Year in and year out, for
decades (as the above Bloomberg chart illustrates), the cost of college
continues to rise beyond the cost of living. Grants (scholarships) have fallen
during this period as government austerity programs have both increased
state-college tuition and pushed loans slowly to replace most once-available
scholarships. Even as true earning power has fallen for 70% of working Americans
consistently for two and a half decades, the financial pressure on families to
pay for their children to attend college has steadily increased, with parents
often having to co-sign on their kids’ student loans.
If you happen to live in
very-productive Germany, whether or not you are a citizen, you can get a pretty
awesome university degree (with many courses and majors in English) virtually
for free. It’s a similar story in many countries where building for a solid
future is a priority… just not here. As I have blogged in the past, too many
America private and public universities are either building branches overseas
or opening up more slots for foreign students whose families are able to afford
“full freight” tuition with no financial aid required. Of course, those slots
not only take spaces from American residents but actually favor those paying
full costs over those needing any form of financial aid. Upward social
mobility? It’s what use to define the United States. No longer.
Reacting to pressure from
the Wall Street financial community in pre-Great Recession times, Congress
passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005
under the George W. Bush administration. One particular provision of the
amendment was focused on students: “The 2005 changes to the bankruptcy code
gave private student loans the same preferred, and non-dischargeable, status as
government-guaranteed student loans. Both types of student loans are
non-dischargeable debt except in very limited circumstances where the debtor
can prove that repayment would impose an ‘undue hardship’.” TotalBankruptcy.com
Very, very few students qualify under an extreme interpretation of “undue
hardship,” although there has been a slight improvement applying an income-earnings
standard to reduce monthly payments to a tiny few.
You might recall that
Bernie Sanders garnered a particularly heavy constituency among college
students and younger recent college grads, in substantial part with a platform
making college education cheaper if not free and having the federal government
take over and discharge the bulk of existing student loans. Hillary Clinton,
while not going as far as presidential candidate Sanders, also acknowledged
that the current system for paying for college in this country no longer works.
As state coffers emptied
under the above-noted austerity programs, when Congress was controlled by the
Democrats (in 2010), the Obama administration pushed to have the federal
government take over the student lending burden from the states. “For decades,
states served as middlemen for federal student loans. Most of the loans were
made by banks and were handled and backed by regional and state-based agencies
as well as by the federal government. The arrangement was unwieldy, expensive
and marked by scandal.
“After Pennsylvania’s
student loan agency lost a public records lawsuit in 2007, documents revealed
that the agency had spent nearly $1 million on things like fly-fishing, facials
and falconry lessons… That same year, New Jersey’s agency was caught in what
amounted to a kickback scheme. The state attorney general found that the agency
had improperly pushed one company’s loans in exchange for annual payments of
$2.2 million. A subsequent investigation by the state’s inspector general found
that the agency was in ‘disarray.’
“In 2010, Congress and
the Obama administration decided to effectively eliminate the role of state
agencies by having only the federal government lend directly to students… Some
states, like California, decided to downsize and transferred their federal loan
portfolios. Others, such as Pennsylvania, won contracts from the federal
government to service debt from the federal loan program.
“New Jersey chose a
different path. In the years leading up to the end of the federal program, New
Jersey sharply expanded its loan program, slowly replacing the federal loans it
once handled with state loans. From 2005 to 2010, loans from the agency nearly
tripled, to $343 million per year. Since then, the agency has reduced its loans
by half, but its outstanding portfolio has remained roughly the same, about $2
billion.” New York Times, July 3rd. For New Jersey, the 2005 amendment to the
bankruptcy laws had converted student loans into a major profit center, backed
by Wall Street bond issues, and they weren’t about to give that up. The results
for their own residents have been nothing short of Wall-Street-greed-driven
catastrophic.
While one family that
lost a son to murder would have found student loan forgiveness under a
federally-administered program, when they attempted to walk away from co-signed
student debt for their deceased son, they got this reply from the N.J. student
loan administrators (the Higher Education Student Assistance Authority):
“Please accept our condolences on your loss… After careful consideration of the
information you provided, the authority has determined that your request does
not meet the threshold for loan forgiveness. Monthly bill statements will
continue to be sent to you.” Under New Jersey’s practices, this example is
hardly exceptional.
“New Jersey’s loans,
which currently total $1.9 billion, are unlike those of any other government
lending program for students in the country. They come with extraordinarily
stringent rules that can easily lead to financial ruin. Repayments cannot be
adjusted based on income, and borrowers who are unemployed or facing other
financial hardships are given few breaks… The loans also carry higher interest
rates than similar federal programs. Most significant, New Jersey’s loans come
with a cudgel that even the most predatory for-profit players cannot wield: the
power of the state. New Jersey can garnish wages, rescind state income tax
refunds, revoke professional licenses, even take away lottery winnings — all
without having to get court approval.
‘It’s state-sanctioned
loan-sharking,’ Daniel Frischberg, a bankruptcy lawyer, said. ‘The New Jersey
program is set up so that you fail.’… The authority, which boasts in brochures
that its ‘singular focus has always been to benefit the students we serve,’ has
become even more aggressive in recent years. Interviews with dozens of
borrowers, who were among the tens of thousands who have turned to the program,
show how the loans have unraveled lives…
“One reason for the
aggressive tactics is that the state depends on Wall Street investors to
finance student loans through tax-exempt bonds and needs to satisfy those
investors by keeping losses to a minimum… The [student loan default] cases are
handled by debt collectors, who can tack on another 30 percent in fees on top
of the outstanding debt…
“A spokesman for Gov.
Chris Christie said the governor did not control the authority and declined to
respond to questions about the loan program. But Mr. Christie, a Republican,
appointed its executive director, Gabrielle Charette; he also has the power to
appoint at least 12 of the agency’s 18 board members and can veto any action
taken by the board.” NY Times.
There is movement among
Democrats, nothing from the GOP. Candidate Sanders has pressed for free tuition
and forgiveness of student debt, while Hillary has advocated eliminating
“college tuition for students from many middle-class families who attend public
colleges and universities, as part of a broader goal of making higher education
debt-free for all Americans. Washington Post, July 7th. But there is very limited likelihood of
moving any part this legislative program through a GOP-controlled Congress.
Bottom line: not only are
we particularly cruel to the young people seeking to better themselves for
productive careers (and their supporting families) through higher education,
but such “student loan” programs deprioritize investing in our own national
best interests for future productivity in favor of protecting the highest
earning (wealthiest) private financial institutions and their wealthy owners.
I’m
Peter Dekom, and this constant refusal to invest in what truly can sustain
America’s greatness in order to insure that the one percenters maintain the
worst income inequality in the developed world is clear evidence of why
populism in America, left and right, will only grow… and ultimately unravel the
United States of America.
No comments:
Post a Comment