Yes, a progressive bill passed yesterday. One that liberals had been attempting for decades, one that confounded past Democratic Presidents, one that forced Congress to take on a massive lobbying coalition of politically powerful industries, one that looked nearly impossible at various points along the way, one that only made it through progressive advocacy and activism as well as a fair amount of political leadership.
No, not the health care law. I’m sure Mitt Romney and AEI resident scholars did not favor the truly progressive bill about which I’m speaking.
(By the way, liberals pouncing on that as if I’m supposed to feel good about it, could you, y’know, stop? Do you understand that continued defenses of the Obama agenda with lines like “But this is what Republicans proposed!” doesn’t do much for, um, people who dont believe Republican ideas work? And that it makes it look pretty much like liberals have no ideas? Could you please cut that out?)
I’m talking about the sweeping changes to the student loan industry, where banks and lenders suffered an unequivocal loss to their profits, and students gained a great victory for making college more affordable.
The previous system allowed banks to make risk-free, government-guaranteed loans, and reap billions in taxpayer subsidies for the privilege. Now, we have a direct-lending system, where the government, instead of backstopping loans, will just lend to students themselves. This saves $87 billion dollars – the news of its imminent arrival already changed the market dynamics and put the subsidies on a trajectory out the door, and the passage of the law fully cancels the last $61 billion. Banks making record profits lose one area where they were receiving what amounts to free money from the government. Yes, this is nationalizing an industy – one that was effectively nationalized already through an explicit guarantee, and will now be made more efficient and cost-effective.
In return, around $36 billion dollars goes into the Pell grant program, allowing it to index to inflation for the first time. Yes, the Pell grant used to cover 75% of the costs of college for low-income students, and only 35% today. But this rise in the grant award over time will alleviate that, and hopefully return it to a number that puts 8 million students in a better situation to finance their higher education. In addition, future borrowers will have lower rates and a not-for-profit lender delivering those rates, so students are helped on the front end and back end.
Along the way, because of the early success of the program prior to the law’s passage, as well as the recession driving demand for college financial aid, the savings were less than expected. And using the reconciliation process, and teaming the student loan program with health care, shrunk the pot of money even further. Key programs like early childhood education and community colleges do not get funding in the bill (though historically black colleges do). $19 billion dollars got stripped out. But half of that is due to using the reconciliation process; the student loan title had to save a certain amount of money. The $9 billion that goes from bankers to the health care bill is a better way to pay for that than taxing the middle class. The student loan bill may be more modest, but it’s an unquestionable progressive victory.
That’s why it’s so amusing to me that the usual suspects just discovered it today, as if it were a special gift, an Easter egg just before the Easter recess, if you will. They are oblivious to the fact that this was a hard-fought victory. The student loan bill sailed through the House but ran aground in the Senate, with a powerful combination of Sallie Mae and big bank lobbyists conspiring to influence key Senators. They hired from Senate staffs and Democratic lobby shops (Tony Podesta was the ringleader) and dumped millions into their campaign. They made up out of thin air a lie about 35,000 jobs being at stake. They seemed to get the upper hand as health care dragged on.
At the risk of sounding immodest, really only one organization bothered to fight back on behalf of students against banks, at a time when everyone else was consumed with getting AEI’s favorite health care bill across the line. That happened to be this website. And within a couple weeks of action, with students and college advocates, the Democratic leadership shifted from leaving the student loan title out of the reconciliation bill to including it. Tom Harkin and George Miller get a lot of credit for that, but really there was one group pushing from the outside at that time. (CAF jumped on later.)
And so the only progressive bill passed by Congress so far this year, the only progressive bill we’re going to see for the rest of the year, stayed alive thanks to the woman popularly described in the liberal blogosphere as the devil’s spawn. Somehow advocating against bank subsidies and for students escaped the rest of the progressive infrastructure. At least someone was there doing the work.
So you’re welcome.




52 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Responses not running? Why?
Looks like they are.
I’m relieved it did pass. My grandchildren (at least the last 2 out of 5) will benefit greatly.
All I can say is, thank you. My daughter will be borrowing her way through college. It will only get worse, now that our new governor has decided that just because we have the most expensive public university in the country it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pay a little more. Hey, if we don’t like it…Princeton is just a few miles down Route 1.
Good news! And good work!
Now this is what I’d call a good investment.
About that DoD budget (Not an investment in much)…
If you think the lobbying fight was “massive” by a “politically powerful” industry, you haven’t been in DC for very long. The student loan companies got rolled and have been rolled for a year. It was divided with nonprofits going after a carve out.
What was truly massive was the arm-twisting, distortions and propaganda campaign run out of the White House to pass this. The letters to college presidents. The promises of campus visits. The threats of retaliation for speaking out against SAFRA.
This chest-beating is self-indulgent cr*p. All this battle proved is that liberals can lie, cheat and steal with the best of them.
“Better” needs to be seen in context. I have a friend who is just getting her Bachelor’s, will be out $55,000 in student loan debts, and with no money for graduate school and not a whole lot of jobs out there right now. I can foresee a lot of “betters” which still won’t be good enough.
I don’t get your argument here. Who, exactly, wins, and who loses?
jesus, who knew mousing over a link could make me cry ??
thanks David !
and bless “devil’s spawn” wherever she is
Thanks.
Next battle on this topic is to figure out how to rein in higher ed inflation, which is truly gross.
While this surely helps, there is a better way. I know, I know, it won’t happen again in my lifetime, but at least it is worth mentioning.
When I attended one of the Univ of CA campuses back before Reagan ruined everything, the TAX structure of the state provided free tuition. That’s right. Free. (Fees, IIRC, were less than $100 per quarter.) Now that taxes have been shifted from corporations and the wealthy to the rest of us, and putting people in prison for drug offenses is so popular, we have a revenue shortage and outrageous tuition at “public” universities. Surprise, surprise.
thank you! FDL
Couldn’ta said it better myself. The Dems just made a Heritage Foundation idea the law of the land–and they think they’re winners.
Yes, almost criminal. Do you know of any good analysis of the causes of this? Where is the money going? Also, any thoughts about how to attack it? I have long thought that one approach would be to require that any institution accepting federal tuition aid direct a minimum amount of the tuition dollars directly to instructional programs, say %85 or so. I also think caps on salaries make sense too. For the most part academics are either paid pretty fairly or grossly underpaid. However, a small number of them are grossly overpaid, especially some of the high level administrators. Your thoughts?
but it sounds like you think they care what we think… The real problem is, they did exactly what they planned to do and could give a shit about us.
I wrote about inflation in medicine, higher ed, and legal fees in 1991. Called them the mafia of the intelligentsia. The knowledge gap between buyer and seller gives the seller pricing power, thus intelligentsia. In addition to that, the customer is vulnerable (sick, in trouble with the law, making a lifetime decision). The vulnerability of the customer gives the seller even more pricing power, which is why I called it a mafia rather than a cartel.
In the intervening almost 20 years since I identified the problem, I have thought hard about what to do about it. There are no easy answers. They key seems to me to look at other developed countries to see how they do it, and the short version is some sort of price controls, or ‘administrative’ oversight.
Off topic but uglier and uglier…
Mafia is a good analogy. One of the big failings I felt in the HC fight was an unwillingness to take on any of the extortioners.
So perhaps the next move is to try to tie pricing to federal dollars. It seems like the sort of movement that could take off. Unlike health care students will be very motivated by it and they are more likely to do things like demonstrate, march and get behind candidates who would make an issue of it.
good grief.
And of course you have absolutely nothing to back up your Rush-given smears, Mr. Burr.
Exactly.
Sounds like Mr. Burr was doing standard right-wing drive-by trolling. He won’t be back to defend that assertion, much less bring actual proof of it (because of course none exists). He’ll only come back when he thinks we’ll have forgot all about him, and then only to troll on a different topic.
Plus, it didn’t make much sense.
This has been noted and written about for centuries as I am certain you are aware. The (a) problem, is the association of vulnerability (illness, incapacity, poverty etc.) with shame is a huge emotional roadblock. Needless to say the snake oil salesmen from Pope to Politician relentlessly exploit this to achieve their ends.
Coming together as groups does much to erase the shame. Learning and accepting the truth of vulnerability and interdependency is empowering.
WE shall overcome.
Since you seem so full of yourself this morning Mr. Dayen, can you or Mrs. Hamsher answer 2 serious questions for me about SAFRA?
Will this actually do anything or provide any help with those of us who are currently paying on our student loans but not actively seeking any more? And if I go to grad school for my Master’s, will this help me with that at all?
I’ve read bits and pieces about this but I don’t quite know if this would actually do someone like me any good. I imagine it will provide benefits to my wife, however, when she goes to pursue her own Bachelor’s though, so that is cool.
Michael Whitney has a fresh cross-post available: Blanche Lincoln’s Campaign Running Anti-Union Telephone Survey to Arkansas Voters
this bill is not progressive.
it just switched from banks preying on students to govt preying on students.
loans for education is still disgusting.
imagine if elementary school required children to get loans…
One of the reasons UC costs so much is the incredible explosion in administrative jobs and salaries. One word used to describe it is “bloated”.
This from a UCLA faculty newsletter. http://www.uclafaculty.org/FASite/Admin._Growth.html
I’m not familiar with the role of shame, accept your word that it’s important, but it doesn’t make solving the problem any easier. How can someone who’s sick band together as you suggest? How can 18 year olds looking forward to $55,000 & upwards of debt band together? I don’t see organizing as possible, though I’ll think on it more.
that’s Ms. Hamsher.
I think there’s something afoot about repayment of loans tied to ability to pay ie percentage of income going to pay back your student loans.
Apologies for the lack of precision in my answer to your very good question, however rudely you entered the room.
Agree with you about the significance of direct lending, but no offense you take too much credit. It’s not some new idea the people at this site pushed. It’s a long standing Democratic proposal. Yes, there were some against it, but many organizations within the education community were for it. Was it big on MoveOn’s list? Or, I don’t…the daily kos? No. But that’s a real small slice of the liberal pie. So, thanks for sticking with it, but no, it’s not because of FDL that direct student lending passed. C’mon.
Wha? The government doesn’t “prey on students”. Both of my parents went to school all the way through their PhD programs with direct funding from the feds and they paid extremely low interest rates. I wish my sister and I had been able to do the same. These private loans are killing us.
Indeed, what I don’t like about the bill is it does basically nothing for those of us with immense private debts.
Does anyone know if the direct lending goes through graduate school as students used to be able to borrow through?
Yeah!
It’s also way past time to do away with hedges and unregulated private equity funds as we chip away at The Great Ponzi Scheme (data point #1– “The Banks Are Too Big” at http://moveyourmoney.info/archives/1836 ; data point #2- “Dark Pools and Stealth Exchanges Mean Unregulated Stock Markets” at http://firedoglake.com/2009/10/16/dark-pools-and-stealth-exchanges-mean-unregulated-stock-markets ) that has become the world economy (my theory about the US-China financial relationship is that it’s really good cop/bad in which the workers– the producers– not the Cult of Money, are set up to lose):
“Unprecedented relationships are beginning to form in the global bond markets. For as long as anyone can remember, the US government has enjoyed the lowest cost of borrowing whatever the maturity of the bond, because the US has been deemed the safest credit anywhere in the world. The prospect of default of the United States has been considered so low that academics describe the US Treasury bond as the risk-free bond, from which all other credit instruments are priced.
This relationship seems to be breaking down, for the first time in living history. This past week Berkshire Hathaway was able to raise funds at an interest rate lower than that of the US Treasury. Headlines in the financial press stated: “Obama Pays More Than Warren Buffett For Money.” The bonds of DuPont and other stalwart corporate names also yielded less than equivalent maturity Treasuries.”
(from “The World is Choking on Governemnt Debt” at http://agonist.org/numerian/20100324/the_world_is_choking_on_government_debt )
” For example, the Los Angeles Times reported in November 2008 that Goldman had urged some of its biggest clients to place investment bets against the very California bonds that it had helped sell. Such actions could increase investors’ fears about the state’s credit, officials told the paper, thereby driving up the interest rate the state must pay to sell the bonds, increasing the cost to taxpayers.
More recently, Bloomberg News reported that a $4.5 billion state bond offering, handled by Goldman, Citigroup, and JPMorgan Chase, fizzled last October, bringing in less money and costing the state more in interest than anticipated. The state had chosen to forego competitive bids in giving the deal to the trio of companies – which, according to Bloomberg, “made 12.4 million on the deal, contributing to record bonuses in the securities industry a year after getting a total of $80 billion in a federal bailout.”
(from “Is Goldman Going To Greece California?” at http://agonist.org/sean_paul_kelley/20100325/is_goldman_going_to_greece_california )
When I went to school, the interest rate was 3% for student loans and the interest didn’t start accruing until 9 months after I was no longer in school, regardless of whether I got a degree or quit. Those are extremely good terms, hardly predatory. So thanks for pointing that out.
Sorry, masslib, I don’t know
and I don’t know where everyone went either…:
If you haven’t noticed the technique of shaming people in unfortunate circumstances, respectfully, you haven’t been looking. That’s a lot of what this super radical individualism is about. “You should be ashamed to rely on others.” “Interdependency (or social safety net) just means someone takes something for nothing.”
People with similar problems organize all the time. First the shame and loneliness diminish and support may be the only product. But it is the biggest. Some go on to become politically powerful.
The Reagan obsession with money and economics has thrown us all into a habit of viewing all things from the perspective of the religion called economics.
I think if we can regain the paradigm of community and service we will be on our way to restoring much of the best of what we have been and creating more of what we can be.
While legal fees are expensive, and keep going up, they are connected to both the cost of education and healthcare. A solo or small firm practitioner will have a significant amount of debt, at least 50k for the tuition alone (assuming instate) not to mention excess loans to pay for the cost of living (the ABA has a standard that no full time student can work over 20 hours per week). Additionally, many small business (I would put lawyers here too) have to pay for the rising healthcare costs not only for themselves but for their workers too. That said legal fees probably are too high in many locations, but one cannot divorce the other two issues either.
With personal knowledge of what you describe, I agree.
You are articulating a concept that frustrates me no end. I only disagree with the term religion of economics. All societies have an economic system. I would call it the religion of personal financial gain. Or the Bottom Line mentality.
Profits before people. Profits despite people. Profits instead of people.
I see what you’re saying.
Hoever, the mafia of the intelligentsia (MOI) was going on long before Reagan. I was a macroeconomist, the the forecasting business, and in order for me to isolate these microeconomic problems they had to be going on long enough and be big enough to capture my attention. All I did was rank components of the CPI by their rate of price increases over the 25 years prior to 1991 when I did the work. The 25 year date was chosen by data availability for the details I was examining. The rate of price increases in the MOI exceeded inflation for each & every year, including pre-Reagan (this from memory of work done a long time ago, so don’t hold me to precision). In fact, the only time medical inflation didn’t was during the Nixon price controls, which made me laugh. I concluded that docs do what they’re told, the only way you can get thru medical school, so that when Nixon told them not to raise prices, they didn’t. No other group was quite so obedient.
The problem has worsened over the years, owing to the fact that these ‘cartels’ are only loosely organized, so it takes them awhile to figure out how much pricing power they really have.
So let’s get this straight. You have a loan, a student loan, that is easy to get. To make it easier to get and to keep rates lower the government has made it near impossible to default out of student debt. This in essence makes it easy money for lenders, but ensures that students can get cash for school. What’s changed is that the government and schools will be the beneficiaries of this cash instead of a bank, making it more likely that universities will have more money to spend on eduction, in essence education dollars going towards…. education. So evil. [Edited by Moderator: Expletive aimed at other commenters deleted.]
Yes, the MOI problems are interrelated, and there are other component that I didn’t mention. For example, the legal industry is an intersection of a private cartel with a government monopoly, which is hardly a market structure that would ever lead to efficieny.
I only used the term religion to indicate the mind numbing effect of a belief system that is accepted as conventional wisdom, as fact and not open to examination. Any other term that indicates that is cool with me.
Oh I agree these are forces and conflicts that go back likely to pre-history.
But I believe Reaganomics and permutations have taken the mantle of cultural religion and essentially obliterated any other perspective in public discourse which have been there in the past, flourishing and diminishing but always there. Frankly I find even the concept of service rare among those I encounter today.
Monetizing medical care for example has been devastating to those concepts.
I find it interesting that there are people here who seem wedded to the idea that they are the center of everything. News flash. YOU’RE NOT>
with ya… :)
Hate to pop your balloon David, but I support the student loan bill. And Dick Morris supports it. Even Bill O’Reilly has said he supports it.
Mainly, Democratic banking poo-bahs didn’t support it.
BUT, I don’t support the government making a 4 percent interest profit margin on the loans as they will under the bill that passed. 2.5 % verses 6.5% the students will have to pay.
Now, THAT’s progressive.
Yes, that pops my balloon all right. So did the 40 Republicans Senators and 178 Republicans House members who voted against it.
I must say, the uptick in Kossacks who are posting here lately gives me hope that maybe some of them will finally start to venture out of their sheltered little coves into the deep blue sea of nuanced political opinion.
It’s a hope, at least, that seeing something other than mindless pro-Obama boosterism might finally open a few eyes.
So,I take it you like the government earning a 4% profit off the kids? Pretty clever if not progressive.
You have given me faith that there is not the reported shortage of closed minded imbeciles who think only their opinion has any merit.
Can I just mention that I find it amusing to no end that you were so intent on shouting in ALL CAPS that you forgot to release the Shift key when you typed your final period, and got a > instead?