This seems like a worthwhile endeavor, as well as being a complete no-brainer:
Today, FDL launches its Students Not Banks campaign, with a petition calling on Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and members of Congress to pass student loan reform quickly through reconciliation.
One of President Obama’s most ambitious plans for both education and the budget was the transition from a system of government subsidized student loans using bankers as middle men to direct student lending. But as The Hill notes this morning, the Senate can only move one reconciliation bill until they pass a new budget resolution. If they try to “fix” health care and don’t pass student loan reform at the same time, it will be another year until they can take it up.
Colleges across the country that are already slashing programs and hiking tuition in the wake of state budget crises. They desperately need the $4.7 billion that student loan reform will bring to them in 2010 alone.
It just makes no sense to me whatsoever to be basically throwing money at the banksters for, well, no reason at all other than to be throwing money at them. But then again, I’m not a “fiscal conservative” like Ben Nelson or Blanche Lincoln or the majority of the Republican caucus.
WereBear
It doesn’t make any sense.
That’s why it’s a pillar of conservative policy!
lol
It also doesn’t make sense to tinker with an already precarious situation and possibly sink the whole HCR effort, which is probably the real aim of this FDL campaign.
Roger Moore
We’re throwing money at banksters because they gave big campaign contributions to the right congresscritters. If that doesn’t sound like a good reason, you’re obviously
lacking Washington insider credentialsshrilla DFH who hates capitalism.John Cole
@lol: That probably is part of the motivation- to gum up the already messy HCR, but it will never happen.
At the same time, if people start screaming about this now, it might prep the battlefield for next year. That is why I am onboard (until I’m told I need to primary Nancy Pelosi and Sherrod Brown isn’t progressive enough).
KCinDC
But if you’re cooperating with FDL, and FDL is cooperating with Grover Norquist, then…
Is this the beginning of the firebagjuicers?
Guster
Primaries are undemocratic. That’s why FDL’s always rattling on about them.
Brian J
I don’t know at what point the returns would be lower than the money invested, but it puzzles me that we aren’t supporting public colleges more. If you look at any relatively prosperous area of the country, there’s usually a thriving college or even many of them, even if some of them are private institutions. I imagine letting different schools try to build up different programs would do wonders for local economies, particularly in distressed areas.
patrick II
During the financial crisis last year banks “lacked funds” for all student loans. I don’t know how many kids missed school because they could not get their loans. But a system that is more expensive and less reliable and actually stops student loans at times when they are most needed seems like it could be improved upon.
eemom
@lol:
a-yup.
that’s from an article on the subject in The Hill (can’t link from work). That’s exactly what Jane “really, truly, wants the best for the country” Hamsher is up to with her latest “petition.”
Silver Owl
Over the last 10 years I have come to the conclusion that fiscal conservatives are more concerned with rich folks richer. They have yet to propose any ideas that are actually cost effective while accomplishing the stated goal. Instead they lower goal and spend more money for less.
Rhoda
If they want to move something on student loan reform; then push for new reconciliation instructions in the coming budget. But right now, we can’t afford to lose any votes and rocking the boat while juggling the Stupak 12 and locking down language on the reconciliation fix is insane.
Especially coupled with the fact that they want to move this before the Easter recess.
jrg
…Don’t you bring your liberal evolution Voodoo to Swinefart county, boy. We’ll string you up for shit like that.
Brian J
@Silver Owl:
It’s easy for people (not you, just so we’re clear) to make the terms whatever they like. There also isn’t a clear point at which one becomes a fiscal liberal, fiscal moderate, or fiscal conservative, to me at least.
That said, I don’t think most of the current Republicans or any of their supporters of any stripe are fiscal conservatives.
Cat
The post on the Freedom Chair perfectly illustrates why we need a robust college loan system. The rest of the world is catching up to us while we stagnate because the majority of our citizens are burdened with healthcare costs and poor education because they can’t afford a good education.
Brian J
@patrick II:
In a lot of ways, the current private student loan system seems like a smaller but no less valid twin of our health care system: bloated and inefficient, whose few defenders are those with a financial interest in maintaining the current set up.
Mudge
Telling Pelosi to use reconciliation does no good at all. She’s in the House.
Anya
@lol: I agree! If you
conflate the two important issues HCR will be defeated because there are a lot of senators (Bye, Nelson, Baucus (i think)) who oppose the student loan reform.
JC, your getting soft on us. You must see what’s behind this last minute campaign?
Zifnab
I honestly don’t think the Democrats need to give Conserva-wankers another reason to waffle on the bill. The last thing we need is Bart Stupak throwing a fit because direct distribution of student loans doesn’t conform properly to the Hyde Amendment.
jeffreyw
The divide is really simple. The current crop of Republicans believe that anything the private sector can do the government should not do. Arguments that the government can do it cheaper and more efficiently are nothing more than “the slippery slope” to soshulism.
Rick Taylor
@Anya
I don’t understand; why would attempting to pass this through reconciliation conflate the two issues? Presumably senators who opposed student loan reform and supported health care could vote against the one and for the other. Of course it’s kind of insane Democrats would be opposing this given the crises we’re currently in.
Keith G
In other news, Sully has just put up his take on the intersection of Stan Greenberg and Rahm Emanuel.
Sly
The underlying argument for having private lenders act as a middle-man between the Feds and students is that those private lenders will better apportion the risk of those students who would likely not pay back the loan. Private lenders don’t want to take on students who are likely to default, because they’d lose money, and so the government ends up saving money in the long term.
Which sounds nice in theory. Problem is the losses lenders take on students who default are explicitly passed on to the Feds. They have little to no liability, so there’s no risk to actually apportion as far as they’re concerned.
So, yeah, the student loan system is screwed up and is amounts to a boondoggle for the lenders. Obama campaigned on cutting out the middle-man and using the savings to increase Pell Grants, and was a pretty popular plank among college-aged supporters. Plus its simply good politics. The Democratic Party doing a lot for this demographic now provides them with a lifetime constituency. Preserving this system for short-term campaign contributions is the height of political myopia.
@Cat:
Americans are falling behind also because our secondary-ed system is, depending on where you live, anywhere from inefficient to completely FUBAR. Everyone likes our post-secondary system based upon reputation and the fact that you can drop in and out of it essentially at will, and you don’t normally see that in other industrialized countries. Once you’re out, you’re generally out for good.
John PM
I think the name of the program should be “Learners Not Loansharks,” but then again I am a big fan of alliteration.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@lol:
I had the same thought. At this point if FDL offered me free cash, I’d wonder: “What’s the catch? What do I have to do to sabotage HCR for you, that you’re going to demand of me by way of payment for this?“.
Citizen_X
I just signed on to this. Why? Because it’s good idea on its own merits. I couldn’t care less about the nefarious eleventy-dimensional plots of the Eevul Hamsher that some people here are imagining.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Zifnab:
What if the terms were changed so fetuses could take out student loans? Stupak might like that.
freelancer
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
Boom! Headshot!
Violet
@Sly:
Agreed, although I wonder if anything these days can result in “a lifetime constituency.” The closest I can imagine to this happening is that the Republicans are so batshit crazy that people will vote Dem just because they couldn’t possibly vote for the Republicans.
But then I’m the independent type.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@Keith G: Sully is right on that one, and Rahm is wrong. Just sayin’.
Tim I
@John Cole:
You are being naive, John. Getting HCR done will be tricky enough without adding this to the mix. I don’t trust Jane Hamsher one bit. She did not suddenly see the light and endorse President Obama’s student loan plan.She is afraid that HCR stands a chance of passing and she is trying to create obstructions to that.
Jay B.
@Citizen_X:
No shit. Jesus Christ, does anyone want to explain to me how you “link” student loans with the votes on health care reform? The same linkage can work for literally anything — Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? No way! We have to waffle on the health care bill for a couple more months. Jobs? What about health care?
Of course, if today’s Opposite Day that means that reconciliation is bad, except if the Republicans don’t oppose it and Hamsher does, which means that student loan gouging is good and Blanche Lincoln is right…
Tim I
@Rick Taylor:
There is only one reconciliation bill. They would have to vote on both together. That is why Jane is supporting this. It’s really hard to see how you can get the votes for both simultaneously.
suzanne
OOOOH!!!
Apparently Rush Limbaugh has stated that, if health care reform passes, he will LEAVE THE COUNTRY!
OH MY GOD.
I’m so excited. I think I just came.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
@KCinDC:
John Cole is the Kevin Bacon of the blogosphere.
A Mom Anon
My husband got a job today! This was a company he interviewed with nearly 3 weeks ago and they never called him back. Today they called him in for a second interview,checked his references while he was on his way home and hired him by the time he pulled into the driveway. It’s less money but there’s healthcare and while we won’t be living high on the hog,we’ll be ok. There’s at least a chance for promotions and bonuses with this job,as opposed to the last one. Sooo,here’s to his third job in close to two years,I can’t wait to tell our son,the poor kid has been so freaked out and worried. Yay!
wasabi gasp
Put libraries in emergency rooms.
Redshift
@Brian J: I advocate using “fiscally responsible” for people who actually advocate for good budget policies and government efficiency, and abandoning “fiscally conservative” to what has obviously become its dominant definition: simultaneously advocating for cutting taxes, and complaining about deficits and spending without actually proposing any significant cuts, claiming that privatizing everything always saves money even in cases when it’s easily proven that it doesn’t, that Social Security running a deficit in 75 years is a disaster but having wars and tax cuts that run massive deficits right now aren’t, etc.
While the Village will continue to believe that “fiscally conservative” is noble even under that definition (because they already do), using “fiscally responsible” for the people who really are at least it has the advantage of not associating the word “conservative” with something that’s actually desirable.
patrick II
@ Brian
They look alike because the underlying problem is similar. We are trying to cram various services into a “free market” template that is not suitable for many things that are not commodities. Medical care is not a commodity and a single-payer system would be more efficient. Not allowing that, a public option would at least force some cost constraints by competition. However, seems not to be allowed either. So we force something to use market mechanisms that doesn’t really fit well in that paradigm, and since it doesn’t fit well we have to try and hammer it in place using complex regulations — making for an inefficient mess.
I have called my congressman to vote for HCR, ( I am not Jane Hamsher) but my faith in regulations to control something where the ones being regulated have come to control the regulators is in doubt. Especially after the supreme court money is free speech decision a few weeks ago. But as Mr. Cole points out, the only thing left for us to do is “settle”.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@A Mom Anon:
Congrats! Very happy for you.
freelancer
@suzanne:
He said he’d go to Costa Rica, a country with NO military, a Public Option, and better Healthcare system than our own.
Irony, she dead.
@A Mom Anon:
That is awesome, Mom. Thanks for sharing your good news.
Redshift
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
Heck, our former Democratic candidate for governor introduced a bill this year to allow kids to get lifetime gun licenses at age two, so I wouldn’t put anything past ’em…
Mnemosyne
@Brian J:
See, you’re assuming that we have a vested interest as a society to help intelligent people advance themselves and get an education regardless of their social class. Unfortunately, the real aim is to maintain a two-tiered system so the kids of rich folks don’t have to worry about competition from poorer but smarter kids.
Redshift
@A Mom Anon: Congratulations, hope it turns out well! Being unemployed sucks for the whole family.
gwangung
@A Mom Anon: Hoohah! GREAT news!
mr. whipple
@A Mom Anon:
Wow, that’s great news!!! Just awesome.
Sentient Puddle
If the point is to sink health care, then this is a pretty poor way of doing it. Attach this on to the reconciliation bill, and it begins to look more and more like an omnibus bill (which hell, means tack even more onto it!), and the more it looks like an omnibus, the more it looks like previous reconciliation bills, which makes the whole “this is unprecedented” narrative start to lose credibility.
So…yeah, I don’t really see any downside.
gwangung
Because most people don’t understand what an education MEANS. They think it’s just a grander vocational training program, only for doctors, engineers, scientists and businessmen.
That an education can teach a person to THINK is inherently horrifying to most Americans.
mogden
The only decent reform here would be to stop subsidizing college education without a stringent means test. If you want to know why college education is so expensive, it is because the government shovels money into college tuition subsidies.
demo woman
@A Mom Anon: Wahoo!!!
Congratulations!
Brachiator
@Sly:
Of course the little fly in the ointment here is that when the Fed directly assumes the burden of the loan program, defaults don’t go away. To the contrary, there is political pressure to forgive student loan indebtedness or to turn loans into grants and scholarships.
And while the private sector can be bloated, fee-gouging and profit driven, people are drinking the Kool-Aid if they believe that the gummint is by contrast sleek, efficient and even-handed.
Still, the CBO report suggests overall better results with a direct program, even though may be more a function of the craptastic private programs than any inherent benefit in gummint direct lending.
Maude
@A Mom Anon: Wow.
Wave good bye to the last circle of hell. Congrats.
geg6
Well, something within my area of expertise! But I will not be signing on with FDL in order to further this effort. I have a professional organization (NASFAA or the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators) that does my lobbying for me (in addition to all the colleges and universities who are also lobbying for it).
There are two major components to this which will benefit students and tax payers.
First would be changing the student loan system from two different programs with identical products to one program that lowers costs for students and tax payers and makes the system more efficient overall. Currently, there is one student loan program called the Direct Loan program. If a college or university chooses to be in the Direct Loan program, the students and/or parents borrow directly from the federal government. All interest and fees go right back into the program and help pay for new Direct Stafford and PLUS Loans and Pell Grants. The other loan program is the FFELP (Family Federal Educational Loan Program). This program makes students and parents borrow from a lender. The loan principal comes from the federal government, so the lenders risk nothing. In return, the lenders get a cut of the interest and fees, so the government gets a much smaller cut to help pay for the other loans and grants. In addition, the interest rate of the Federal PLUS Loan in FFELP is .6% higher than the one in the Direct Loan program and that entire amount goes to the lenders. This is sweet, sweet deal for the lenders. They risk nothing and make a lot of money for basically nothing. You can see why they don’t like this legislation and are fighting it tooth and nail.
The second part that is very important is the regulation it will put on private alternative educational loans. These loans are made by private lenders like Sallie Mae and Citibank and are meant for students who can’t borrow enough under the Stafford Loan program to cover costs and whose parents can’t or won’t apply for a PLUS Loan or for students who are ineligible for student aid due to not yet being accepted into a degree seeking program, to unsatisfactory academic progress, or who have reached the lifetime borrowing limit in the Stafford Loan program. These educational loans are not much different from other consumer loans in that lenders set their own rules, interest rates, fees, borrowing limits, credit worthiness and need for co-signers, payment terms and schedules, and how often these terms change (usually every quarter). Some alternative loan lenders are very ethical, but just as we’ve seen with big banks and Wall Street, most are just out to make a buck off the backs of naive and (usually) finance illiterate students and families. This proposed legislation would close one of the huge loopholes for these lenders. Currently, ethical lenders contact the school to “certify” the loan, meaning we make sure the student isn’t borrowing more than his/her cost of attendance (COA) minus any other aid, that the student is in good academic standing, and that the student is actually attending. They send the money directly to the school and we then apply it ot the student’s account and refund any cash over what is owed on the bill. Unethical lenders do not do this and let students borrow huge amounts over COA or while in unsatisfactory academic progress, borrow without credit-worthy co-signers which increases interest rates and fees exponentially, borrow without actually being enrolled, and sometimes send the money directly to the student with no school oversight. As an example, over the last couple of years, I had several students borrow from one particular lender who would let students use another student as a co-signer (neither of whom had any sort of credit record) and sent giant checks to the students, who thought they had hit the lottery. Little did they know that fees of prime rate + 4 and interest rates of up to 29% were being charged. And all of this was being adjusted quarterly.
If you are interested in this subject, please go to the NASFAA website here:
http://www.nasfaa.org/Home.asp
There is a section there for parents and students with the basics of financial aid. There is also a news section and one regarding our research, regulation, and legislative initiatives.
A Mom Anon
Is there money out there for ahem,more mature people,ahem,who never had the chance to go to school when they were 18? I’d love to go to school,but can’t afford to take out loans for even a two year program. I always really regretted not going past high school,it’s always been a financial thing with me. If there was grant or scholarship program for someone my age I’d probably take advantage of it if I met the requirements.
WereBear
@A Mom Anon: This is so wonderful!
Rick Taylor
@Tim I
__
Ahhhhhhh, thank you. Hoo boy, what a mess.
kay
I don’t like reconciliation, because this is wildly popular.
It’s also Arne Duncan’s issue (I think, judging by how he mentions it every ten minutes) and the last student loan expansion-reform plan the Democrats initiated (in 2007) passed the Senate with 79 votes.
Bush signed it.
Arne Duncan deals primarily with governors, and I would think expanding Pell grants would be beneficial to any governor, in terms of educating their people and funneling money to state schools.
For right now, I’d go with that approach, bottom up, states to the Senate, rather than to the Senate. If they got 79 and a Bush sign-off last time, I’d think they could do this, with lots and lots of home-state pressure.
The opposition to this are reduced to arguing that it will cost jobs at private lenders, which is just pathetic, so they got nothing.
Very Reverend Crimson Fire of Compassion
@A Mom Anon: HOT DAMN! CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
daryljfontaine
@A Mom Anon: Congratulations!
@suzanne: Can we use this as a way to spur more Democratic Congressmen to PTFB?
D
Rick Taylor
@A Mom Anon
__
Congratulations!
geg6
@Brachiator:
This is so uninformed that I don’t even know where to begin. But suffice it to say that you don’t know what you’re talking about in this area. I’ve experienced both and I know which works better. And it isn’t the private sector.
Cat
@Mnemosyne:
This.
I don’t know if they consciously think this or if they just don’t like subsidizing public education because it helps the ‘undeserving’ and they unintentionally benefit of maintaining the social and economic status of their demographic. Either way its a great plan.
Keith G
@A Mom Anon: Way to go!!
I’ll down a pilsner for both of your good fortune and stick-with-it-ness.
geg6
@A Mom Anon:
I’ll give you my email address if you like. We can talk about your options.
ETA: Pass my congrats on to your hubby!
Keith G
@A Mom Anon: Re money for schooling: What state are you in?
Also, a quick stop to your nearest college’s financial aid office will be a help. They are aware of grant and programs for differing student populations at both the state and fed level.
A Mom Anon
@geg6: Oh,thank you! Just dash me a note at gardenspirit1 at teh hotmail dot com thing. I’d love to have a clue what options are out there.
Cat Lady
@A Mom Anon:
Phew! That’s so great. I’ve been worried about you every day. Thanks for sharing here right away so I can cross you off of the “things to worry about today” list, and go back to wishing karmic retribution on wingnut assholes.
ETA: I think BJ’ers have untapped power for good. You share your concerns, we send positive vibes your way, and boom! Husband gets job. Coincidence? It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
jeffreyw
@A Mom Anon: Yay!
suzanne
@A Mom Anon:
YAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!
With any luck, my mom will be next.
Mnemosyne
@geg6:
Wasn’t there a scandal a few years ago where it turned out that some colleges were getting kickbacks from lenders for steering their students to private loan programs over government ones?
ellaesther
A very serious question, possibly for TimF.? Or anyone else who may know:
I have called and called my elected officials about HCR. In the past, I have called and called about Israel/Palestine, in support of peace efforts.
I have this sense that if I start calling next week about this initiative, as much as I agree with it, I will begin to be That Crazy Woman Who Calls.
I know from working in newspapers that when someone writes letters every week, they become That Crazy Letter Writer, and everyone stops listening.
Does it pay to call about a handful of issues, or is it better to restrain yourself somewhat? I imagine it matters if you’re articulate and so on, but mostly, it’s just some staffer who takes your name, your aye/nay, and your zip code — no room for articulate-ness.
Thoughts? Please?
kay
I don’t think this person gets nearly enough negative attention:
“I would think that the White House would prefer not to make senators vote for something that is going to be very unpopular in their states — and for good reason,” said Jamie Gorelick, a former Clinton administration official who is now lobbying for the lending industry.
She claims there are 45,000 jobs at stake, but only about 10,000 have been identified.
So, this paragon of public service is lobbying like a mad women to deny Pell grants, and the only justification is a subsidy to private lenders.
mapaghimagsik
Where’s my daily hippie punch?
freelancer
@Mnemosyne:
See also, Lincoln NE based “Nelnet“. The University of Nebraska branches all steered their students toward Nelnet when I started college. Not so much anymore.
Mnemosyne
@ellaesther:
I think that’s why Tim advises trying to get on a first-name basis with the staff if you can. If you make it pleasant for them to talk to you, then it won’t be, “That crazy lady is calling again,” it will be, “Oh, hi, ellaesther, what’s up?”
Think of it as networking.
Ed Drone
@Mnemosyne:
Yes. I watched a couple of people in my office get put on leave, and then, well, leave. It wasn’t what I work on, or the area where I work, but it happened.
Ed
(My screen name should be a give-away; I’m in Education, but simply a cubicle-bound drone worker.)
KG
@Brian J: funny thing, when I was at a state university back in the mid-90s, and the economy was on a roll, they kept cutting fees and tuition (to the point that I didn’t really need student aid after my freshman year). Apparently, nobody thought that the good times would stop rolling, and that there wasn’t much need for building a surplus/endowment. Now, all hell is breaking loose (or has already broken loose), and the only answer they have is to raise fees and tuition – which is pissing off students and parents who are currently cash strapped.
And of course, it doesn’t really help that, on the state level, any and all education reform starts and stops with K-12 class sizes.
Annie
@A Mom Anon:
Yay……………….
GReynoldsCT00
@A Mom Anon:
That’s wonderful news!
Redshift
@Mnemosyne: Yes, exactly. If you have a rep who’s sympathetic or open to your viewpoint (i.e., not a raving wingnut), he staff generally like hearing from people who are engaged and informed. From talking to my rep’s staffers, the only people they think are weird are the ones who contact them several times a day (phone or email) with the exact same spiel, word for word.
The Populist
Why must we give banks this deal? They have done nothing but beg the taxpayers to bail them out of their mistakes and in return jack up interest rates on their GOOD, paying customers.
I see that Citi is adding a yearly fee to their cards along with BofA and Chase. The best part is that they are doing it to people who use credit responsibly (charge, pay off, charge, pay off).
When will people wake up and stop listening to the idiots on talk radio? This is NOT a free market when a customer is penalized for canceling a card (FICO goes DOWN) in protest of this kind of thing. Fico comes down and it becomes harder to move to another bank for a more reasonable card (if you need one).
I dare any rightie to show me where are “free markets” are. Seems to me it’s a market rigged to protect the few gigantic corporations at the expense of the people and small business owners.
Tsulagi
Has this HCR debate taught you nothing? Seriously, you’re advocating for single payer in student loans? You must be a real PUMA, Hamsherite of the Left, or whatever to even be blowing right past a public option.
You don’t see the big picture. Bankers can extend loans to millions of students currently without loans. Sure their costs are inflated, but maybe their profit rates could be capped at 15-20%. Of course following past history they’d get around regs, but it’s the thought that counts. To recover some costs, students with Cadillac loans can be taxed. As with players in the healthcare industry, bankers crave and deserve love too. Have you no heart, hippie?
Brachiator
@geg6:
Are you saying that students don’t default on loans, that government collection efforts are efficient, or what?
And the Tax Code contains provisions that forgive student loan debt in certain circumstances (see IRS Pub 4681, page 4). Obviously, here there would be no default and nothing to try to collect, which may be for the greater good, but it is still an instance of the government expunging a debt.
Apart from this, I noted that I agreed with the overall conclusions of the CBO report, which seems to me the more important issue, right?
The Populist
@Tsulagi:
Problem is, they will find a way around any regs you throw at them because the Dems are too afraid to put teeth in them.
Tsulagi
@A Mom Anon:
That’s good news. Happy for you. Know a few people who would like to be making the same kind of announcement so celebrate a little tonight.
Robertdsc-iphone
@A Mom Anon:
Excellent!
Svensker
@A Mom Anon:
Yay! That’s great news.
Jenn
@A Mom Anon:
Wahoo! Congratulations to you all, that’s wonderful! I can only imagine how much it feels has been lifted from your shoulders. (I remember after one particularly stressful part of my life got fairly instantly resolved, I literally felt lighter as I walked. I’d never really realized before then the extent to which a mental burden became a physical one.)
Brachiator
@A Mom Anon:
Great news! Congrats to ya!
As others have noted, there may be grants and stuff available to you. But if you can swing a loan or a deferred tuition plan, there are a number of education benefits that may be of help, including the new and improved American Opportunity Credit.
Ming
@A Mom Anon: That’s fantastic! Thanks so much for letting us know!
liberal
@Brian J:
One very smart guy I used to read a lot on USENET had the following argument for public investment in education. It’s to counter the “libertarian” argument that people who receive education should pay for it themselves, and the market will see to it that there’s an adequate amount of it.
This guy pointed out that that’s not true, because you can’t capitalize “education.” Meaning, some second party can’t invest in a student, in the true sense. The only way to do it would be through something equivalent to indentured servitude, which (for good reasons) no longer exists.
Thus, the “market” left to itself will result in too little investment in education.
liberal
IIRC, one ridiculous thing was Congress guaranteeing lenders (mainly NELNET?) a certain interest rate. Beyond covering them for credit risk, this was simply a handout, because market rates otherwise had gone below the rate set by statute. Criminal.
liberal
@A Mom Anon:
One big fat warning: IIRC, student loans are one of the few forms of debt that CANNOT be discharged in bankruptcy.
That doesn’t mean it’s always wrong to take on a loan, but it’s best to know about this.
Mike Kay
Seanly
@Brian J:
This has occurred in a few locations. In Bethlehem PA, Lehigh University (a mid-sized private college) is now one of the largest private employers in the Lehigh Valley. LU even bought the Mountaintop Research Campus that Bethlehem Steel built in the 70’s when they were trying to use science to save the steel industry.
Lehigh does a lot of research and so is pretty busy full year.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
Real progressive dem senators will never fall for this obvious poison pill ploy by the firebaggers to kill HCR, by adding Student Loan reform to the reconciliation mix. So waste yer money, that’s what it’s for.
Linda Featheringill
To A Mom Anon:
Wonderful! Hooray!
Here’s to better times.
David in NY
OT, but just returned from a jaunt to the Great Orange Satan, where Bruce Webb has posted a diary analyzing Kucinich’s silly health-care-and-ponies-and-everything-for-all-including-illegal-immigrants bill in the House, making the obvious point about its total impracticality. And the folk are rising to defend Dennis and claim there is a conspiracy and, implicitly, that no bill is better than the only available bill.
To me, oddly, the commenters on that diary (there are many more sensible ones elsewhere) sound more like teabaggers (it costs too much!!!) than like progressives. Sure, I’d like a pony, too, but there aren’t any in sight.
Barry
Silver Owl
“Over the last 10 years I have come to the conclusion that fiscal conservatives are more concerned with rich folks richer. They have yet to propose any ideas that are actually cost effective while accomplishing the stated goal. Instead they lower goal and spend more money for less.”
For all practical purposes, there is no such thing as a fiscal conservative, there are just right-wingers who want to cut taxes on the rich and spend money on the rich.
We’ve seen this cycle through before; people who pumped up the deficit under Reagan became born-again deficit hawks under Clinton, voted for Bush’s tax cuts and spending, and then are now born-again-again deficit hawks.
Zuzu's Petals
@A Mom Anon:
I was a 30-year-old freshman back in the day (and a single mom). I qualified for the same financial aid as any other independent student, except they allowed for a more realistic budget for someone like me: for instance, after-school care for my son was factored into my living expenses.
Go for it is my advice. And by the way, congrats on the good news!
Something Fabulous
@A Mom Anon: Oh, congratulations! You must be so relieved. Fantastic news!
JackieBinAZ
If there’s an institution in this country that needs to have money thrown at it, it’s our educational system. Just attend any school board meeting at budget time – or note the battle for school override votes in your own community – to see the push and pull between stakeholders over scant dollars. It’s created a culture of defensiveness that infects any real discussion about how to fix education in this country – after all, what is the kneejerk, conventional wisdom that has to be injected into every discussion about education reform but that “more money isn’t the answer.” It’s not the whole answer but until we value education enough in our culture to support it beyond near-starvation level, this will always poison the discussion. Which, coincidentally, is good news for Republicans. Imagine that.
geg6
@Mnemosyne:
Yes. In New York especially. Thankfully, my university was not a part of that. But it is just an indication of how little ethics private lenders (and some schools) have.
geg6
@Brachiator:
Actually, student loan default rates have been at all time lows for many years (though I expect this to change due to the economy). This is party due to changes to and expansions of the deferment, forbearance, and income-based payment plans. Government efforts are pretty efficient and, eventually, all defaults end up the government’s to collect. But why should we be paying lenders to do collections, and then pay more to collection agencies to do collections, and then have the default end up something the feds have to do anyway (which they usually do through garnishment of tax refunds and other options that private companies don’t have the power to do)? It will save money to cut out the two middle guys if we have to the defaults through the government in the end anyway.
As for loan forgiveness programs, they aren’t as broad as the passage you highlight implies. They change from year to year because they are based on where our labor force needs workers and workers who can afford to stay at the jobs. Teachers who work for low-income or inner city districts are a good example. Medical workers who go to work in rural areas that lack medical care. The students must commit to work for a period of years in these areas and have a portion of their loans forgiven. I think it’s a good thing and while we may lose a little bit of revenue (and it’s a very small portion of the federal borrowing population), but we gain tax-payers working in areas where there were not enough people working to start.
Fern
@lol: that was my first guess.
arguingwithsignposts
@geg6:
There are many gov’t jobs that you cannot have if you default on a student loan or are more than 6 months overdue, as well.
tyrese
Elise
So…FDL is several days behind what Harkin is planning to do?