In a bold editorial today, The New York Times threw its support behind the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA), which was passed by the House Education and Labor Committee yesterday. Despite bi-partisan support for the bill in committee, many Republicans in Congress and in the Senate are gearing up to fight tooth and nail to defeat the bill and protect the interests of banks and student loan companies. As the Times says in the editorial:
“The arguments for passing this bill and ending the subsidy program are powerful. But the Republican leadership has distorted the debate by describing the bill as a plan for pushing private capital out of student lending. It would be more accurate to describe it as a plan for pushing corporate welfare out of student lending.”
Read the full editorial here, and then take action to tell Congress why we need to pass SAFRA now!
“They are gearing up for battle. So am I. They will fight for their special interests. I will fight for…American students and their families. And for those who care about America’s future, this is a battle we can’t afford to lose.”
– President Obama responding to the “army of lobbyists” gathering to combat proposed student loan reform in the budget.
Today at the White House, President Obama met with a family struggling with student loans, reaffirming his commitment to making college more affordable. Here is a highlight from his remarks:
“…in a paradox of American life, at the very moment it’s never been more important to have a quality higher education, the cost of that kind of that kind of education has never been higher. Over the past few decades, the cost of tuition at private colleges has more than doubled, while costs at public institutions have nearly tripled. Compounding the problem, tuition has grown ten times faster than a typical family’s income, putting new pressure on families that are already strained and pricing far too many students out of college altogether. Yet, we have a student loan system where we’re giving lenders billions of dollars in wasteful subsidies that could be used to make college more affordable for all Americans.”
“…I am confident that if all of us here in Washington do what’s in the best interests of the people we represent, and reinvest not only in opening the doors of college but making sure students can walk through them, then we will help deliver the change that the American people sent us here to make. We will help Americans fulfill their promise as individuals. And we will help America fulfill its promise as a nation.”
Wow…as Think Progress reports, yesterday during a hearing Rep. Shimkus, an outspoken opponent of the President’s green energy plan, said that proposed climate legislation in the budget represents “…the largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country that I’ve ever experienced.”
Check out the video below:
You can also read more about the GOP and climate skepticism here.
A story today in USA Today talks about what many college students and their parents already know: tuition is creeping higher and higher:
“Though 2009-2010 tuition rates have not been set for most public universities, increases of at least 5% to 6% — and in many cases higher — are expected as university administrators struggle to maintain quality education amid state budget cuts.”
And, the money quote:
“U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan stresses the importance of affordability amid the budget and fundraising crises. ‘Colleges that go the wrong way on this — I think they’re going to see students walk away.’ “
Now, more than ever, we need to make sure that we are giving money to students, not banks, and that the grants students are receiving are as generous as possible. Obama’s budget plan would do that. Take action today and tell your elected officials why we need to back Obama’s budget proposals for higher education!
The Wall Street Journal has a piece today about the first round of arguments in the climate change debate taking place in Congress. Most notably, the EPA presented new analysis of the bill put forward by Reps. Waxman and Markey on the House Energy Committee, stating that the plan would cost consumers far less than the nearly $3,000 a year per household that many opponents have referenced.
With so much at stake in the coming weeks, there has been much speculation about which problems will be tackled first (if at all) during this Congressional session. While Obama has laid out clear goals of fixing health care, tackling climate change, and improving higher education, it remains to be seen which issue Congress will make a priority.
Despite Rep. Henry Waxman’s promise to move a climate bill through the House by Memorial Day, The Wall Street Journalspeculates that health care will be addressed before climate change issues, which are more controversial:
“A growing number of Democratic lawmakers prefer health care, saying that has a far greater chance of producing consensus than climate change, inside the party and across party lines. And they argue that it would be a more tangible accomplishment to present to financially stressed voters heading into the 2010 midterm elections.”
Read the full article here, and keep checking back here to see how things unfold. In the meantime, call your Senator today and tell him/her which issues YOU think should be a priority.
In an op-ed published in today’s Inside Higher Ed, CP’s Pedro de la Torre and USSA’s President Carmen Berkley advocate on behalf of students over banks, arguing that “Our country faces too many challenges for us to be providing pointless corporate welfare to loan companies.”
Here is an excerpt:
“The president’s plan will save taxpayers $94 billion over 10 years by ending pointless subsidies to loan companies and using government funds to lend directly to students. Because loan repayment is guaranteed by the federal government, private lenders assume very little risk under the FFELP and yet are rewarded handsomely — a subsidy that makes little economic sense. Much of the savings from the move to direct lending would be used to increase the maximum Pell grant award to $5,550 for the 2010-11 school year, and make the Pell grant a mandatory government program guaranteed an increase — inflation plus 1 percent — every year.
There are other important reasons to make the change. For one, the FFELP program is prone to corruption. A 2006 audit of the student lender Nelnet by the U.S. Department of Education’s inspector general revealed that the company had received more than $1 billion in taxpayer subsidies by gaming the system. Another investigation in 2007 led by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo found that lenders were lavishing gifts, payments, and other inducements on college financial aid officers in order to encourage them to recommend their loans to unwitting students.”
Check out this new story from CQ Politics about where the administration stands on passing energy legislation this year, and then click here to find out how you can take action to support this legislation in the budget!
Here’s an excerpt:
When asked about resistance to the cap-and-trade proposal — those opposed have argued it will lead to a tax increase — Emanuel said, “When you have something of this magnitude, there’s going to be people that raise objections, because it’s a big change. Our goal is to get that done. We will see.
“You’re asking me right before the legislative process starts to make that prediction. I do think this, that even those who object to particulars know that we have to deal with this part of our energy policy and that the challenge now is, rather than to criticize and rather than say no, rather than to say never, is to provide ideas. And that has yet to happen from the other side.”
Today, three more papers followed the New York Times, coming out in support of the President’s plan to end the FFELP program for student lending and save taxpayers $94 billion:
“The purpose of student loans is to ensure that academically qualified students have access to higher education, not to subsidize private lenders with taxpayer money. Congress should jump at this chance to use billions of dollars in savings to increase federal educational grants.”
“Just who is supposed to be the beneficiary of federal financial aid for college, anyway? By ending unnecessary subsidies to private lenders, Americans get reduced costs and students get more direct aid – a win-win solution.”
“The move to restructure the student loan business is not just about banks and jobs. It’s about education and students who generally don’t have high-priced lobbyists looking out for their interests in Washington.”
Funding our Future is a campaign to pass a progressive federal budget for 2010 and ensure that our nation.s key economic choices invest in our education, spark reform of our health care system, and address climate change through cap and trade and clean energy investments. Click here for more info.
