Posts

Economist Richard Vedder: Federal Student Loans ‘Fuel Academic Arms Race’

Photo Credit;: Mike Poresky /flickr

Photo Credit;: Mike Poresky /flickr

As combined student loan debts balloon to over $1 trillion, one economist believes enough is enough — the “tremendously explosive” student loan programs offered by the federal government need to go.

Ohio University economist and chair of Center for College Affordability and Productive Richard Vedder recommends that President Barack Obama and Congress work together to dismantle or greatly shrink the student loan programs that let young Americans rack up debt.

“I would go so far as to say that I think the federal government is more the problem rather than the solution,” Vedder told the Carolina Journal Radio during a Friday interview. “A lot of our problems… come from these tremendously explosive student loan programs and grant programs that the federal government provides.”

Giving 18-year-olds fresh from high school with no financial skills free reign to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars may not be the best course forward, Vedder said. Colleges flush with easy money spend it on administrative pay and luxury fitness centers, increasing tuition all the while.

Read more from this story HERE.

Obama State University

Photo Credit: AFP/Getty Images

Photo Credit: AFP/Getty Images

By Wall Street Journal

President Obama recently concluded a five-year campus speaking tour in which he explained to students how his financing programs were making college more affordable. Then on Thursday he kicked off a new campus speaking tour to tell students that college is unaffordable, and that the financing program he has championed faces increasing defaults.

“We’ve got a crisis in terms of college affordability and student debt,” said Mr. Obama, without a trace of irony at the State University of New York at Buffalo. The same man who three years ago forced through a plan to add $1 trillion in student loans to the federal balance sheet over a decade said on Thursday, “Our economy can’t afford the trillion dollars in outstanding student loan debt, much of which may not get repaid because students don’t have the capacity to pay it.”

Naturally, the President blamed somebody else and demanded more authority over higher education.

Mr. Obama specifically blamed colleges and universities for charging too much. “Not enough colleges have been working to figure out how do we control costs, how do we cut back on costs,” he said. His solution is for the federal government to rate colleges on their effectiveness and efficiency, and then to allocate federal subsidies to the schools that Washington believes are providing the best education at the lowest cost.

Particularly jarring for Mr. Obama’s fans in the faculty lounge, he talked about them on Thursday in the same disrespectful manner that he normally reserves for entrepreneurs. “And I’ve got to tell you ahead of time, these reforms won’t be popular with everybody, especially those who are making out just fine under the current system. But my main concern is not with those institutions; my main concern is the students those institutions are there to serve,” said the President.

Read more from this story HERE.
_______________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

Obama Plan Encourages College Admissions to Discriminate Against Families Earning $60,000+

By Terence P. Jeffrey

President Barack Obama’s college reform plan, released by the White House on Thursday, would encourage colleges to discriminate against applicants who come from families with total incomes of $60,000 or more by awarding colleges higher federal ratings and increased federal aid for admitting a higher “percentage” of students who receive federal Pell Grants, which the Department of Education says are for “low-income” students.

According to a study by the Congressional Research Service, in the 2007-2008 school year, only 2.3 percent of undergraduates who were still dependent on their parents, and whose total family income was $60,000 or more, received Federal Pell Grants.

According to the College Board, in the 2010-2011 school year, only 5 percent of all Pell Grants were distributed to dependent students whose total family income was $60,000 or more.

Colleges that admit and graduate a higher “percentage” of students on Pell Grants–as the Obama plan would encourage them to do–will necessarily admit and graduate a lower percentage of students who are not on Pell Grants.

A college that based its admissions policies solely on the merit of the individual applicant–and did not consider the applicant’s family income or eligibility for a Pell Grant in deciding whether to offer the applicant a place at the school–could be penalized under the Obama plan with less federal aid for itself and for its students if its merit-only admissions policy resulted in a student body with a lower percentage of Pell Grant recipients than other schools.

Read more from this story HERE.

Senate Passes Student Loan Plan

Photo Credit: APA plan to restore lower interest rates on most college loans won Senate approval Wednesday, despite objections from a bloc of Democrats who warned it could ultimately increase the cost of a degree for many students.

The legislation, which is supported by President Obama and is expected to swiftly pass the House, would reinstate a market-based approach for calculating rates, tying them to the 10-year Treasury note. The new rate for undergraduate Stafford loans would be about 3.8% this year, slightly above the rate that expired July 1.

The final vote was 81-18. Sixteen Democrats, joined by Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), voted no.

A market-based system had been in place until 2006, when the rate was fixed at 6.8%. It was later gradually reduced to 3.4%.

Democrats successfully mounted an election-year campaign in 2012 to extend that lower rate for an additional year. As rates were set to return to 6.8% this year, congressional Democrats pushed for another temporary extension. But they found their position weakened by a White House budget plan that supported a return to a market-based plan.

Read more from this story HERE.

Perpetuating Fraud on the Public: DC Cooks Numbers on Student-Loan Program, Obamacare

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Photo Credit: Getty Images

If you think the federal student-loan program looks like a bad deal for taxpayers, imagine how it would look with honest accounting. And now you don’t need to imagine thanks to a new report that’s receiving far too little attention. Turns out that the official “savings” for taxpayers of $184 billion over the next decade really add up to $95 billion in losses.

Here’s the scam: Lawmakers peddle what is a massive subsidy for universities while claiming that student loans generate a windfall for the taxpayer. This phony windfall is conjured by creative accounting that politicians mandated via the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. Specifically, the law requires a deliberate under-counting of the cost of defaults.

This is partly how a Democratic Congress and President Obama managed to enact ObamaCare in 2010 while claiming that their big entitlement expansion would reduce costs. The health plan was paired with legislation that made the U.S. Department of Education the originator of roughly 90% of all student loans, which in turn generated billions in imaginary budget “savings.”

To its credit, the Congressional Budget Office has noted on various occasions that while the law forces it to use this Beltway math, CBO knows it’s not accurate under fair-value accounting. And in a new report on the costs of student loans made in the decade ending in 2023, CBO quantifies the size of this discrepancy at $279 billion. CBO adds with its typically wry understatement that Washington’s mandated accounting method “does not consider some costs borne by the government.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Lawmakers Fail to Reach Student Loan Deal Before July 4 Break

Photo Credit:: AP

Photo Credit:: AP

Interest rates on student loans are set to double on Monday after lawmakers failed to find a bipartisan solution to keep the federally subsidized borrowing costs down.

The Senate adjourned Thursday night for the July 4 recess without approving a student loan rate package.

With the current, 3.4 percent interest rate on Stafford loans — the most popular funding for college students – set to expire on July 1, a host of 11th-hour fixes all failed to generate support from both sides of the aisle. Without new legislation — either to extend the cap, set a new one or find another way to peg the loans – the cap rises to 6.8 percent. Congress could always forge a solution in the following days, even lowering rates retroactively.

The higher rates would add about $3,000 to the total interest on a $23,000 student loan repaid over 10 years.

“At one level it’s modest, but if you have an entry-level position or can’t find work, it starts to add up,” Terry Hartle, senior vice president of the American Council of Education, told FoxNews.com.

Read more from this story HERE.

Deal to Stop Student Loan Interest from Doubling Appears to be Falling Apart

Photo Credit: Forbes

Photo Credit: Forbes

Efforts to keep interest rates on new student loans from doubling appeared to be falling apart Wednesday as the Democratic leader of the Senate declared a bipartisan proposal unacceptable.

With just days to spare before a July 1 deadline, a group of senators from both parties attempted to link interest rates on new federally subsidized Stafford loans to the financial markets in a deal that would avert a costly rate hike for now but could spell higher rates in coming years. The loans account for a quarter of all federal student lending.

The proposal seemed to stall even before it had a chance to be considered.

The chamber’s top Democrat, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, said it could never pass. The Democratic chairman of the education panel said he couldn’t back a plan that doesn’t include stronger protections for students and parents…

There is no limit to how high interest rates could go.

Read more from this story HERE.

Over a Trillion Dollars of Student Loans on the Brink; Fall-Out Could Be Enormous

Photo Credit: AFP

Photo Credit: AFP

Cable news channels regularly stoke their viewers’ fears about China holding $1.1 trillion of U.S. debt. But they’re focused on the wrong $1.1 trillion of loans.

The borrowers of this other $1.1-trillion debt are far more likely to default on their obligations: students, particularly those who went to for-profit colleges. The global consequences could be — and likely will be — staggering…

These loans leave many students entrenched in a permanent underclass. When they default — and they are defaulting in record numbers — the ripple effects spread from shore to shore, and beyond. They have no money to see movies, buy health insurance or, sometimes, even put dinner on the table. And when this many Americans are facing debt they can’t afford, businesses suffer from lower demand, tax revenues decline, and lenders face enormous losses.

This should sound eerily familiar. The situation is not unlike America’s recent housing crisis. In both cases, loans were doled out without regard to credit risks, and borrowers took on substantial debt they could not afford. Years of irresponsible, predatory lending finally caught up with mortgage issuers when homeowners lost their jobs and could not afford to repay their mortgages with interest rates that averaged 6.5%.

Now imagine the economic calamity if those mortgage interest rates had doubled to 13%. That’s the dire situation faced by unemployed and underemployed former students, who have neither steady jobs nor savings to cover tens of thousands of dollars in loans that seem to grow exponentially. We all know what happened to the housing market. Student loans are not far behind.

Read more from this story HERE.

Time For Colleges To Have Skin In The Game-They Need To Guarantee Student Loans

Photo Credit: Irish Central America’s student loan debt is in excess of 1 trillion dollars; it is believed this will be our next huge financial crisis as these loans go into default.

One of the reasons people are having a difficult time repaying their student debt, is that they can’t find jobs as newly minted college graduates. See the 10 worst college degrees by Forbes.

Granted the economy is in the doldrums and good jobs are hard to find. But a college education was sold to these students by the education industry as their ticket to a good paying job.

Let’s use some outcome based education for a change. If you are going to let a student burden him/herself with a huge debt in order to graduate from your school, you should have some skin in the game. Colleges should have to guarantee these loans, instead of laying that debt off onto taxpayers if the student defaults. Perhaps there would be a change in admissions, stricter standards and heavier counseling.

Right now colleges and universities have the best of all worlds. Many are in receipt of government funding, many have endowments and almost all are the recipients of an unending stream of government guaranteed tuition. There is no incentive for them to see if the student loans ever get paid back.

It’s a one way street in the higher education system and it’s time to make some changes. . These easy government backed student loans are correlated to rising costs. Colleges have every incentive to raise costs knowing the loans will be adjusted upward to reflect those costs.

Colleges should have job placement programs for the students they graduate. There needs to be some responsibility from the higher education system and some accountability.

Should taxpayers be put on the hook for a college graduate with a liberal arts degree who can’t find a job? Or if the jobs available with those degrees are low paying and will never be able to justify the student loan amount?

Additionally, let’s face it, many of those attending college aren’t college material and should be learning a trade or craft. Skilled craftsmen make on average far more than many college graduates. Why aren’t colleges and universities offering these types of educations?

The country has a problem supplying the manpower needs of our high tech sector, so much of a problem, that special laws are being created to allow foreign workers into our country that have the math and engineering skills necessary to work in this environment.

We should be proactively pushing students to get educations in the sectors the country desperately has a shortage in, even offering discount tuition, etc. Perhaps even using a hybrid of the voucher system that the Friedman Foundation is promoting for public school choice and introduce some competition.

If a student wants a degree in ethnic/gender studies, music appreciation, law and a whole host of liberal arts that don’t necessarily translate into lucrative careers, then there should be an agreement between the college and the student over how the tuition gets paid. Let colleges aid the student in finding scholarship help, etc.

We saw the problem that unfulfilled promises academic institutions made to students when our cities were clogged with Occupy Wall Street. Many of these young people expressed anger at their inability to find a job, a good paying job with the liberal arts degrees they possessed. They felt they were lied to by their education institutions…in a way they were.

There is also growing unrest among students who are seeing their ever increasing college tuitions rise, while chancellors and educators don’t take a hit and in fact get raises.

Here is an excerpt from an excellent expose’ by JosephPalermo in the California State University system:

“Last year, CSU executives were paid between $240,000 and $400,000 in salary alone. On top of that, each executive is allotted $12,000 per year as an auto allowance. Campus Presidents and the Chancellor each receive either state-owned homes or housing allowances of $50,000 or $60,000 per year. Other perks available to executives include special retirement packages such as lifetime employment as a tenured professor.”

Looking at the above salaries you can see these educators are insulated from the realities that many graduates face after they leave their institutes of higher education. Instead of raises, many of them should be fired. Let’s get some accountability into education

Read more from this story HERE.

Dems Dig in Against Spending Cuts to Clean-Energy Programs

photo credit: sam howzit

Democrats are digging in against cuts to clean-energy research as lawmakers again face a deadline to replace billions of dollars in spending reductions from sequestration.

The “fiscal cliff” deal that lawmakers struck this week delayed the sequestered budget cuts until March, buying Congress a few more weeks to negotiate an agreement to stop them.

Both Republicans and Democrats agree that the across-the-board cut from sequestration should be stopped, but remain deadlocked about what programs should get the ax instead.

The stakes are high for the Energy Department (DOE), which would see its budget slashed 8.2 percent if sequestration were allowed to take effect.

Democrats are vowing to protect funding for clean-energy research in a sequestration deal, arguing the spending is critical for the environment and the country’s economic future. Democrats are also vowing to protect programs in DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE).

Read more from this story HERE.