WASHINGTON -- A Senate vote to restore low interest rates temporarily on some new federal student loans failed to advance Wednesday, increasing the odds that college students will rack up additional debt due to Washington inaction.
Supporters had hoped to restore the 3.4 percent rate of interest on subsidized Stafford loans, or loans made to undergraduate students from moderate- and low-income households, that had prevailed for the last few years. The interest rate on new subsidized Stafford loans doubled to 6.8 percent on July 1, as previously scheduled. The proposal on Wednesday was supported by 51 senators and opposed by 49, needing at least 60 votes in order to advance to a final vote.
"We will not give up on this issue," said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.). Shortly before the noon vote, the White House said it "strongly supports" the measure.
Roughly 7 million students, or a quarter of all new federal students loans to be made this year, are affected. The average student will pay roughly an extra $1,000 over the life of the loan due to the doubling of the rate. If no further action is taken to reverse the increase, the typical incoming freshman could pay about $4,000 more in interest to pay off four years' worth of subsidized Stafford loans.
Wednesday's vote was one of a handful of recent votes that likely has disappointed students and their families. Democrats and Republicans have spent weeks trying to advance separate proposals either to restore last year's 3.4 percent rate with a promise to overhaul the entire federal student loan program in coming months, or to scrap key elements of the current scheme immediately in favor of a program that ties student interest rates to the U.S. government's cost to borrow.
The legislative jockeying comes amid a government forecast that the Obama administration will reap a $51 billion profit this fiscal year from the federal student loan program, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Nearly all new loans for higher education are provided by the federal government. The profit, generated thanks to near-record spreads between the government's cost to borrow and what students pay in interest, has contributed to the cumulative $1.2 trillion in educational debt carried by U.S. households.
Policymakers, including those at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Reserve and Treasury Department, are increasingly worried that student debt risks reducing consumption and impeding economic growth over the next several years as student debt repayment crowds out household spending, auto and home purchases, savings and retirement nest eggs.
Against this backdrop of dire macroeconomic warnings, Republican and Democratic lawmakers and the White House have sought to capitalize on the political aspect of the doubled interest rate by blaming one another for failing to stop the rate hike. But despite using Twitter and other social media to gin up support for changes, their advocacy has yielded no substantive action.
The White House is partly to blame. In its latest annual budget, the Obama administration proposed reforming the student loan program by changing the way interest rates are calculated. Rather than having Congress continue to set the cost
to borrow, the White House argued that interest rates should be tied directly to the yield on the 10-year Treasury note, or the U.S. government's cost to borrow for 10 years.
House Republicans subsequently passed a bill mirroring aspects of the White House plan, although the administration has proposed a narrower spread to 10-year Treasuries.
In the Senate, a small group, led by Democrat Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Independent Angus King (Maine) and some Republicans, produced a bipartisan compromise that also ties student loan interest rates to 10-year Treasuries.
Most Senate Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), oppose the plan, however, in part because it is forecast to increase borrowing costs, relative to this year, for students beginning in roughly 2016, when interest rates are estimated to rise due to an improved economy.
Nearly a majority of Democrats supported a temporary one-year patch that would keep rates on most loans fixed at current levels and revert the rate on subsidized Stafford loans to 3.4 percent. Lawmakers led by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) have said the one-year period would be used to reform the student loan program, likely tying rates to the government's cost to borrow.
The disagreement between the various parties hinges somewhat on whether student loan interest rates should be fixed to the government's cost to borrow for 10 years or a much shorter duration. Short-term Treasuries carry lower rates than longer-term debt.
The White House had initially offered tepid support for the one-year option, according to people involved in the deliberations. The administration has been working with the group of lawmakers led by Manchin and King to negotiate a compromise that could generate enough support from student groups, consumer advocates and Democratic lawmakers to pass into law.
In the meantime, 7 million students this coming school year are set to pay more, even though there is widespread support for preventing that very outcome. It’s unclear whether the sides ultimately will reach an accord.
"This should have been resolved much earlier," said Michael Dannenberg, Education Trust higher education director and a former Obama education official.
This post has been updated from its original published version.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this article misstated Sen. King's state affiliation as Vermont. He is from Maine.
Also on HuffPost:
Nuts Bring Buckets of Same
Just in case anyone forgot that the House Judiciary Committee ACORN hearing was a House Judiciary Committee hearing about ACORN, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/acorn-hearing-a-barrel-of_n_376882.html">Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) helpfully brought a bucket of acorns</a> to the House Judiciary Committee. Also that day, colleague Lamar Smith praising the "turnout so early in the day" at 2:30pm, and Louie Gohmert offering up the malaprop: “From one acorn, many nuts can grow.” Like, say, Peter King.
Hello Kitty, Hello Revolving Debt
Credit cards. Were it not for them, we would have to save up money in order to buy things. But do some credit cards take it too far, marketing to the youths? Byron Dorgan thought so when he saw the Hello Kitty Platinum VISA. "Does it seem to you like they’re targeting that 10-year-old, the 14-year-old." Ha! He should see the <a href="http://www.shopinprivate.com/hello-kitty-pink-guilty.html">Hello Kitty vibrator</a>.
"I'll See Your Baby, And Raise You Two Tweens"
Last time out, we made mention of Representative John Shadegg's (R-Ariz.) attempt to wield a baby in order to make a point about how terrible health care reform was. We neglected to mention that Representative Pete Stark (D-Calif.) took it a step further, and attempted to bring two young children to make his own points about health care (5:25 in video), at which point the House was officially barred from trafficking in human props any further.
John Thune's Stackin' Dollars
How much is too much stimulus? When it allows representatives to make junior high math analogies based on topography and astronomy, maybe. Here, Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) makes some stupid pictures of dollar stacks that extend into the sky, to the celestial firmament itself. “If you took 100 dollar bills, Mr. President," Thune said, "and stacked them on top of each other you would have a stack that goes 689 miles high.” He added, "In other words, if you took the 100 dollar bills and not stacked them on top of each other, but wrapped them side-by-side all around the earth… If you could believe this, it’d go around the earth almost 39 times." So, we cannot stimulate the economy, because of science! (1:15 in clip)
Gettin' High On Your Own Supply (Of A Substance That Does Not Get You High)
Representative Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) wasn't having any of that whole "regulating tobacco" stuff. Why? Because it's "not the nicotine that kills, it's the smoke!" So, he argued, why don't we regulate lettuce, to keep people from smoking lettuce? Wouldn't that prevent a "pandemic" of cancers? This would have been a good point, were it not for the non-existence of either a massive industry geared toward curing lettuce and rolling it into cigarettes, or a target market of consumers who were even remotely interested in smoking lettuce. BUT YEAH OTHER THAT ALL THAT STUFF (and the fact that nicotine is addictive) STEVE BUYER IS A GENIUS.
And Now, A Poem From Ted Poe
From Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas): <i>It came on two pages, It has withstood the ages. / The word "shall,'' is only 10 times mentioned, But enough to get one's attention. / No taxes did this law raise, To this day it continues to create much praise; / Two great religions does it claim, The "Law of the Ten Commandments'' is its name. / A current writing, 1,990 pages long, Has a socialist philosophy that is all wrong; / Difficult for the people to understand, And troubling what big government doth demand. / Over 3,445 "shalls'' it does loudly shout, New massive taxes does it proudly tout; / Written in secret by the bureaucrats, For exclusive use of the taxacrats. / The Congressional bill called "Health Care Reform," Is illusionary, the authors are still ill-informed; / Government ought not take over America's health biz. / And that's just the way it is."</i> And so, America, this is why you should have to die of easily treated medical conditions.
And Now, An Even Dumber Poem, From Roland Burris
From the junior senator from Illinois: <i>"It was the night before Christmas, and all through the Senate / The right held up our health care bill, no matter what was in it / The people had voted a mandated reform / But Republicans blew off the gathering storm / We'll clog up the Senate, they cried with a grin / And in the midterm elections, we'll get voted in / They knew regular folks needed help right this second / But fundraisers, lobbyists and politics beckoned / So try as they might, Democrats could not win / Because the majority was simply too thin / Then across every state there rose such a clatter / The whole senate rushed out to see what was the matter / All sprang up from their desk and ran from the floor / Straight through the cloakroom and right out the door."</i> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/22/burris-backs-reform-with_n_400456.html">There's more</a>, but you will probably want to shoot yourself in the face after you read it.
Chuck Grassley Goes All Aggro On The Speaker Box
For some reason, in the course of discussing fuel efficiency standards, Senator Chuck Grassley decided he should drive his point home by shouting out Ashton Kutcher and his movie, "Dude, Where's My Car." Prior to this, Grassley went on an <a href="http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Speech_by_GOP_Senator_references_stoner_0924.html">extended monologue</a> about Pink Floyd's <i>Dark Side of the Moon</i> album and the shards of a broken prism and the "multishades" of light. Just straight up tripping balls, in the well of the Senate. Anyway, as you now know, this TOTALLY fixed fuel efficiency standards!
Sam Brownback Will Save Your Inanimate Genetic Material
Who's looking out for your precious bodily fluids? Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, that's who. And he's enlisted the help of a young girl, named Hannah, who has the power of talking to human embryos! "<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/18/brownback-embryo/">Are you going to kill me?</a>" the embryos asked Hannah, who immediately scrawled a picture of this conversation on a giant piece of posterboard, so that Sam Brownback could stop people from killing the stem cells. And then Sam Brownback went on to support a bunch of wars in the Middle East!
The Most Important Prop Of All
James Inhofe (R-Batshit) hates him some gay marriage, and the gays in general. And to make his point, he carries around with him The Most Important Prop in America: a picture of his family. "As you see here, and I think this is maybe the most important prop we’ll have during the entire debate, my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I’m really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we’ve never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship." Ha! THAT HE KNOWS OF!