Search News


Browse Archives

News

Loan Help for the Middle Class

January 26, 2010

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

From the start, President Obama has put the importance of higher education and of students' access to college near the top of his agenda, proposing a restructuring of federal student loan programs to boost financial aid and sending tens of billions of dollars in stimulus funds to students and colleges.

So it's no surprise that as the president, after several rough weeks, seeks to regain his political footing by starting his second year in office with a broad appeal to the middle class, college access and affordability are again at the core of the plan.

The White House announced Monday that the president's State of the Union speech tomorrow night would, as part of a package of comparatively small-scale initiatives aimed at improving the economic lot of middle class Americans, ask Congress to expand the government's newly created Income-Based Repayment Program to reduce the payments of hundreds of thousands more borrowers with sizable loan burdens and comparatively low salaries. The proposals come from the White House's Middle Class Task Force, led by Vice President Joe Biden.

(The State of the Union speech may include some not-so-good news for colleges and students, though: The New York Times reported late Monday that the president would seek a three-year freeze in most domestic spending programs beginning in 2011, which could mean real-dollar reductions for many financial aid, scholarly research and other programs important to higher education. The Times article said the only programs exempted would be those for defense, foreign aid, veterans, and homeland security, as well as the main federal entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.)

The income-based repayment program, which was created by the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 and took effect last summer, caps monthly repayments for borrowers with federally subsidized loans at 15 percent of discretionary income (defined as the difference between adjusted gross income and 150 percent of the federal poverty rate for the borrower's family size and state), and forgives the unpaid balance for a borrower after 25 years. Standard student loan repayment is over 10 years.

The income-based program was designed especially to provide a feasible way for graduates with loan debt to consider public service or other lower-paying jobs, and according to a 2005 Education Department report, about 16 percent of all subsidized loan borrowers had monthly payments greater than 15 percent of their discretionary income.

Under the administration's proposal, the program would extend to the nearly 36 percent of borrowers whose loan repayments exceed 10 percent of their income (instead of the current 15 percent), and would forgive unpaid balances after 20 years instead of 25. The proposal echoes a recommendation made last year (see page 23) by the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators and, in calling for a 20- rather than 25-year window, endorses a suggestion from the Rethinking Student Aid panel convened by the College Board.

In an example provided by the Institute for College Access and Success, a single person who owes $33,000 in federal loans and makes $30,000 a year would pay about $110 a month under the proposal, compared with about $380 a month under standard repayment. Under the current income-based program, the borrower would owe $170 a month.

"People are worried about student loan payments, and this is an area where, by making some relatively simple adjustments in an existing program, we can help with the pressures that families are under," Robert Shireman, deputy under secretary of education, said in an interview about the administration's proposal Monday. Shireman said the proposal would be included in the White House's 2011 budget proposal, which is due early next month.

Because the existing income-based program has been in place only since July, there is little information about how much it has been used and, as such, exactly how much the new program is likely to cost. Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of Finaid.org and a leading financial aid analyst, estimated the cost at about $1 billion over five years.

Reaction to the administration's proposal was uniformly positive from advocates for students and colleges. "This is a timely proposal, given the pressures that families are under," said Lauren Asher, president of the Institute for College Access and Success, whose Project on Student Debt (which Shireman formerly led) helped create the income-based repayment program.

Asher's group and others have argued that restrictions on the existing income-based program have impaired its use; students whose loans are forgiven after 25 years face major tax penalties, and a drafting error resulted in a "marriage penalty" that requires couples who file taxes jointly to pay significantly more than they would otherwise.

The Obama administration's new proposal is independent of its lingering plan to transform the student loan programs and shift tens of billions of dollars toward Pell Grants, community colleges and other purposes -- a plan that remains in limbo amid the Congressional disarray over health care reform.

Since last week's special election in Massachusetts threw the Washington political scene into turmoil, there has been much speculation about how the new balance of power in Congress might affect the prospects of the Student Aid and Financial Responsibility Act, which has passed the House and is pending in the Senate. Critics of the Obama plan, especially, have used the turmoil to escalate their opposition.

But all of the speculation is just that, and the picture remains too murky to write about intelligently.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Loan Help for the Middle Class

  • "Public service?"
  • Posted by B.J.J. on January 26, 2010 at 8:45am EST
  • What is "public service?"

    Is an RN/BSN who works for a for-profit hospital (which pays taxes) less a "public servant" than an RN/BSN who works for a non-profit hospital?

    No. It is just another obvious taxpayer-funded grab for votes. That poorly serves "bi-partisanship."

    Sad, disappointing, and in dire need to authentic thinking.

  • Transfer payment
  • Posted by Ex-Loan Huckster on January 26, 2010 at 8:45am EST
  • The sounds like a great program. Problem is, how much will it cost and who will pay for it? In fact, why wouldn't IHE report the total costs and where those funds to cover it will go?

  • Posted by Christine on January 26, 2010 at 8:45am EST
  • Although the longer loan repayment time may help borrowers in the short-term, over the life of the loan the interest repayment and total cost of the loan will be much higher - a concept learned in Finance 101. This is typical of what the federal government does when it tries to "help," it sets forth financial standards that are really not good advice and not good for a citizen's long-term financial strength. It is somewhat similar to the mortgage crisis issue - the government putting people into loans that they really can't afford. The federal government is not the answer to the problem, it usually is the problem.

  • Another idea...
  • Posted by Bill on January 26, 2010 at 9:30am EST
  • If they really wanted to help the middle class who are paying off student loans, they'd allow us to refinance them. I am paying 7.5% on direct loans from graduate school ten years ago that would be much more manageable at a lower interest rate.

  • correction
  • Posted by Jim on January 26, 2010 at 9:45am EST
  • Christine: what is proposed is not a longer loan repayment time or higher costs for the borrower. The recommendation is that the monthly payment for a borrower be capped at 10 percent of discretionary income. Unpaid interest is capitalized each year and, at the end of 20 years (the other recommendation is lowering the current 25 year repayment term for those on the Income-Based Repayment Plan to 20 years) the remaining balance would be forgiven. Thus, the higher costs are not incurred by the borrower (but shared by taxpayers).

  • what about the old "income contingent" repayment plan?
  • Posted by what's new? on January 26, 2010 at 10:30am EST
  • I keep reading statements like this one

    "The income-based repayment program, which was created by the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 and took effect last summer, caps monthly repayments for borrowers with federally subsidized loans at 15 percent of discretionary income (defined as the difference between adjusted gross income and 150 percent of the federal poverty rate for the borrower's family size and state), and forgives the unpaid balance for a borrower after 25 years."

    in reports about student loans lately, but what I don't understand is how is that supposedly new program any different than the Federal Direct Student Loan's offer for the income contingent repayment program that's been in effect since the early 2000s (or earlier). The only difference I can see, having been on the ICR plan for as long as I can remember (and I graduated in 2004, so at least since then if not before), is that the payments couldn't be more than 20 percent of one's monthly income.

    So, it's just a question about history and semantics, I guess. I'm still in favor of the new plan, if it passes, because although example figures for student loan repayment are usually in the 30Ks, loans can often be double, triple, or quadruple that, depending on how much education (and how much compound interest) one has. (And arguments about "you should have picked a cheaper career choice" are irrelevant, imo.)

  • Incest is best
  • Posted by Alex Hamilton on January 26, 2010 at 11:15am EST
  • Deputy Under Secretary Shireman, who used to run the Institute for College Access and Success, makes a proposal and his former colleagues at the Institute are ready with a press release applauding the proposal.

    Do ya' think they got a heads-up?

    At a minimum, IHE, fill readers in on the association if you're going to quote the Institute.

  • Posted by Twenty-Something on January 26, 2010 at 11:30am EST
  • How will this affect the public service loan forgiveness program? I'm assuming since it is based off IBR it will change similarly (10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, instead of 15). If so, that's fantastic news. I've been hesitating to do IBR (my financial situation is pretty close to the example given in the article right now--thanks, English degree) but this would convince me. I could even look seriously at attempting grad school again since it would no longer be an impossible financial burden.

    Now if only something could be done about interest rates and private loans.

  • Posted by Christine on January 26, 2010 at 11:30am EST
  • Jim, if your explanation is correct, than the new proposal creates another government program that our government (which is already borrowing 40-50% of everything it spends) cannot afford. Do you think that the Chinese government will forgive the U.S.'s debt in a similar manner?
    "Shared by taxpayers?" I have/am repaying student loans from undergrad and grad school as a single parent, receiving no child support, and never asked for, or would have received, special treatment, on a very middle-class income. It comes down to making sound financial and personal decisions when you apply for loans and living within your means when they come into repayment. You know, like our parents and grandparents did.

  • What many people DON'T understand....
  • Posted by Midwest Technology worker on January 26, 2010 at 12:00pm EST
  • For those that are critical of this latest improvement to providing assistance for student loan borrowers is that for those that have lost their jobs over the last several years with the declining economy, loosing jobs to countries overseas, declining salaries and a number of other factors- those people, including myself were forced to put the loans into forbearance. Now, if you have never had student loans, much less in a situation where you had no choice but to put them in forbearance- let me explain the consequences.

    A loan put into forbearance simply means the government is not requiring a pmt at that time, but the interest continues. And, for people who have been overwhelmed with the effects of the economy on themselves and/or their family, many people have gone into default. The government is allowed to put penalties on these loans up to 23% of the loan balance, plus continued interest. There is no limit to the number or times that they can impose these penalties on someone's loans. This is higher than what the government even allows for car title loans, or payday loans, yet somehow it's legal for them to impose this.

    So, my point in that little explanation is that someone who started out with $30,000 or $40,000 in student loans can easily see their loans double, triple, quadruple in just a matter of a few years making it absolutely impossible for them to ever catch up.

    Who is going to pay for it? Well, we all are anyway in a matter of speaking. We are the ONLY nation that has such a defunct educational system. Why else do you think we are loosing our edge and jobs are heading across the pond? They are educating their people and figuring out how to do what we do better and for less money!!!

  • Posted by Christien on January 26, 2010 at 12:30pm EST
  • Midwest Technology worker: You make some excellent points about default fees. Are they being addressed in the President's new proposal?
    Would you have made smaller payments if that option was available to you while you were unemployed? When I worked in student loan servicing, most people just wanted to go into forbearance and eliminate as many monthly payments as possible. A smaller payment is a good option; it is the forgiveness I have financial concerns about
    And "across the pond" the tax rates are 60-70% of personal income. So I can give the money to a government that doesn't operate any program efficiently or fiscally responsibly? No thanks.

  • Interest Rates
  • Posted by Lisa on January 26, 2010 at 1:00pm EST
  • The caps on monthly payments and total time in repayment are great., and I applaud this step in the right direction on our national education-debt problem. I'd like to emphasize what others have said, though: it's time to address the issue of interest. For many of us, the Direct Loans' rates are far, far too high.

  • Posted by JP on January 26, 2010 at 4:00pm EST
  • The country needs ditch diggers too. Too many people are going to college, that's why tuition has been able to rise without restraint for so many years. I'm really getting tired of all you people who want to reach into my pocket to pay for your well intentioned ideas.

  • Posted by edav on January 27, 2010 at 9:30am EST
  • JP, get off your horse. The student loan program is a form of corporate welfare, where the government subsidizes workforce training, and then businesses reap the benefits by not having to pay adequately when they pick from a large pool of highly skilled laborers. Without it, only the children of the well-off would go to college, and the bulk of the workforce in the US would only be capable of digging ditches. If you participate in this society at all, you benefit every day from the efforts of those who have tried to do more with their talents than dig ditches. The student loan system in this country is predatory, and when you get spit out on the other end, you realize that wages for the middle class in this country haven't budged in years. Wealth continues to trickle up. Save your anger and working class indignation for those who deserve it.

  • Posted by JP on January 27, 2010 at 10:30am EST
  • Edav- right, and welfare is a form of genocide relief right?

    Education is not a panacea. It may help, but to all of you who think it will cure society's ills, I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.

  • Posted by edav on January 27, 2010 at 11:45am EST
  • JP, you can't be this economically illiterate. An educated workforce is highly beneficial to society on a range of fronts. You want trained nurses taking care of you when you're sick, knowledgeable people maintaining the power grid, educating your children, developing and innovating in business, ect. A college education isn't necessary for everyone, but a well-functioning education system that's open to as many people as possible is essential to the well-being of nation like ours. It's a waste of intellectual capital to have bright people digging ditches just because they were born into a poor family or neighborhood.

    Without a subsidized student loan system, wages in industries that require trained labor would have to be much higher to account for all of the private loan debt incurred by workers in those industries. Or you'd be faced with a labor pool composed only of those who could afford to go to school, which would reduce the quality of labor in the profession. The government offsets training costs for businesses through student loan and state education systems. Bill Gates discusses this with the rise of Microsoft- because of the state-subsidized education system in the US, he had a large pool of already trained people available to him when he needed to expand his business.

    And we haven't even gotten to the non-tangible benefits of education, such as fundamental economics and an understanding of history that goes beyond the borders of this country and reaches back before the Cold War. It seems you'd benefit from a bit of this yourself...

  • labor projections
  • Posted by Brian , Assistant Director of IR at Eastern Connecticut St on January 27, 2010 at 11:45am EST
  • Hi edav,

    I have some projections on labor force needs I'd like to sell you.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122123729&ps=cprs; http://www.bls.gov/emp/; http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecopro.pdf

    They point out that a lot of what will be needed will not require a college degree. But a lot of the need is in the areas of math & science too. In fact, those are the projections that are most striking to me. Also, it's pretty well known that the US workforce is becoming weak relative to other industrialized nations in the areas of math & science.

  • oops
  • Posted by Brian , Assistant Director of IR at Eastern Connecticut St on January 27, 2010 at 11:45am EST
  • oops I meant JP I have some reports I'd like to sell, not edav.

  • Replying to Christien
  • Posted by Midwest Technology worker on January 27, 2010 at 12:00pm EST
  • Christien,

    I have yet to see anything come out that would start to rein in their super power with imposing the penalties and compounding interest. It is painfully overdue- good point!

    The one thing I can tell you though, as I have friends who live in German, Canada and Britain. Yes, their taxes are higher than ours- but it's not the 60 or 70% that you reference. The other thing you have to take into account is that if you aren't paying so much out of your own paycheck for medical expenses, educational expenses and other things that you would normally be responsible for to ensure that everyone has equal access- it all comes out in the wash.

    It comes down to semantics. People start getting scared when they think they are loosing control over something, when in reality, in the subject matter of this article, the government has everyone by their shirt tails with NO GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD---- EVER!

    It's fine if you disagree w/my analogy, but I just know from my other friends who live abroad the reality verses the sensationalized media's version.

  • Posted by JP on January 27, 2010 at 12:30pm EST
  • Hey Brian,

    Maybe you should tell upcoming students to get math and science degrees instead of art or african american studies. It is their own fault for failing in life by pursuing financially untenable dreams. You can't repay your student loans, raise a family, buy a house, and take annual vacations on the salary of a social worker (nor should you be able to in my opinion). If you want to be an artist, accept the reality that you will be poor, underpaid, and generally miserable your whole life. You can take solace in the idea that you're gettting to do what you really enjoy though.

    Edav-
    This will sounds selfish, greedy, whatever, and that's fine. I do not care about the overall quality of the workforce, only those who are working on my behalf. If you get subpar service from an undertrained doctor, it's no sweat off my back. You pay for what you get.

  • Posted by edav on January 27, 2010 at 1:00pm EST
  • Re: Beating up on Humanities majors and picking on AA studies- this is simply ignorant on your part. Again, you're just denying the fact that federally subsidized higher ed helps the economy rather than harms it. Your focus on a fabricated notion of personal responsibility keeps you from gaining any understanding of higher ed's functional utility.

    Re: Part II- JP, it's not that you're greedy or selfish, I don't try to moralize too much, but that you're shortsighted. If you can't understand that you live in a society that depends on skilled labor just to maintain itself, you probably shouldn't be living in a democracy. If you have poorly trained labors maintaining a poorly-funded power grid, that grid will fail. Without government investment in universities, we wouldn't have the internet we're having this exchange on.

    Perhaps with some education you'd be able to see that economic relationships have consequences beyond your ability to perceive them in everyday life. It isn't all that complicated, but you've just admitted you'd rather bury your head in the sand than try to understand it.

    Again, take some of that well-baked, undereducated, lower middle class rage, and direct it against the real beneficiaries of your labor. Wealth trickles up. This is why the upper class gets richer while wages for the lower and middle classes stay stagnant or decline. People work harder today for less return than they did 60 years ago. Very few people can raise a family on one income. There are tons of jobs that require you to get an MA or MS just to advance past the $50K threshold, and not just in social work or other professions you've deemed worthless.

  • I just want to live my life in a different way than you.
  • Posted by Christine on January 27, 2010 at 3:45pm EST
  • Midwest Technology worker: Your analogy has merit, but I value my personal freedoms above all else. I'm willing to take care of myself when times are good and bad because the alternative - having the government's hand in every part of my life - is abhorent to me. Most of our federal and state government is corrupt and power-hungry and I really don't want it controlling my life; I don't trust them. I think a little more self-reliance on everyone's part would go a long way. And to bring us back to the article, debt is really a bad thing. It gives another person control over your personal choices, and weakens personal financial health. We shouldn't accept it so readily. But student loan debt wouldn't be such an issue if college costs weren't so high. And that's another topic completely!

  • for Christine and Jim
  • Posted by still in debt...but close on January 27, 2010 at 4:30pm EST
  • I guess I'm a little confused as to why this plan wouldn't end up costing borrowers more. If their payments are lower, doesn't this mean that the principal on their loan decreases at a slower rate? And since your first couple of years of payments are mostly interest payments, it would take longer to even make a dent in the principal....And as this higher principal is sitting around, isn't it accruing more interest than it would if payments were higher and it was paid down sooner? So, ultimately, isn't the borrower paying more in interest and doesn't making smaller payments mean it's going to take you longer to pay the whole thing off? (I'm one payment away from paying off my student loans, by the way....It took me 12 years, but freedom is near! Too bad this plan wasn't in place earlier -- with smaller monthly payments, maybe it would have taken me over 20 years to pay off the debt and some of it could have been forgiven.....)