More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Rep. Edolphus Towns

GET UPDATES FROM Rep. Edolphus Towns
 

Lessening the Burden of Student Loans

Posted: 08/05/11 11:59 AM ET

Hats off to the Huffington Post for launching its new Black Voices and recognizing the value of expanding participation in the public sphere. This platform will allow policymakers and others to reach audiences that rely more on digital sources. As such, I would like to take this opportunity to address an issue that is of critical concern to young professionals in my district in Brooklyn.

As a Member of Congress, constituent feedback is extremely important to me. Not too long ago, a constituent of mine, a young attorney from Brooklyn, contacted my office to ask whether there were any loan forgiveness programs through the federal government available for private student loans. He claimed that the entire cost of his higher education -- both undergraduate and law school -- was covered by private loans. He said that though his passion was in public interest work, he now has to work at a big law firm to pay back all of his debt. My staff person asked him whether any of his loans were provided under the federal student loan program, and he said that they were not. He indicated he was ineligible because he went to private school for undergrad and law school.

Unfortunately for my constituent, he had been misinformed, likely by the student loan counselor at his school. Sadly, he is not alone. A recent study by the Project on Student Debt demonstrated that two-thirds of private student loan borrowers borrowed less than they could have in the federal Stafford loan program. Over one-fourth bypassed the federal student loan programs all together.

Federal loans are significantly more flexible, offer forgiveness programs and deferment options that many private loans do not, and are discharged in the event of death or severe disability. In fact, according to Student Lending Analytics, the average starting rates on private student loans is 9.5-10 percent. Federal loans have a low, fixed interest rate of 6.8 percent. Private loans generally have variable rates with no cap on the amount of interest that can be charged. Some borrowers pay rates similar to that of credit cards -- 18 percent or higher.

Young professionals in my district and across the nation are heavily burdened by student debt. At a time when our economy is in dire need of highly trained individuals, we need to do all that we can to encourage students to pursue degrees. The threat of debt carried throughout an individual's life and beyond should not be a hindrance.

As a result of the conversation with my constituent, I recently re-introduced the College Debt Swap Act, HR 2410. This bill would enable borrowers with high-cost private loans to use their remaining federal student loan eligibility to pay off or pay down the private student loan debt. By swapping expensive private loan debt into borrower-friendly, low-cost federal student loans, these individuals would be better able to manage their finances and repay their educational loans. For example, a working or middle class borrower with $8,000 in private loans would cut their average interest rate in half and save over $2,000 in interest payments over the life of a typical student loan.

Not only is this a win for students -- but it is also a win for taxpayers. In a time of financial difficulty, this bill relieves both students and taxpayers by shifting interest that would have gone to the private sector back to taxpayers. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this bill will generate $10 billion over 2 years -- a substantial savings to students and the nation.

 

Follow Rep. Edolphus Towns on Twitter: www.twitter.com/OversightDems

Hats off to the Huffington Post for launching its new Black Voices and recognizing the value of expanding participation in the public sphere. This platform will allow policymakers and others to reach ...
Hats off to the Huffington Post for launching its new Black Voices and recognizing the value of expanding participation in the public sphere. This platform will allow policymakers and others to reach ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
08:53 AM on 08/11/2011
The nation wants its citizens to be well educated. It is in its best interest to have a highly educated and competitive workforce yet it sends mixed messages by forbiding to allow student loans debts to be considered when calculating child support (C.S) payments. By not considering student loans debt (and fed. taxes) when calculating child support, the enrollment of males in higher educational insitutions decreases due to the unwillingness to be saddled with 3 large non-dischargable obligations:

- fed. & state taxes (25% or more of gross salary for a single person),
- large fed. guaranteed student loans
- large child support orders based on pre-tax salary.

The higher education degree is rendered practically worthless, in addition to his own personal quality of life (most people reject the notion that one has to live the life of a pauper to prove he love his child). Additionally, the likelyhood of defaulting on these federal guaranteed student loans increases once the standard large child support orders are made which hurts all taxpayers since the loans are federally guaranteed. The laws has to be changed!
03:15 AM on 08/11/2011
I wanted to add that I know a lot of people might be thinking, should I go back to school for a better degree. To be honest, I've came close to trying for a MBA with a focus in marketing or switching my career entirely to a Masters of Computer Science. With this economy, with this debt, I am afraid to put my trust back in the education system. Sure, I know either or those degrees will get me further, but will it give me a guaranteed job? Will I make more than $80k a year to pay back these loans? Or will I be stuck with another $40k and back to square one. If we were allowed some relief, some plan of action, I'd be able to consider new alternatives, I'd be able to help stimulate the economy, I'd be able to feel confident about opening my own facility, but until then, I will continue the struggle along with millions of others.
09:30 AM on 08/11/2011
Consider this:

A male borrows $30,000 in student loans for college. Upon completion he starts repaying loans. He meets a woman and (married or unmarried) becomes a father. The couple breaks up, mother files for child support. Father agrees that his child has to be financially cared for and voluntarily submits financials and the amount that he can provide for their child’s well being. However, because of laws made by politicians, family court assigns a child support order on the father so ridiculously high that fed. student loans, federal taxes, rent, food, telephone, life insurance, carfare for work, car note & insurance cannot all be met. Father’s credit is severely damaged. Father falls behind on child support and due to arrears, child support enforcement agencies garnish 50%-60% of wages. Father is call a “deadbeat”. 50% garnishment + 25% single person Fed. tax obligation creates a total of 75% of earned salary taken from pay. Out of every $1,000 earned father brings home $250, or $50,000 yearly salary leaves just $1,042 monthly. Out of his significantly reduced net pay father is expected to pay the above bills especially the student loans, still be a father to his child or he is labeled a “bad dad,” and maintain a cordial relationship with the mother. Father defaults on the student loans. Relationship between parents is totally destroyed. Father is financial ruin and due to extreme stress decides to leave, disappear, and start anew. This scenario (except for the salary) happens everyday across the
03:02 AM on 08/11/2011
Through out the years in the film/television world, my top film school degree has gotten me no where. I have moved to 3 different states in search of jobs that would help pay my $1200 dollar a month student loan bills + the cost of living. I have fallen into forbearance 4 times which sent my debt to $140,000 and now going on my 2nd term of interest only payments, which was the only option I had. I am still paying $900 a month. I've looked for a second job, even a third job, but with the economy the way it has been, I have only been able to take on a freelancing gigs, here and there. With my BFA and 5 years of experience, applying everywhere possible, I am still unable to land a job that will help me actually start paying down some of the loans, even countless job applications to the government. I struggle each month with each pay check, just to make every payment on time and keep my excellent credit score. Imagine being able to have the option of Income Based Repayment for Private loans, I would love to pay 200 even 500 a month to cover my loans as oppose to $1200. I dont mind paying them back, they are my responsibility, its my education, its my fault for getting a useless degree, but Damn if you want to stimulate the economy, give us options, allow us something.
02:59 AM on 08/11/2011
I know a lot of people like to point the finger when it comes to us private loan borrowers, being our fault for picking and choosing our degrees but boy do they not understand. Like the article, I to was a young and ambitious high school graduate and wanted nothing more than to keep a promise I made to my dying grandfather before he passed. When I found the school I thought would lead my future in the right direction, I was stuck with taking out private loans to pay my Private College Tuition at one of the top film schools in the US, all because the government said I couldn't take anymore than I was getting. I borrowed $80,000 to pay for 4 years of schooling and when I graduated, I came out with $120,000. I was told that interest wouldn't accrue until I was out of school and at the end I was stuck with a degree, hopeless ambitions and a debt I had no idea how to pay back. Since 2007, I moved to NY, worked my ass off at the only jobs I could get, freelancing constantly, interviewing endlessly and losing opportunities to others who had more experience. I applied 5 times for consolidation, trying hard to get my interest rate low but because I couldn't make over $35,000 a year, I was constantly declined, even with a co signer.
10:19 AM on 08/08/2011
Why not do away with federal maximum limits on Stafford loans? Essentially your bill does that, but only after a lot of scurrying around a maze. The student you mention in your article likely was eligible for some sort of federal loan, though the amount of the loan was probably 20% or less of his cost for a year. Many will say allowing a student to get whatever they want for a program will increase college costs as access to guaranteed loans will cause many unscrupulous schools to be motivated to cash in, which is why access to these loans should depend on a "no more than X% tuition increase" pledge to the Dept of ED for a school to participate in such a program.
04:30 PM on 08/05/2011
Nice to see someone in Washington actually understands just how crucial this legislation would be. If the country is going to have any future at all, you cannot hamstring the youth with terrible loans. Thank you for helping. We should all march on Washington until the law is passed -- for sure, the banks aren't letting go without a fight.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
profideous man
04:30 PM on 08/05/2011
As a law student, I believe these three things are important over the long term to ensure professional-quality students continue to obtain the education necessary for that level of work. I find it highly offensive that my law school loans will be unsubsidized and garner a higher interest rate. But that the federal loan system is willing to give my cousin, who is developmentally challenged, practically free money which is driving up (1) the cost to the American tax-payer with absolutely no return, (2) the cost to me as a law student, and (3) the cost to her when she could be obtaining occupational training which is practical for a person in her circumstances. But her school sees it as free money, and continues to take it. It is sick, inefficient, and greedy on the university's part and the government lending agencies need to get on this ball.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
profideous man
04:24 PM on 08/05/2011
1. Short-term, re-subsidize federal loans for graduate and professional students. These are the people seeking not merely higher education, but professional skills that translate into success in the workplace and the specialization needed to make any degree worthwhile.
2. At the same time, we need to significantly reform federal subsidies policy. The current policy would force a professional student (law student, med student, etc.) who has made the undergraduate grades, done well enough on MCATs, LSATs, and GREs to pay a higher interest rate on a higher principle. However, federal loan money stays at the same level it has for people who are doing undergraduate studies and doing C-level (if not remedial) classwork. The success of a person in school goes beyond freshman year, but if a person cannot maintain a 3.0 after one year at a public university in the age of grade inflation, they need to leave until they can come back and focus on the work. Meeting the demands of undergrad C-students is cutting into the money available for professional/graduate level B-students, and putting the onus on the latter.
3. Completely subsidize graduate and professional students at universities that keep higher, stricter minimum entrance and matriculation levels for undergraduates that may be measured, in part, by admissions standards, grade-inflation and grade-curve policies, and +/- grading policies that makes sure the students that are at those universities are (1) competitive, and (2) serious about the academic work.
04:03 PM on 08/05/2011
Usury and hoodwinkery, plainly put. There is a deep,dark tale of scurrilous and unscrupulous activities in the industry. Worse, Congress retroactively changed terms of these loans when they changed bankruptcy laws. The result is draconian and immoral. Especially when bankruptcy relief is still afforded to the lenders themselves. First in my family to go to college,undergraduate loans npaid in full. Graduate school - reasonable amount borrowed relative to expected income. Ten years of payments. Then Hurricane Katrina put me out of work. In 2005 I owed 35,000 after paying for ten years on 40,000 in principle. Katrina forced bankruptcy. I didn't expect a free ride on the other side. But I never expected to now owe $120,000. You see, the lender had packaged the loans, churning them through Lehman Brothers derivatives. When the lender faced problems they caused by their recklessness, they pushed me into default. Refusing anything reasonable. They pocketed their loan guarantee days before they went bankrupt. Refused to consider rehabbing the loans. US Department of Education wrote that rehabbing "hopeless" following Lehman. Default fees, collection fees, interest, and principle all ballooned while THEY were in bankruptcy. Their bankruptcy shed huge debts, they kept a million in cash, and sold my loan at 40% value. They demanded the full $65,000 lump sum. They sued, seized a disabled child's SSI and refused to return it. I make payments now - more than housing costs. Greed is destroying lives and the nation's future. Good luck with K Street on the