of seeing students fulfill their dream of college. We hate seeing students get into loan debt. I do exit counseling and tell students to be aware of consolidation and who might want to think about it and who needs to keep their loans the way they are. We are not stupid people. We are educated and most of us came out of the financial aid office and therefore have the same agenda as current FAO's. I sat on a plane once and a father told me he made his daughter take out an alt loan because he didn't want to take out the PLUS. I told him the reasons he shouldn't have done that. When I gave him the positives of PLUS he didn't know all of that. I gave him the name of a lender that would turn that loan over to the students name after so many months based on certain credit stuff etc. The point being I didn't give him my loan information, I listened to what was important to him and gave him the name of a lender that would fit that need. We do care about students and parents. Contrary to some of the comments being made. Those that deal very little with us really shouldn't judge us because you really do not know us.

    Again Bob, thanks so much. Your words of encouragement mean alot. It is really hard to see some of the comments putting us in such a horrible light when really all we want to do is what is best for students and schools. If that includes lunch, than so be it. Didn't know that ever was a sin but apparently it is. Those that I took to lunch, I really wanted to give you a break in your very difficult day. Been in financial aid and know the frustrating work it really is. I liked putting a smile on your face and just pulling you away from your desk for an hour or so. We could vent about that student that just called the president on you because you didn't give him all his money or the FISAP that is due next week. My heart was in the right place. I know yours was too.

    Respectfully a Lender Rep

  • Ironic
  • Posted by Pamela on May 17, 2007 at 11:40am EDT
  • I love the comments about DL Program performance - especially when DL Program participation levels are used as a performance evaluation metric. The attrition in the DL Program is directly attributable to the illegal subsidies (call them what they really are) provided by four or five primary FFEL lenders which provide incentives for schools to make the switch. If we're going to rave about FFEL performance, I suggest we start with SallieMae's income statement. The profits there ARE truly impressive.

  • Performance
  • Posted by DL on May 17, 2007 at 12:20pm EDT
  • Well as long as we are on who makes what. How about the fact that a college will pay a financial aid counselor with a BA and 10 years experience about $30k a year but yet pay their football coach $3.5M a year? I do not work for Sallie Mae nor have any alliance to them on my campus but do find it funny that people always want to bring up the money they make so I just wanted to throw out the fact that colleges care more about their sports programs than their financial aid offices. Also I do like the comment from the IHE reader regarding what is the difference between having a list of preferred lenders or having a preferred lender. Kind of makes you think doesn't it? The ffel schools are on the take with lenders and the DL schools are on the take with the feds. Sounds like an even playing field to me.

  • DL VS FFELP
  • Posted by Bob on May 17, 2007 at 12:40pm EDT
  • Pamela, I can only speak to my experience with DL. Poor software, poor service, increased workload for our office, fewer options for students versus the improvements to FFEL that I noted above. I received no kickbacks or extra staff for returning to ffelp and not one lender offered. I know the same story from other FAO's firsthand. I am not saying it did not happen e.g. the NJ HESAA/Sallie Mae agreement, I am saying it is the exception, just like FAO's with stock options, unless you have evidence to the contrary.

  • Waste of time
  • Posted by KL on May 17, 2007 at 1:10pm EDT
  • Bob, it is a waste of time trying to explain yourself to anyone that is a strong DL supporter. They will cut you at every turn and turn around everything you do and say just like the press is in this entire mess. You have over 4000 colleges and how many financial aid professionals. How many people are you seeing being led away in handcuff's? None. How many have lost their jobs? Less than we can count on two hands. How many does that add up to percentage wise? Calculators do not go that low. From what I understand DL has improved over the years but they still have not been able to keep up to the level of ffel and I do believe that is what you were trying to say. I also believe you were just trying to tell our lender friends to keep their heads up. When DL swept through our state, it litterally cut our association in half. The ones that went DL stopped coming to most of our conferences and began instead to go to all DL functions and serve on DL boards etc. They at that moment drew a line in the sand and began their fight against ffel. They are not changing their minds. They were fed the wine and they will not see any other views and they have been totally convinced that if you are in ffel then you are associating with the dark side no if, ands, or buts.

  • If you can't beat them, make laws that get rid of them!
  • Posted by Bill on May 17, 2007 at 2:25pm EDT
  • As Direct gets less and less support from schools joining it's ranks, some in Congress feel the need to force every school that direction. Why? If Direct was such a great program, schools would jumping ship from FFEL, but they're not. So instead of making the Direct product better, let's just legislate FFEL out of the picture. If all the schools have to switch to Direct, I'm sure the cost for the switch won't really be saving the tax payer all that much money.

    Mr Miller, Mr.Kenndy, & friends, there are reasons more schools aren't in your pet program and it's not because of lender lunches. But I haven't read any comments where you try to find out what makes FFEL the preferred program. You just keep using political sound bites to honk your program's horn: Taxpayer savings and evil lenders. We got your message, we just know better. You are hoping the public doesn't.

    How many employees are you going to displace across the country from lenders, services, and guarantors if FFEL just gets cut? You can send some of the subsidy savings to pay for unemployment benefits. Brilliant leadership!

  • Student borrowers -- you need options
  • Posted by L.L. on May 17, 2007 at 5:05pm EDT
  • How my friendly acquaintance John Edwards to advocate a government monopoly (DL), while France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia, et al., are moving toward AWAY from "gummint" and toward competition is beyond my comprehension.

    Competition maximize consumer choices -- not future unfunded pension liabilities. When someone tries to limit your choices -- ask why.

  • Options available through private loans
  • Posted by S.S. on May 18, 2007 at 6:50am EDT
  • If you want options and 'choice,' then get rid of both FFEL and DL. Sure gets the 'gummint' out of everyone's hair. People deserve options in choosing a television, an accountant, a plumber, a credit card, a car loan, etc. As it stands, though, student lending is a social welfare program, part of the Great Society, and, as long as students can gain access to loan capital, there is no "constitutional right" to have any type of choice. Do you get to choose "Jane's social security" vs. "Bob's social security"? What about "Frank's food stamp program" as compared to "Carol's food stamp program"?

    The level of customer service, technology, standardization, etc., in FFEL, was abysmal before DL was started. For example WSJ/Smart Money, March 1996 ("Bureaucratic bumbling. Antiquated computer systems gone wild. Misplaced paperwork. Thuggish collection agencies. It's just another day in the student-loan business.") Who's to say it won't return to that crisis situation after DL is gone? Lenders and schools faced a turning point in the early 1990s. They could have admitted their abysmal failure in delivering and servicing student loans, entered the Twelve Step Program, supported serious GSL reforms, and completely avoided the creation of DL. Instead, they decided to pursue the lobbying route, trying to defeat the DL idea legislatively rather than substantively. As a result of this strategic error, they almost lost the whole FFEL program. It sounds like they are willing to roll the dice again on beltway gamesmanship instead of admitting their problems. And, by the way, which other countries have succeeded with guaranteed student lending programs? Maybe the problem was using the feckless Ed Dept instead of some other agency for handling student loans. People tend to sit up and take the IRS more seriously. In Australia the student loans are collected via payroll deduction and the national tax agency.

  • I'm in the twilight zone
  • Posted by Ann Doherty on May 18, 2007 at 6:50am EDT
  • I NEVER thought that I would fall on the side of Obama nevermind Edwards or the CA Dems but here I am advocating a for a government run social program... And Hil would be on the side of the capitalists in all this--huh?

    I would ike to personally offer the lenders and the "pro-choice folks" the following challenge:

    If you truly believe you offer a far superior product to DL-- let the competiton begin; let the free market reign. All borrowers could choose a strictly bank based loan from you to attend their chosen school with no federal backing or a stripped down bare bones government backed loan. Consider it a choice between a Caddy or a Yugo....

    Decide this the American way-- let the market and the consumer decide which is the superior product since it has always worked well in the past. In order to compete I suggest you offer some kind of 100% guaranteed approval rate regardless of employment or credit rating, low fixed rate, death and disabilty forgiveness, income contingent repayment with a 25 year forgiveness clause to encourage their borrowers to enter lower paid socialist type jobs, deferment and interest payments for economic hardship, maternity, active duty military and the other 14 or so reasons...

    Or is that too much choice?

    Finally, I am adding a disclaimer just in case there is any confusion that any views posted are my own personal views and to certify that I'm a bonafide free market, fiscal conservative right wing nut (and proud of it).

  • Check your facts
  • Posted by L.L. on May 18, 2007 at 7:15am EDT
  • " .. to certify that I’m a bonafide free market, fiscal conservative right wing nut (and proud of it) ..

    First, there are a number of non-DL programs that use all the DL aspects noted, obviously as a function of being part of the federal program --

    http://www.glhec.org/

    Second, the fees in DL can be much higher than non-DL.

    Third, anyone with common sense knows that DL employees ultimately become government pension responsiblities. That system is already unfunded -- you want to make it worse?

    There are options, there is competition. If one is unwilling to seek them, well, others are unwilling to take on the huge, long-term financial burden of Democrat-endorsed DL programs.

  • State guaranty agency and secondary market pension burdens
  • Posted by S.S. on May 18, 2007 at 8:05am EDT
  • The state bureaucrats are mostly getting defined benefit pensions as well. On the other hand, thanks to the Reagan Administration, feds hired after 1983 depend on a 401k, in other words, a defined contribution retirement plan. Most of "DL administration" budget goes to contractors. Just like DoD -- only one fed for every three or four contractors. The contractors receive no benefits from the govt at all and are moved on and off the projects at will. (Their companies most likely provide them with some health insurance.) Finally, "DL Administration" has been a convenient way to fund the administration of FAFSA, Pell delivery, campus based delivery, school & lender reviews, nslds, and most other fed'l student aid administration. Ever since the Deficit Reduction Act, school groups are back in the pre-1993 mode of marching up to Capital Hill to make sure there are enough resources for the govt to get through another FAFSA year. That admin funding is no longer mandatory.

  • Workers at DOE
  • Posted by Could Be Mislead on May 18, 2007 at 5:20pm EDT
  • Ok, I am not sure who is telling who what people are working at the DE but I know a couple people that work directly in the Direct Lending Program. They are paid by the federal gov and receive full fed gov benefits. They do nothing but oversee FDSL processing. The only thing that is outsourced according to them is when the loans go into repayment (according to them). Those loans that go into repayment do you know where they go? I do, India. There you go. Now I love how our government can always say they use contractors for this program and therefore they are saving so much money etc. Well my friend makes a six figure income. The retirement package is incredible so maybe the ones in India are the ones that are getting that health insurance you are talking about.

  • Did I miss something
  • Posted by Ann Doherty on May 18, 2007 at 10:05pm EDT
  • LL, what I am advocating is that you operate entirely without a federal safety net-- go it alone entirely. You can still keep your own GA for your own funds (or other lenders), use your own servicers to manage your portfolio (or others) for a fee. They do it in car lending, why not educational lending. It is the only way there would be fair market competition between the Caddy and the Yugo.

    You are free to go for it and would have none of the burdomsome federal regulations for TIV that are in place or that are pending. I don't have a problem with loan fees in DL-- I'm not borrowing the money, students are and can help shoulder some of the burden to pay the poor folks in India who will help them later on (I'm fairly convinced that when I call DL I'm getting someone in Texas though because of the drawl, unless that is part of the mandatory Indian Speech class prior to hiring they take according to the PBS documentary I saw months ago which are prized jobs in India by the way).

    Which leads me to an interesting sidebar: While meeting with one of my grads who is going to another school we decided to look at the preferred lender list again (it was a proud SAL School in December) and lo and behold, nothing but a paragraph about "you have a choice but check back with us." I'm sensing confusion out there.

    I was also lucky enough to receive the announcement of SimpleTuition in my email inbox, via post: a huge box of loan comparison charts from a lender who decided they were the best in the biz along with an invitation to hand the oversized charts out to my students (thanks for the invite but I must decline) and then just to add to the delight of my day: I discovered that the College Board has added a spiffy new question to the FA application: after "special circumstances" box: "Is the student a U.S. citizen or eligible non-citizen and want to be considered for an educational loan to cover college costs?" (cited from the 2007 on line CSS Profile) answer "yes" or "no." "Yes" gives the College Board permission to pull a credit report and then borrow through anyone, especially the College Board.

    Although I give the College Board credit for their ingenuity-- I am more than a bit upset by the tactic and then the neglect to mention it to me and I fully understand students should read that big paragraph explaining the question about do they want to be considered for a loan to clarify the final one line question but DUHHHH-- they're applying for fin aid.

    Seriously, I do love a good marketing plan, novel business idea but the most clever marketing campaign in all this belongs to the ones who started it: MRU.

    Hey, maybe they can stand in for the DOE since they seem a bit busy lately.

  • Math doesn't work
  • Posted by L.L. on May 19, 2007 at 6:20pm EDT
  • " .. what I am advocating is that you operate entirely without a federal safety net .."

    How does a taxpayer-subsidized program (DL) compete against a non-subsidized program (your idea)? Be sure to show your work; 500 words or less.

  • Stop the Lender Bashing "NUT"
  • Posted by JA on May 19, 2007 at 10:25pm EDT
  • Unless you have a large endowment or you have all your students write checks for the rest of their unmet need, you are needing lenders on your campus along with all the rest of us. It isn't the government that came up with the additional ways to fund the students, it was the lenders. To put it your way, to lend to high risk 18 yr olds with little to no credit in some cases. These loans are very risky on the lenders. Shame on you for the way you are bashing the lenders. What they have to offer us the government has never offered. Now we will watch the fall out from all this mess. When all is said and done, I wonder how many students will be affected by this? Maybe when enrollment is down all over the country, all you lender bashers will be able to have an answer for all those people that end up without a job because of cuts and layoffs. But then maybe you don't even care. Because after all, this really isn't about students for you, it is really about tax payers isn't it? Lets really get to the point here.

    As far as the comment about Social Security, well there won't be any remember they already have spent it and don't know what they are going to do in the next 20 years. For welfare, that is a joke anyway and it has its own issues now doesn't it? More importantly, they are both government run programs and just look at the mess they are in. A person can barely live on food stamps unless they live on white and green boxes of mac and cheese for the month. The only doctor people can go to they have to wait in an office all day long to be seen because very few doctors will take the medicaid. That is how much our government cares about the poor and the old. How much do you really think they are going to care about students education once they are able to fully control it if it comes to that? What a joke. To the person above that compared food stamps and social security to this only proves the point that what a mess it will be if the government gets all student loans under DL. What a mess. Did I say what a mess!!

  • Let me clarify
  • Posted by Ann Doherty on May 20, 2007 at 9:25am EDT
  • DL is a government owned program, no different than food stamps in my opinion and thus should be run to meet its need and not have much more. Funny, I don't see grocery stores entering the arena... Either I want the government invloved or I don't, because the picking and choosing for this or that isn't really working in my humble opinion.

    I have been hoping to hear one good arguement to keep the current system in place and I have yet to hear that. All I keep hearing is students should have choice-- I'm not seeing choice in foodstamps so why is this social program different? The feds can contract the servicing so jobs will be spared and actuaries would see their pay rise in the private education industry.

    What keeps private industry in higher ed funding is the profit sans risk. There is ample evidence to support my conclusion: with alternative loan funding, co-borrowers were critical for many and limits were imposed and rates were set on credit history-- if there was no federal guarantee we have conclusive evidence as to how private industry will react; they just simply opted out of the competition and when they did, students get basically jacked on the rate to offset any potential loss. Given a federal guarantee (which is what happened with gradPLUS) they all jumped in to lend, lend, lend to kids they wouldn't have loaned to before. Once the risk is eliminated, you can see how the market works. It used to be at the grad level you might be lent money but there was no 99% guarantee it would actually happen (another clue: this should explain why some school's policy dictated they would not let a student matriculate until they received a credit report assuring them the kid could pay the bill--I can say job security, too). With the gradPLUS we now have the ability to help a student basically attend any grad school in the country without them getting jacked on the rates which is what is happening in undergrad (see the postings about rates of 14% plus etc... from students and parents alike in previous posts). They are now able to have an income contingent repayment with a 25 year forgiveness clause should they decide to do something altruistic (like be an FA professional)... And this is a bad thing why?

    My arguement is ony advocating the choice to borrow through DL (maybe we can rename it in the new Dem president's name and move the servicing center to his state next) with a federal backing or another loan with the private industry supporting the entire thing. I'm really sensing that the lending industry does not want that to happen based on the posts.

    The schools I see underfunded all the time, I have worked at and know the value of a lenders' services but why do we think making those schools beholden to the highest bidder is really solving the problem? We as FA folks have the rare opportunity to change all of this but for some reason I can't understand, have decided the way business is done currently is the best way. Please corect me if I'm wrong.

    There is a good reason that no one on the hill wants to talk to us-- was not NASFAA barred at the door? Didn't the DOE just tell Dallas they won't be able to attend the conference? Is not Terry Shaw in her last weeks of employment? Have we not seen DFA's asked to leave (although not very bright ones in my humble opinion if they took stock). Is this issue not in every podunk paper in the country and every family in NY getting a pamphlet from Cuomo with the 39 other AG's set to follow suit?

    The way we have done business is the past is going to change dramatically and even I am scared as to how to help my students manage it all if we go "pro-choice"-- the exit after 4 years with 4 different lenders is going to be a nightmare. Or even the kids who have been in school for 11 years plus at 3 different schools.... and a half million in debt.

    The ones I get now don't know who their lender is, nevermind the servicer or GA-- now we think throwing another 12 entities in their life will be somehow be helpful to increase higher ed funding for the needy? Unless of course I only inherit the really stupid kids every year and all the others going elsewhere totally understood the secondary loan market, knew the difference between a servicer, lender and guarantor... Lucky me!

    Do I care what happens at the undergrad level-- damn skippy I do since I'm inheriting the alternative loan kids now with more to come. Do you think with enough funding managed to meet the need (and not the greed) we'd still have the same quagmire at the undergrad level? I would hope not-- look at the Grad level.

    So we pretty much are left with 2 choices: we keep the same old ame old, no increases to anything unless the lenders want to donate their profits back or we look at this a completely different way and build one program that meets the needs of the students we're advocating for.

    For the responses I've read back to my challenge, you aren't addressing the actual challenge. Am I wrong in concluding the private industry cannot afford to lose the federal backing to compete at that level or is it they'll choose not to?

  • Your own private Idaho?
  • Posted by L.L. on May 20, 2007 at 1:40pm EDT
  • " .. Am I wrong in concluding the private industry cannot afford to lose the federal backing to compete at that level or is it they’ll choose not to?"

    Nearly 1,000 words to .. ???

    Or is it actually, "I want to keep my job and don't want competition from anyone else."

    How much clearer can it be: whether non-DL or DL, federal student loans in certain programs are guaranteed by U.S. taxpayers.

    That is because lending $20,000 without collateral to college students is VERY RISKY.

    Students -- demand competition AND disclosure. It is disclosure that tripped-up the college FAOs to Andy Cuomo.

    If you ask a question, and get the bum's rush -- do NOT sign the loan document!

    As for this: " .. Or even the kids who have been in school for 11 years plus at 3 different schools .."

    Isn't that why there is federal student loan consolidation?

    http://www.google.com/search?as_q=federal+student+loan+consolidation&hl=en&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

  • Administrative issue separate from program features
  • Posted by S.S. on May 20, 2007 at 1:40pm EDT
  • Do people get their social security checks each month? Yes. Are administrative costs exceedingly low? Yes. The long-term stability (or lack thereof) of social security relates not to the administrative efficiency but due to the legislative design of the program, which originally had 30 workers paying in for each retired recipient. Now that ratio is only 3:1.

    Medicare is similar to FFEL in many ways. A social welfare program where citizens have a choice of providers. In addition, there are pseudo-guaranty agencies at the state levels (typically someone like Blue Shield) administering the program, processing claims, etc., on behalf of DHHS. Many pundits complain about the program structure, but you cannot deny the exceedingly low administrative costs of Medicare when compared to employee-based health insurance. The question is how much are you willing to pay for the benefits of employee-based health insurance.

    In health insurance, like student loans, any talk of free enterprise or free markets is largely just talk. Almost 70% of health insurance bills are paid by state and federal government agencies, and this will only increase as the population ages. If you are not a retiree, a student borrower, a financial aid administrator, or an educational lender, do you really want to pay extra for the latest and greatest in terms of features and bells and whistles?

    If you know "a couple people" at the govt who work on disbursing DLs, then those two people are probably overseeing dozens of contractors. It does require even more contractors for customer service in repayment than for origination/disbursement, though. Week-kneed leaders would not take the risk of using Indian off-shore facilities, but the servicing facilities are located in the lower-cost areas of the USA. (Indiana's governor took a lot of flack a couple years ago when trying to save money by offshoring some state services to India. The public doesn't seem to be there yet, and the difference in costs is diminishing as well.) Unlike many of the state employees at the FFEL GAs and secondaries, feds are required to pay a large share of their own health insurance premiums. The bottom line, after cutting through the misleading rhetoric from lobbyists, is that FFEL has never offered anything that DL has not offered. When DL reduced fees and provided repayment incentives, USDE got sued big time. (The fee reductions and repayment incentives, however, are still in place.) And, when DL tried to repond to your issue by producing prom notes in school offices, and providing other assistance, the lenders cried 'parity.'

  • Democrat Party monopolists
  • Posted by L.L. on May 20, 2007 at 4:40pm EDT
  • " .. do you really want to pay extra for the latest and greatest in terms of features and bells and whistles?"

    Nah. We want to pay 20% more if there were other providers.

    We want to stand in long lines, being waited on by people who are making four times more than their peers in the private sector.

    Who have better benefits than ourselves. Management handled through D.C. And we have no other option for service.

    We want to be like the old USSR. We want to be like the Chinese Communist Party and North Korea. We were just thrown out of France and Sweden.

    That's "diversity?" That's "fair?" That's "choice?"

    What are Democrats like my friendly acquaintance John Edwards afraid of? People making rational choices? Living within their means? Demanding performance for pay? Not being beholden to them for their government job?

    Oh. None of the above? OK -- never mind.

  • Job security?
  • Posted by Ann Doherty on May 20, 2007 at 10:25pm EDT
  • I'm fairly confident in my conclusion that if the feds decided not to back these loans from private lenders they would all react the same way: run away, run away...

    Funny, didn't My Rich Uncle start off as a non federally backed tithing type loan company? They sold out to the man.

    S.S. is absolutely spot on when he writes that the loan fees in DL were challenged by "unfair competition" cries. I explain the DL rebate exactly that way-- the lenders whined and someone at the DOE (a clever someone) decided they'd deduct this and credit that and call it a "rebate."

    I'm still not sure why there needs to be competition in higher ed lending between the government and private lenders. Who has actually benefitted besides the lenders?

    And why is the student lending lobby on capital hill larger than the oil industry? Hmmm, let's ponder that next.

    Consolidation: one of my main points exactly-- if you know the end goal is one lender one payment why on earth would you put every kid and their parents through this to begin with? Oh wait-- another new industry to feed in the trough, the consolidation brokers! Forgot about them; the slight has been unintentional.

    So why set the choice into motion? Oh yeah, the money. Silly me.

    I vaguely remember someone mentioning job security but I've pretty much exceeded my 500 word limit so I'll keep this part pithy: I'm secure enough to know that I'm allowed to have my own opinions and stand by my principals and take the heat-- I also like a rockin' good fight.

  • 'Fair' and 'Choice' of Student Aid
  • Posted by S.S. on May 20, 2007 at 10:30pm EDT
  • The description of old USSR, China and N. Korea sounds like 1995 vintage GSLP. And the $10 per hour folks at the direct loan service centers would probably be interested to hear that they earn four times what the executives at PHEAA and SLM are earning. SLM alone has three times more employees than all of USDE, so how is that 'efficient'? If one market participant has three times more employees than the entire USDE, then it is possible to see that the customers out there could get used to never worrying about a line, but, again, someone is paying for that convenience. This is cost shifting. What about lenders, guaranty agencies and secondary markets living within their means? There's gotta be a better way than folks always threatening to stop lending to the poor whenever their subsidies are on the chopping block. The HEA, for one, would not seem to permit that type of a move. Someone needs to call the bluff. Where is the accountability, the living within one's means, the demanding of performance for pay? Apparently Congress and the last several Administrations do not demand much in return for the entrustment of their college students' finances.

    Some in both parties are fed up and want to try a different way, which may be what Ann is referring to. This is not 1965. There is no lack of loan capital for those with no credit experience, or even bad credit experience. The maturity of asset-based securities (ABS) markets would seem to indicate that the concept of the "federal student loan" is no longer required. Banks can package education loans from a variety of low risk and high risk schools into securities that investors purchase. This option did not exist in 1965. The process is transparent to the student and the school. And, if you don't trust banks, you could alternatively set up the program so the education loans are funneled through not-for-profit organizations, several of which already exist. In addition, where is it stated that choice of lenders, diversity of lenders and so-called fairness of student aid processes are required by the HEA or the Constitution?

  • A+ for SS
  • Posted by Ann Doherty on May 21, 2007 at 6:45am EDT
  • I say call the bluff becuase that's what it is. Same old, same old.

  • Andy Cuomo -- get Bill O'Reilly and M. Moore to help
  • Posted by L.L. on May 21, 2007 at 8:40am EDT
  • Per Vedder (Ohio U.) and Geo. Leek -- thanks to the financial support from taxpayer-subsidized loans, there are too many colleges chasing too few qualified students.

    Some public colleges report less than 50% of incoming freshmen graduate within six years. Thus, such students are left in what one DOE document described as a very difficult position -- in debt for a degree not finished.

    Reasonable people wonder: is it appropriate for institutions, in need to keep class-seats and dorms filled, to advise would-be borrowers?

    Have enough precautions been taken to ensure that the borrowers' rights are protected? Has full disclosure, including job-placement information, been made in a full, fair fashion?

    Andy -- get Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore to look into this with you. They love this kind of stuff.

  • Posted by Pamela on May 21, 2007 at 10:45am EDT
  • L.L. - cute. go on the offensive and attack FAAs - a group of the most well intentioned, helpful, and high quality people in the post-secondary education community - in attempt to defend large, commercial lending institutions (I'll leave the word 'rapacious' out of their description for now). Listen to yourself. What's your full time job? Marketing Dept at SLM or lobbyist for FFEL lendors from your K Street office?

  • Tell that to Andy Cuomo
  • Posted by L.L. on May 21, 2007 at 4:10pm EDT
  • " .. a group of the most well intentioned, helpful, and high quality people in the post-secondary education community .."

    My, my. Then I wonder why Andy Cuomo has his knickers, in such twist, over this.

    " .. What’s your full time job?"

    It should be obvious to the non-government employee that I am for young people, being treated fairly and fully by all lenders. Because that competition brings out the best in everyone.

    Want "Big Brother" to take care of your crew? Try China or North Korea. Even France and Sweden are shedding state controls, for cripes' sake.

  • The children
  • Posted by Ann Doherty on May 21, 2007 at 7:40pm EDT
  • I would encourage the poor children you refer to to consolidate with Direct, get into an income contingent repayment plan and after 25 years, their debt would be forgiven. Unless of course they fell for the shiney flyer they received from Bippy Bank where they receive an income sensitive plan-- gosh we're sorry you've been paying for 40 plus years and now are eating cat food but we'll only take a penny out of your SSI check. Or even fell victim to the consolidation referral company. Oh wait, they only wanted to spend time at the really high debt professional schools but they did it to help the poor students-- just ask them.

    Seriously: lenders have had YEARS to reduce their rates but all have chosen to charge whatever the fed max is at the time. Their reductions in a rate have always been contingent upon something. As they are pretty sure from running queries in their massive database regarding the odds of someone missing that one payment, it's a win win situation-- like their own Wampum Reward Card at the casino. They would also I'm sure be spending a lot to have someone analyze the masses of data to determine which marking stategies are the most successful. And then they call in the experts, give them a title like "Advisory Board Member" and get them to tell them how to better market.

    Must dash, I need to email NASFAA and give them a nudge since the email I sent last July about the MRU scandal was I'm now sure scoffed at-- they thought I was a bit nuts pointing out this would be a huge thing over time and come back to bite them.

    I also think I'll email Bill now and keep it pithy while I opine...

  • Whither Sen. Conrad?
  • Posted by Anh on May 21, 2007 at 8:35pm EDT
  • The article does not directly discuss Sen. Conrad of N. Dakota, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee who brokered the first joint budget resolution to pass both Houses in several years. (Which is the subject of the news story.) Conrad has also been acting as the FFELP savior. He held up the resolution for weeks over the $75 million in student loan savings that the House had passed. He has told reporters many times (even after the joint resolution passed last week!) that he believes reconciliation should only be used for deficit reduction and not for student loan legislative purposes -- despite the fact that student loan legislation has been a key part of reconciliation legislation for decades, most notably in 1993 and 2005.

    This is hometown politics, pure and simple. The Bank of N. Dakota (BND) is the only purely socialist bank in the USA. It makes agricultural loans and student loans. BND is a fully-integrated monopoly: loan provider, financier, lender, secondary market and guaranty agency.

    The politicians from N. Dakota have made it crystal clear where they stand on the issues. "There aren't any Direct Loan contractors in North Dakota." That is it, in a nutshell. FFELP is a jobs program. And a good one. Provides jobs nationwide, in almost every Congressional district. Meanwhile, Direct Loan uses competitive contracting procedures based on merit, not on politics.

    While reconciliation is not a sure sale with the state's at-large House member, Pomeroy, Conrad is a team player and will go down with the ship on reconciliation this summer, even if it puts BND out of business. Note, however, that every proposed bill, even Kennedy's and Miller's bills, provides protectionist measures for the benefit of the inefficient, small secondary markets like BND. Is this gonna be like the Dairy Compact and other protectionist legislation from here on out? Do we need to make sure every county has its own loan office, no matter what the taxpayer burden? It's gonna be like the Post Office and the USDA?

    There's nothing more like N. Korea than situations like BND and AES. One of the biggest reforms for the beltway would be if we finally could ban the States from lobbying Congress. Scientists in the EPA, for example, have always been prohibited from visiting their Congressperson's office to lobby on environmental issues. Why are BND, AES, CSAC, etc., still allowed to lobby their Members of Congress? Talk about conflict of interest!

  • Students: think before signing
  • Posted by L.L. on May 22, 2007 at 9:35am EDT
  • How much clearer does this have to be?

    Students: yes, you want to leave home so badly, you'd sign a contract with Satan.

    Please -- think first. You can do it. You know about "student loan jail," the feeling of being imprisoned by school loans. Think.

    Ask yourself and others: what kind of jobs do those who graduate, get? How did they get them? Do the jobs pay enough, to allow you to repay your loans, and remain financially solvent?

    (NYTimes on student loan investigations:

    http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=student+loan&srchst=nyt

    How many people actually graduate?

    This is not about the FAO, or the lender, or the college.

    It is about you -- and the money you will have to repay. The federal government will make you repay it, via the IRS. "Death and taxes," take that to heart -- the IRS got Al Capone.

    Think. Then think some more.

    Get out a calculator. Ask trusted and capable friends to help you make calculations that will affect your life for decades. Check the local library for helpful books.

    Do NOT sign any loan document, if anything does not "add up" to you.

    You have plenty of time, ahead of you. Use some of it. There is something to be said about being "penniless -- and free."