Search News


Browse Archives

News

Playing Politics on Student Loans

March 17, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

They just can't help themselves.

Even when Education Secretary Margaret Spellings and Democrats on the House of Representatives Education and Labor Committee generally agree about the size and scope of a problem, their clear enmity for each other overwhelms the accord and produces unpleasantness that is painful to watch. Such was the case Friday, when Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) brought Spellings before the panel he leads to talk about whether and how the disruption in the financial credit markets is affecting students' access to loans and how the government should be responding.

On the substance of the matter, Spellings and Miller, who have battled frequently in recent years, largely agree: They both assert that so far, the "credit crunch," while hurting some lenders and resulting in meaningful cutbacks in the availability of private or alternative loans, has done little or nothing to disrupt access to federal loans for student borrowers. They’ve also agreed that major action to bolster the loan programs -- which lenders, for-profit colleges, and some Republicans favor -- is uncalled for or, at least for now, premature.

In her testimony before the committee, Spellings said that the Education Department was taking various steps to ensure that students were not having their access to federal loans (and therefore to college) disrupted by the tightening of the credit markets. Each time an individual lender announces that it is either cutting back or abandoning its participation in the loan programs, department officials check in with colleges where that lender provides at least half of the loans and make sure that the institutions have found alternative loan providers for their students.

Spellings also said the department is surveying guarantee agencies to make sure they have procedures in place to step in as the “lender of last resort” for borrowers who cannot find other access to federal loans, and that her agency plans to issue guidelines this week for how those procedures should work. And the department is working, too, she said, to ensure that the government's direct student loan program, which competes with the lender-based guaranteed loan program, is positioned to step in and provide loans if the capital markets constrict further.

“The steps my department is taking will help ensure that [federal student loans] remain available,” Spellings said in her opening statement to Miller and other committee members. “As you said in your letter, Mr. Chairman, while ‘we expect that overall credit market conditions will soon improve, it is only prudent to prepare now to ensure that these conditions do not negatively impact students.’ “

But even though Miller’s previous statements had indeed minimized the current impact of the credit crunch in student loan availability, the lawmaker, in his questioning of Spellings at the hearing, and in a news release he issued after the event, took her to task for having taken too few concrete actions so far.

Federal law calls on the department to advance money to loan guarantors if they do not have the capital to finance “lender of last resort” loans, Miller said. “Have you turned to [the Department of] Treasury and said, ‘If we need to turn to you for $100 million or $5 billion, can you do that?’ “ he said. When Spellings and her aides said they knew they had the authority to ask for those funds, Miller responded sharply: “I’m asking whether you have asked the operational questions. We had a lot of authority going into Katrina, but nobody asked could we physically get people out of there.”

“We’re having ongoing discussions” with Treasury about that and other matters, said Kent Talbert, the department’s general counsel.

“But you have not received an answer to the question, can the demand be met?” Miller charged at Spellings and her aides again. Referring again to Katrina, he said: “I hope you're not standing in eight feet of water with students without loans looking for relief, and you're having ongoing discussions.”

Spellings reassured Miller that she would speak to Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. soon and “ask him that very question very specifically.”

Meanwhile, Miller’s Republican counterpart on the committee, Rep. Howard P. (Buck) McKeon (R-Calif.), put a very different spin on the credit crunch, suggesting that Spellings (and Miller) were underplaying the impact of the crisis even now.

While McKeon, ever the gentleman, said he shared Miller’s view that “our intention today is not to sound a false alarm” and to “identify solutions so that we are prepared, whether or not the situation grows worse,” he also made clear that he believes the problem is larger and more immediate than Democrats and the Education Department are suggesting.

Noting the significant contraction in the availability of private student loans, particularly to for-profit colleges and their students, McKeon insisted that the cutbacks Congress made to subsidies for student loan providers in the last three years are “certainly playing a role” in the market instability. “You say you’re not hearing from schools that there’s a problem,” he said to Spellings, but we’re hearing from schools, especially in the proprietary area, that the cost of private loans” is growing and that “that has actually increased what students are going to be paying on interest on their loans.”

“I’m glad we’re having this hearing,” McKeon said. “I think that a few months from now, we’re going to look back and say, ‘Gee, where did all this come from? I see a very serious problem coming down the pike. I hope this hearing is soon enough that there's a wakeup call.”

It seems (sadly) that no Congressional discussion of student loans is complete these days without some partisan bickering about the competitive status of the guaranteed and direct loan programs. In that vein, Rep. Ric Keller (R-Fla.) sought to elicit from Spellings and her aides a clear statement that just because the department is taking steps to prepare direct lending to handle any colleges that might seek to switch to the government-run program, that doesn't mean its leaders think that institutions should switch. (Some Republican lawmakers have suggested that Democrats might use the credit crunch to bolster the direct lending program, which has lost market share in recent years.)

"Have you seen any increase in schools considering direct lending?" Keller asked Spellings.

"A very small number, Congressman," the secretary responded.

"You're not suggesting schools should switch, are you?" Keller asked, leadingly.

"Absolutely not," came Spellings's reply.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Playing Politics on Student Loans

  • Who's minding the store???
  • Posted by feudi pandola on March 17, 2008 at 8:45am EDT
  • The financial community needs to come clean, once and for all, about what deregulation has done to the economy and the country. When the sub-prime mortgage melt down happened, I did not believe that it would ever have a spill over effect on the availability of FFELP loans. That has not been the case. AES/PHEAA, the state agency which was also a major lender, has withdrawn fom the market due, it says, to a failed security auction. The interest rates it would have to pay on these securities rose to an astonishing 9.2%! Since FFELP loans only generate 6.8% in interest income, AES gave up lending. To my knowledge, no other major bank or lender has followed AES out of the marketplace at this point in time.

    It turns out that banks throughout the country have been lumping such diverse assets as sub-prime mortgages, car loans, and student loans into security packages that were then sold on the world market. It appears that, once again, the regulators were asleep at the wheel. The mortgages that these securities underwrote were complex, confusing agreements sold to an unsuspecting, or at the very least, financially unsophisticated public with no oversight whatsoever from the SEC. These debt agreements were sold at "teaser rates" with large interest rate escaltors built-in that almost guaranteed the current foreclosure disaster.

    One would think that the corporate scams we saw at the turn of the century would have taught the feds on the great danger of unbridled deregulation. That was supposed to be the goal of Sarbanes-Oxley. It is now obvious that SARBOX was merely window dressing, eyewash for the public to make it appear that all was well in corporate America.

    Well, Lucy, you got a lot of 'splainin' to do! And it looks like the public will, once again, take it in the neck.

    If the feds release the massive flood of liquidity that is needed to re-invigorate the economy, that will only serve to further cheapen the American dollar thereby raising the cost of all imports and commodities, i.e., the cost of living. If Congress increases the amounts students can borrow under FFELP, that will exacerbate the liquidity crisis. We are between the rock and the hard place folks...maybe a moratorium on tuition increases for a year or two is needed.

  • Time For A Change
  • Posted by M.T. Pocket on March 17, 2008 at 10:00am EDT
  • It appears that it is time for a change in the way higher education is financed. Perhaps we, as a country, should consider looking at how other economically savy countries are financing college for their people. I know it may go against the grain for a capitalistic country as ours but we need to come up with a better way of doing things.

    Perhaps looking at some of the Europian countries such as France and Great Britain could give us some insight as to how they do things. We're talking about bettering our education system and relieving stress of having student loans that are a life long burden on most of those who are forced to take them out.

  • Re: Who's minding the store?
  • Posted by Jay on March 17, 2008 at 11:15am EDT
  • This is a nice Cliffs Notes summary, but you didn't say anything worth reading. Do you have a suggestion on the problem at hand besides the US financial community coming clean? And even if that happened, what would that do? Lots of complaining, but no solutions are offered!!

    I have seen too many stories of students who immediately rush to get a private loan instead of a federal loan because it's easier than filling out the FAFSA, seen a student get 3 federal loans instead of writing 20 scholarship essays because it took less time and effort, and use their unsubsidized Stafford loan to make car payments, rent payments, buy furniture, pay down credit card debt, or go out partying with friends.

    The real issue at hand is that for years, Americans have been living outside of their means and hoping that the government or big business will come up wtih something new, shiny, and exciting that will delay the piper from coming to collect. Interest "teaser" rates on credit cards, subprime mortgages, and way-too-easy-to-obtain alternative education loans make borrowing money without regard to paying these debts back just another way for Americans to continue spending recklessly.

    Until the culture of American consumerism changes from "I'll buy this now and worry about it later" to something more rational, this issue will continue for years to come...it might not look just like this, but markets are cyclical and something LIKE this will come back even after markets correct themselves.

    In the meantime, I suggest students start writing scholarship essays, taking advantage of any possible federal grant money, getting a second job, and changing their assumptions away from the idea that borrowing might be the end-all for access to higher education.

  • Playing the blame game...
  • Posted by feudi pandola on March 17, 2008 at 12:10pm EDT
  • I agree with Jay that the culture of consumerism played a large role in bringing to this point. Big DUH! If your solution is for everyone to write essays, search for non-existent grants, and hope for the best, well sir, with all due respect, that dog won't hunt.

    I did suggest, and I was not kidding, that colleges and universities take a one or two year moratorium on cost increases. That would go a long way to helping stabilize the industry. I also repeat my suggestion that all schools post their Cost of Attendance on their websites. Those two ideas alone could go a long way towards solving the problem...which is why they'll never happen.

    Blaming the public for consumerism is one easy answer, but certainly no solution. I recall President Bush's admonition that we all go to the malls to help fight the Iraqi War. Unbridled capitalism leads to unbridled greed. We need leaders who will break that mindset but instead our leaders foster it and we end up here, in this fresh hell.

  • Research Grants
  • Posted by Lrey on March 17, 2008 at 1:25pm EDT
  • I do have a cousin that went to a school out East. The COA of $40k a year. His parents couldn't aford such a huge ticket so he did research as many grants as he could possibly apply for. He was so successful that after his loan eligiblity, he paid the rest with those grants. Not every student is so savy however it is possible. I think a great position in a financial aid office would be someone who does research for grants and that is all they do. They could then help students in their first year how to go about applying. Any years following either the student could be equiped to go out and do it again on their own, or pay a service fee to have the help again. A lot of the problem is they just have no clue as to how to go about the search and the search can be overwhelming. Just a thought anyway.
    I agree with freezing tuition and I also agree with people thinking a loan is the easy way out and they never seek out a better option, ie grant searches.

  • Miscellany
  • Posted by R.F. on March 17, 2008 at 2:45pm EDT
  • LRey,
    Sounds like the kid was on the ball.

    Two things; many schools do have someone in their financial aid office who is responsible for helping students with scholarships. The problem is far more likely that they need two such people.

    Second, go to fastweb to see a great free database of scholarships.

    I would echo Feudi's two suggestions, and add my own. Where in the world is Pell? Waldo has looked high and low and can't seem to find Pell. Better than low income students taking high interest private loans would be a revitalization of a program that has been abused and neglected under the last several administrations, but none more than Jr's administration.

    It is poor students who don't come from means but who managed to find a shaky cosigner who cant pay back their alternative
    loans. Lets make it unnecessary.

  • The Real Criminal
  • Posted by Student Loan Watcher on March 17, 2008 at 6:10pm EDT
  • Who exactly "forced" you to take out loans M.T.? We need to find that person and throw them in prison....you poor thing.

    Jay's comment was perhaps the most intelligent and well presented argument that I have read on here in a long time. It isn't blaming consumerism, it is blaming ignorance. College is THE time for parents to teach their children responsibility. What better way to show them how to be financially responsible then through the world of student loans.

    Jay's point was right on, making the right choice about buying is not always the easiest or the one we "want", but the lesson here is just that. Children are more spoiled then they have ever been, and it is about time that parents teach the next generation the value of a dollar.