Count me with Tim Ranzetta — student loan reform was D-E-A-D dead earlier this week, as both Congress and the White House were nervous about losing on the health care bill if student lending was included in reconciliation.
But last night, Conrad backtracked from the position he’d expressed only that morning. And today, it was announced that student loan reform will be included in reconciliation.
Tremendous thanks to everyone who signed the petition, made phone calls and other noise about making sure education didn’t get kicked to the curb for another year because Ben Nelson’s biggest donor is Nelnet. And to Meteor Blades, who wrote a diary making it very clear that SAFRA is not only one of President Obama’s very best ideas, it’s also a no-brainer for Congress right now.
But the battle is not over. When SAFRA was scored by the CBO last year, savings were calculated at $87 billion. On March 5, however, they released a new score, saying the bill will only save $67 billion (PDF). George Miller and Conrad got in a huge fight earlier this week, as Miller wanted to use the earlier CBO score, and Conrad the latter. Conrad evidently won, which means that $20 billion has to be carved out of the bill.
The Washington Post is reporting that the figure changed because so many schools have already switched to direct lending, anticipating the passage of SAFRA, so the “savings” will now be less. In addition, enrollment has exploded in the wake of high unemployment and so cost estimates are higher. It’s not clear from looking at the rather opaque explanation from Doug Elmendorf what the CBO’s assumptions were. We’re looking over the numbers and trying to decipher what happened.
Lobbyists for the Wall Street banks who still want their carve-out are hailing the new CBO number, as if somehow paying a bunch of unnecessary middlemen huge fees to do something that nobody needs them to do will somehow make the situation better. In fact, their “compromise” addresses nothing that’s being discussed, and just insures that loans travel through their hands for 100 days before they offload them to the federal government so they can tack on huge, unnecessary fees.
I suppose this makes sense to someone. But the New York Times is reporting that ex-Clinton aides at the Glover Park Group are “aggressively at work fighting the president’s proposal on behalf of an unnamed client,” so clearly the logic will be backed with the cash.
Back on planet earth, Ranzetta points out that if Conrad doesn’t back down, what would happen to the current bill in a “slimmed down” version?
- Will it reduce the deficit by $10 billion as the other bill did (based on CBO scoring)?
- Will it reduce the income-based repayment percentages from 15% (current) to 10% as proposed by Obama?
- Does it incorporate the debt swap proposal to allow private loan borrowers to swap into federal loans if they have federal debt capacity available?
Decisions about these and other issues will determine whether the lobbyists get bought off, or students reap the benefits of the savings. We’ll be working with other organizations to follow it closely and insist that the money goes to students, not banks.
Courtney Ross of AAUW has more on SAFRA at the Seminal.
Sign the petition — tell Congress to choose students over banks.



16 Comments








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
I don’t trust Conrad.
never should. He is the biggest concern troll in the Senate. Budget peacock
Jeepers Jane, you’ve been fighting for education and health care reform, to help millions of people for years … why do you hate America so much ? /s
Well, it was either fixing student loans as little as possible, or the public option. Tough choice, I know.
But no public insurance? Senate Dems are some real pieces of work. I feel sorry for the few good ones who get lumped with the rest.
Good.
It’s a budget issue.
As a policy, it’s a no-brainer.
I’ve just started reading Taraq Ali’s The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power. From page 1:
“Most of the mainstream political parties, like their Western cousins, no longer subscribed to programs rooted in ideology, but instead became dependent on cronyism, clientilism, and soulless followers.”
Any questions?
It is so shameful that people associated with an old Democratic Administration would try to stand in the way of President Obama’s student loan reform.
These people got their original starts in their big careers through the votes of Democrats in 1992 who, among other things, favored student loan reform.
Now that these big wigs have made it, well, big, they seek to pull up the ladder and make it harder for others to better themselves. What gall.
Guess Obama and gang figured out how to get their votes back. Keep those under 26 happy. They get to stay on their parents insurance until 26 and are helped with their student loans. The student loan bill is a good thing, but rather slippery of them. Continue to marginalize and throw progressives under the bus but secure the faux progressive “Obama! Obama!” vote.
But if this is included as part of reconciliation of a larger bill that doesn’t pass (which, as part of getting real health care and not institutionalized government bailouts for the misery industry, is a necessary step), why would this matter?
It’s good that it gets time, but don’t see how a seat on the Titanic is likely to mean safe passage.
BTW, if Politico transcribed her remark correctly, Claire McCaskill made a Freudian slip earlier in the week that revealed the D’s don’t believe Harry Reid’s going to be reelected:
In other words, there’s no one in that room that does believe Harry Reid is going to get reelected.
Haven’t seen anyone else pick up on it so far.
(Rough week for Harry. I hope his wife recovers fully.)
Politico story is here: Durbin’s hardball game
Book could end there for me, for that matter.
Nice quote pick. *G*
You can coat it with sugar but it will still smell like you know what.
Sorry but I am sickened by the whole charade. Public option And student loan reform…or I can’t support.
Come on, this is a few Senators who may stand in the way, but very few Democrats in the House would. This is a very traditional Democratic proposal.
I am talking about the lobbyists at the Glover Park Group, including Joe Lockhart. (See Jane’s link to the New York Times article.)
These guys got to be something because of the support of Democratic voters (or even those who liked Clinton regardless of party). One of Clinton’s signature themes in the first administration was Direct Loans.
It was a great idea then, and it is now. But for pay, Joe Lockhart and the ex-Clinton alumni in the firm are talking down Obama’s proposal!