Revamping of Student Loans

Karalysia

Deity
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
8,438
WASHINGTON — Ending one of the fiercest lobbying fights in Washington, the Senate voted Thursday to force private commercial banks out of the federal student loan business, cutting off billions in risk-free profits in a sweeping restructuring of financial-aid programs that was included in — if overshadowed by — the health care package. The House was expected to concur later Thursday.

For 45 years, commercial banks like Sallie Mae and Nelnet have made loans under the bank-based loan program, receiving guaranteed federal subsidies to loan money to students, with the government assuming nearly all the risk.

Democrats have long denounced the program as a form of corporate welfare that fattened the bottom line for banks at the expense of students and taxpayers.

“There is no service that is being provided by the banks any more,” said Representative George Miller, Democrat of California and chairman of the education and labor committee. “The lenders ran out of services to provide to justify their costs.”

The legislation substitutes an expanded direct-lending program by the government for the bank-based program, directing $36 billion over 10 years to Pell grants, which are aimed at students from low-income families.

Overall, the Congressional Budget Office said, the new lending approach will save taxpayers approximately $61 billion over 10 years. Roughly $40 billion of the savings will be redirected to higher-education. In addition, education programs will get an additional $10 billion from the health-care reform package.

But allies of the student-loan industry attacked the overhaul as a government takeover of the federal student loan business.

“The Democratic majority decided, well look, while we’re at it, let’s have another Washington takeover,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and a former federal education secretary. “Let’s take over the federal student loan program.”

The student-loan legislation, a centerpiece of President Obama’s education agenda since he took office, was approved by the Senate Thursday afternoon, by a vote of 56 to 43, with Republicans unanimously opposed. The House, which already approved the legislation on Sunday, was expected to give it final approval later Thursday. .

Even as the Democrats’ decision to attach the student-loan overhaul to the healthcare package virtually ensured its passage, the banks fought fiercely up to the last minute, prompting some lawmakers like Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, to cast their vote against the overall bill.

And while Democrats and the White House hailed the legislation as the most far-reaching overhaul of federal financial aid programs in a generation, the final bill is far less ambitious than the administration’s original proposal.

For individual students, the increase in the maximum Pell grant — to $5,900 in 2019-20 from $5,550 for the 2010-11 school year — is minuscule, compared with the steep, inexorable rise in tuition for public and private colleges alike.

The administration also scrapped $8 billion in proposed spending on early-childhood education. And it mostly erased a $12 billion “American Graduation Initiative,” which was announced with fanfare in the fall as an effort to bolster the workforce by doubling the nation’s college-completion rate.

Community colleges, slated to receive $10 billion under the administration’s original plan, will instead get just $2 billion for job training.

“I’m disappointed,” said Eduardo Padron, the president of Miami Dade College, one of the nation’s largest community colleges. “For the first time, we had a president who understood the importance of community colleges, and we were validated and recognized for our role in opening the doors of higher education. The fact that we will not be able to fund that to the extent we wanted is very sad.”

The private banks had lobbied fiercely against the overhaul, arguing that it would eliminate jobs, even though the government will hire many of the same banks on a contract basis to service the loans and perform other back-office administration.

But while supporters praised the shift to direct lending as a major achievement, the weak economy and the protracted legislative process conspired to gut much of the administration’s ambitious education package.

The original proposal stood to save $87 billion over 10 years. But as the Senate delayed in taking up the legislation, colleges and universities began shifting to the direct lending program, realizing the savings to the Treasury up front and cutting the amount of money available for future spending. At the same time, an increase in the number of Americans enrolling in college and seeking financial aid, as a result of the recession, raised the projected costs of the enhanced Pell grant program.

In addition, to comply with the complex budget reconciliation rules, some of the savings from the education changes had to be redirected to pay for parts of the health care legislation.

The bill includes some landmark changes, such as automatic increases, tied to inflation, in the maximum Pell grant award.

But for individual students and their families, the student-loan legislation will not have a profound impact.

There will be some changes; they will have to take out their loans from the college’s financial aid offices, instead of using a private bank. And they will see very small increases in the amount of the maximum Pell grant they can receive.

But because college costs are rising so quickly, the maximum Pell grant — $5,550 for the next academic year — now covers only about a third of the typical cost of attending a public university, compared to three-quarters in the 1970s, when the Pell program began.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/us/politics/26loans.html?ref=us

Well done President Obama :goodjob: It's thanks to this type of financial aid that I'm in college and its good to see that President Obama cares about college students and its good to see that we now get the loans directly through the government rather than subsidizing corporate welfare queens.

However I wish he had been able to institute his full program though, my tuition is increasing massively thanks to budget cuts so we're really getting screwed. Hopefully he will be able to institute his other programs in separate legislation.
 
Even worse now he's helping homeowners, won't somone please think of the corporations??

The Obama administration on Friday will announce a broad new initiative to help troubled homeowners, potentially refinancing several million of them into fresh government-backed mortgages with lower payments.

The escalation in aid comes as the administration is under rising pressure from Congress to resolve the foreclosure crisis, which has put millions of Americans at risk of losing their homes. But the programs are likely to spur protests among those who have kept up their payments and are not in trouble.

A major element of the new program, according to several sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity, will be to encourage lenders to write down the value of loans for borrowers in modification programs. Until now, modification programs have focused on lowering interest rates.

Another major element will involve the government, through the Federal Housing Administration, refinancing loans from borrowers whose home’s value has sunk below what they owe on it. More than 11 million homeowners are in this position, known as being underwater. That aspect of the plan would apply even to borrowers who have not fallen behind in their mortgage payments.

The investors who own the loans would have to swallow losses but would probably be assured of getting more in the long run than if the borrowers went into foreclosure. The F.H.A. would insure the new loans against the risk of default.

Many details of the administration’s plan remained unclear Thursday night, including the precise scope of the new programs and the number of homeowners likely to qualify.

This much was clear, however: the plan could put taxpayers at increased risk. If many additional borrowers move into F.H.A. loans, a new downturn in the housing market could send that government agency into the red.

The F.H.A. has already expanded its mortgage-guarantee program substantially in the last three years as the housing crisis deepened, insuring more than six million borrowers. Sources said the agency would receive $14 billion in funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, cash it could dangle in front of financial institutions as incentives to participate in the new program.

A third element of the White House’s housing program will require lenders to offer unemployed borrowers a reduction in their payments for a minimum of three months.

An administration official declined to speak on the record about the new programs but said they would “better assist responsible homeowners who have been affected by the economic crisis through no fault of their own.”

The plan would essentially supplant the government’s earlier mortgage modification plan, announced a year ago with great fanfare. It has resulted in fewer than 200,000 people getting permanent new loans. As many as seven million borrowers are seriously delinquent on their loans and at risk of foreclosure.

While fewer people are beginning to default, the number of borrowers who are seriously distressed is rising. In the fourth quarter, the number of households at least 90 days past due on their mortgages swelled by 270,000, according to a report issued Thursday by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

“The government is seeking to persuade people to stay in their homes by aligning the mortgage debt with the asset value, which is the only viable path to real housing stability,” said one person who was briefed on the government’s plans. Several people who described the plans would speak only on condition of anonymity, since they had not been authorized to disclose details ahead of a White House briefing scheduled for Friday morning.

The number of foreclosures in the fourth quarter rose 9 percent, to 128,859. Another 38,000 owners disposed of their homes in short sales, where the lender agreed to accept less than it was owed. Starting this month, the Treasury Department is promoting new rules to facilitate short sales. Borrowers who are trying to sell their homes in short sales can also put off foreclosure for many months.

Both lenders and the Obama administration have been under pressure to save many of the homeowners now in foreclosure limbo. Bank of America, the country’s biggest bank, announced this week that it would forgive principal balances over a period of years on an initial 45,000 troubled loans.

Lenders began offering principal forgiveness last year on loans they held in their own portfolios. In the fourth quarter, however, this process abruptly reversed itself. The number of modifications that included principal reduction fell by half.

A person briefed on the plan said it was unclear how many of the 11.4 million underwater borrowers in the country would qualify for the new program, but the number could well be in the millions.

The administration recognizes that some people’s finances have deteriorated so much that they are beyond help, the person said. People in that situation simply cannot afford the houses they are living in, the person said, even if the mortgages were reduced to match the current value of the homes.

“All these programs are geared toward people for whom it makes sense, for whom it’s workable when all is said and done,” the person said. “Some people are too far gone.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/business/26housing.html?hp
 
The banks will still be able to make big gambles on derivatives surrounding these refinancings, though, right? And by gamble, I mean tax-free winnings and taxpayer-covered losses.
 
The student loan thing was such a no-brainer, I can't believe that it hadn't been done before. Wait . . . I've seen a lot of Representatives and Senators on TV lately. Yes, I can believe it.

It was simply a giveaway of taxpayer dollars to banks. And I saw someone on this forum (I can't remember who) warning about Obama's "government takeover of student loans!" Talk about the peasant mentality.

Re: housing. No, no, no! Keep listening to the banks like you've been doing, Barry! Your policies to stem foreclosures were working wonderfully, and now you're going to screw it up.* My opinion has nothing to do with the fact that I might want to buy a house soon.

Cleo

*Troll prophylactic: not really. Of course we have to help people stay in their homes.
 
Of course we have to help people stay in their homes. - Cleo

We have to help people stay in their homes they can't afford so that I can have a harder time legitimately purchasing a home.
 
We have to help people stay in their homes they can't afford so that I can have a harder time legitimately purchasing a home.

With all due respect Merkinball, I don't think your particular situation should drive Obama's housing policy decisions. We should help people stay in their homes not so you have a hard time with something, but so those people aren't homeless.

Cleo
 
With all due respect Merkinball, I don't think your particular situation should drive Obama's housing policy decisions. We should help people stay in their homes not so you have a hard time with something, but so those people aren't homeless.

Cleo

It's called renting. Why should I be stuck renting, while paying higher taxes for this program, to support some guy who can't afford his house? Obama's policy will artificially inflate the costs of housing while robbing me of my ability to afford a home as well. It's a double whammy for current renters looking to improve their lot in life. Why should the the people looking to improve be punished so that people who are stumbling can maintain their way of life?

Why does a current house owner take precedent over a current renter? Why can't people take a step back? I thought you liberals were against artificially creating different classes of people.
 
Why does a current house owner take precedent over a current renter? Why can't people take a step back? I thought you liberals were against artificially creating different classes of people.

Why don't you stop to think and consider how renters can exist? How landlords can exist? How debt and mortgages can exist? Laws allow that existence, grant that privilege. In fact without laws no one can hold more property that what he/she can occupy. It is entirely reasonable for other laws to limit those privileges.

You don't like it, vote against it. But you'll have to live with whatever the majority manages to enact as law. You have no better natural right to oppose it that anyone else has to support it.
 
Bah. Student loans are useless because people don't need to be given incentives to be industrial plant managers and useful things like that. They just want to be. If they don't want to be poor. And we shouldn't incentivise poverty, right?
 
It's called renting. Why should I be stuck renting, while paying higher taxes for this program, to support some guy who can't afford his house? Obama's policy will artificially inflate the costs of housing while robbing me of my ability to afford a home as well.
You get $70k a year and you're complaining about your ability to afford a home?
 
Come on, let's stick up for these people! It's not like they're going to default again or something.

Half of U.S. Home Loan Modifications Default Again

March 25 (Bloomberg) -- More than half of U.S. borrowers who received loan modifications on delinquent mortgages defaulted again after nine months, according to a federal report.

The re-default rate of loans modified in the first quarter of 2009 was 51.5 percent by the end of the year, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision said in a joint report today. The figure, which measures payments at least 30 days late, climbed to 57.9 percent for changes made in the prior 12 months.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aVYxPZ56vjys
 
You get $70k a year and you're complaining about your ability to afford a home?
Dunno about Merk's situation, but even on $70k (£47k) you'd struggle to afford the downpayment if you've only been earning that for a few years after university. Especially in the US, where I understand student loans can be a real strain.

Oh wait you're fixing that, to some extent :)
 
You don't like it, vote against it. But you'll have to live with whatever the majority manages to enact as law. You have no better natural right to oppose it that anyone else has to support it. - Innonimatu

Ah. Tyranny of the majority. Got it. :rolleyes:

You get $70k a year and you're complaining about your ability to afford a home? - Bill

So? My wage doesn't effect any of those arguments I pose. I would like to buy a home as soon as possible so I can begin building up equity as soon as possible. Starting in June I will effectively be paying for two places to live. I'll be paying rent to a Landlord, and saving for a down payment on a house. The amount I have to save, and the time I have to save it up, will both increase thanks to this program.

Oh, and 70K a year doesn't really get you a whole lot if you are living responsibly.

Sad. - Kerozine

You know what's sad? Whining and moaning about how bubbles destroyed our economy while you are actively pursuing economic policies that inflate bubbles, while harming citizenry that could otherwise afford a home. Not only by instituting policies such as this, but by also manipulating the tax code. The government has no business playing favorites amongst the citizenry. They are supposed to represent all of us, and treat us as equals. But really, they put those who they want votes from up on a pedastil and spit on the rest of us and impede our life.
 
Back
Top Bottom