Huge Increase in loan rates. Pulling up the ladder again.

<p>With what I will label as more of the "I got mine, Jack" social policy we now have this. Hope this has not been posted before.</p>

<hr>

<p>College Just Got a Lot Costlier</p>

<p>The Progress Report. Posted July 6, 2006.</p>

<p>The huge jump in interest rates for student loans makes higher education even harder to achieve -- and help for low-income students certainly isn't on the way. On July 1, interest rates on student loans experienced the greatest jump in history, with the variable rate on common Stafford loans shooting up almost two percent for students and graduates. The rate hike comes as a result of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which was signed into law by President Bush on Feb. 8, 2006 as part of an effort to save the federal government more than $22 billion over the next five years. (By comparison, the Department of Defense spends approximately $8.1 billion a month in Iraq). </p>

<p>In today's global technology and information-driven society, obtaining a college diploma is more important than ever. The average college-educated worker [PDF] earns about 73 percent more over a working lifetime than a high school graduate, and faces a 40 percent lower risk of unemployment. A college education opens up windows of opportunity, while leaving school prior to earning a post-secondary credential closes doors. But rising costs and shrinking financial aid are making higher education increasingly inaccessible for many Americans. Lack of academic preparation, inability to pay for a full college experience, and economic pressures to seek full-time employment already prevent many students from completing a post-secondary program [PDF]. The student loan interest rate hikes will only exacerbate the problem.</p>

<p>Putting higher education out of reach </p>

<p>As of last Saturday, the new variable rate for Stafford loans will be 6.54 percent for students and 7.14 percent for graduates. In the 2004-2005 school year, the rates on the same loans were just 2.77 percent for students and 3.37 percent for graduates, and in 2005-2006, the rates were 4.7 percent for students and 5.3 percent for graduates. The interest rate hikes are estimated to add an additional $2,000 in loan payments to the average borrower's debt. </p>

<p>The rate hikes are only the latest blow to students trying to overcome the economic hurdles of earning a post-secondary degree. As a new report by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's (D-MA) office [PDF] explains, "The cost of attending a public four-year college increased 32 percent between the 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 school years. The cost of attending a private school has also risen considerably -- a 21 percent increase -- and has reached nearly $26,500 a year." </p>

<p>Compounding the problem is the fact that family incomes have not been able to keep up with the exorbitant costs. According to the Kennedy report, "Median family income increased less than six percent" over the same period of time. This fall, Campus Progress will be launching a campaign focusing on the issues of student debt and access to higher education. Click here to sign up for more information.</p>

<p>Help is not on the way</p>

<p>Financial aid has been lagging behind for families in need of help. Federal grants have not kept pace with tuition growth. "While the maximum Pell Grant [which makes it possible for thousands of low-income students to attend college every year] covered 51 percent of the cost of tuition, fees, room and board at a public four-year college during the 1986-1987 school year, it covered only 35 percent of those costs in 2004-2005." As a result, more students are taking out loans to pay for college, leaving them to shoulder a larger debt burden than ever before. </p>

<p>From 1997-2002, the average undergraduate debt rose 66 percent [PDF]. By another measure, "The average amount of federal student loan debt upon graduation has increased from $8,946 in 1992-1993 to $17,400 in 2003-2004." The debt that students are shouldering is increasingly limiting their career choices. An April 2006 report by the State PIRG's Higher Education Project shows that 37 percent [PDF] of public four-year college graduates have too much debt to manage as a starting social worker, and 38 percent of private four-year college students would face an unmanageable debt burden as a starting teacher. Furthermore, reports show that students are delaying buying a home and putting off marriage due to educational debt. </p>

<p>One solution advocated by the Center for American Progress is to increase funding for the Pell Grant program so that it covers as much as it did two decades ago -- 50 percent [PDF] of the average tuition, fees, room and board at four-year, public universities. The funding can be partially obtained by shifting student loans from bank-subsidizing programs to more cost-effective ones.</p>

<p>The expanding achievement gap </p>

<p>The gap in enrollment rates between low-income and high-income groups is distressing. The graduation rate for high-income students is 60 percent higher than the rate for low-income students. It is estimated that between 2001 and 2010, 4.4 million low- and moderate-income [PDF] academically-qualified students will opt not to enroll in a four-year university, and 2 million of them will forgo college entirely -- all because the cost of a college education is beyond their reach. </p>

<p>American Progress Senior Fellow Gene Sperling has advocated addressing the growing achievement gap by promoting a nationwide educational early-intervention effort through partnerships between private and state universities and local communities. Part of the universities' commitment to long-term early intervention programs would entail offering free tuition to any qualified student admitted from a participating program. In addition, schools should be rewarded with cash bonuses for improving the performance of their disadvantaged students. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/38539/Alternet%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.alternet.org/story/38539/Alternet&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Hope this has not been posted before.'</p>

<p>Not only have we had to read similar "reports" in the past, but also the evidence that most of the alarmist reports are simply ultra partisan pieces of garbage. </p>

<p>While the rates did go up, the reasons behind the raises hardly originated in 2005. Part of the bill also attacked the egregious behavior of several organizations that are directly and cynically supported by the opposition. Hint: check Sallie Mae's lobbyists. </p>

<p>In addition if this becomes yet another partisan discussion, please check the budgets and spending on education under a President who enjoyed surpluses and refused to increase the budget on education during his 8 years reign, and another who despite huge deficits still double the same budget.</p>

<p>Next!</p>

<p>Thanks for posting, TexDad. Xiggi, play nice!</p>

<p>Xiggi, I am glad that your parents are paying for your education? You got yours, I guess. BTW so did my son. I still care and it makes me mad. </p>

<p>This is a "report" of a an actual major raise in the student loan rates. It is the result of a specific statute. Do you dispute this "report" concerning the statute? Do you support this statute and raising the interest rate on these student loans? Try not to bring up Clinton when responding about this specific statute and policy.</p>

<p>xiggie,</p>

<p>Whatever Bill did, Bill did. It's not now and it's not effecting today's kids. This is a low blow from the education president, a sucker punch. </p>

<p>I don't give a crap about what a party did 8 years ago or 5, I care about now, my kids are in college and have secondary plans. Adding 2% to loans makes it that much tougher to get your feet under you when you get out. </p>

<p>Whose name is on the bottom? That's who could have said "NO, I will not make a college education hard for Americans to get". That's what matters, not what somebody else did, it's what this guy didn't do... help make college more affordable for those who have to borrow. </p>

<p>I'm lucky as well as both kids will leave undergrads with less than 10k in debt combined, but what about those with 40-50k in debt. How long does that take to pay off at 7%?</p>

<p>Anxiousmom, I'd play nicer if the article would not be so biased. The author is only focusing on the negatives -and blatantly misrepresenting the reasons behind the hikes. Unless I missed, this article does not address the positive parts of the new laws that extend more credit where it is badly needed.</p>

<p>Inasmuch as the administration does not deserve any kudos when the rates were the lowest in the histiry, they do not deserve the stinging criticisms. Interest rates are not set in a vaccum; they follow markets pushes and pulls. Borrowers had the opportunity to lock in favorable rates as the hikes were announced months ago. Interest rates changes on your credit card are not that generous! </p>

<p>On the other hand, the current administration deserves kudos for having the courgae of confronting a monstruous organization like Sallie Mae and other pilferers who have transformed our education funding in a racket of epic proportions. </p>

<p>Here's a slightly different article:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/05/08/salliemae%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/05/08/salliemae&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I have posted on this issue in the past. Feel free to throw gratuitous punches in my direction. It won't change the fact that the reasons behind the interest hikes are misrepresented, as is the full impact of the bill.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Sallie's dividend has risen at an average annual clip of 18% over the past ten years. And thanks to hefty helpings of stock options, Sallie's top executives have earned fortunes. From 1999 to 2004, just-retired CEO Al Lord —now the lead investor in a group trying to purchase the Washington Nationals —received total compensation of $225 million. New CEO Thomas "Tim" Fitzpatrick made $145 million over the same period. </p></li>
<li><p>The article headline states unequivocally, that Students will bear the brunt of the cuts, but the only support given for that assertion in the article is a quote from a Calif. Congressman. Notably, Higher Ed officials concur that most of the student 'savings' will come from banks who are collecting rapacious fees on the dole. Thus, this bill, which has been floating around Congress for more than a year, is an attempt to scale back SallieMae's obscene profits.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>From Higher Ed news:</p>

<p>"What college lobbyists object to most strenuously in the budget reconciliation bill is the fact that it would derive nearly a third of its savings from the student loan programs. Most of that would come from returning to the government money that now goes to lenders when students and families pay a higher interest rate than the one lenders are guaranteed to receive."</p>

<ol>
<li>The General Accounting Office (GAO), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have all found that switching completely to direct lending would save billions of dollars a year. Following their lead, President George W. Bush's latest budget tells Congress that the guaranteed student loan program is structurally flawed, with "unnecessary subsidies" and "inefficiencies." The president's budget concludes: "Significantly lower Direct Loan subsidy rates call into question the cost effectiveness of the [guaranteed student loan] program structure, including the appropriate level of lender subsidies." </li>
</ol>

<p>As analysts from across the political spectrum have pointed out, the money that would be saved by reforming the student loan program could be used to help more students. During the past few years, the money wasted on guaranteed loans would have been enough to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act, or give every low-income college student an extra $4,000 in grant aid. In fact, each day, more than $15 million is wasted that could help a deserving student pay for college.</p>

<p>bush and company are at it again. they can find a way to end the inheritance tax and a way to give tax cuts to millionaires but they can't find a way to help middle class families and the children they are trying to put through college.</p>

<p>Millionaires have no trouble paying for college... "No millionaire left behind"</p>

<p>
[quote]
Whatever Bill did, Bill did. It's not now and it's not effecting today's kids. This is a low blow from the education president, a sucker punch. </p>

<p>I don't give a crap about what a party did 8 years ago or 5, I care about now, my kids are in college and have secondary plans. Adding 2% to loans makes it that much tougher to get your feet under you when you get out.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, yeah ... I get it. </p>

<p>1, Nothing matters as long as the critics do not have to justify the basis for their anger. It is so much easier to toss out simple facts in favor of utterly simplistic positions. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>Who gives a rat's ass if the rates were higher before, and that most interested parties WANTED to see the flexible rates abolished in favor of a higher rate. I assume that what people want is to be able to FIX the rate when it is low but forget it when it is higher. </p></li>
<li><p>Who cares that the rates were SET to change based on PRIOR laws that established the indexes. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>FYI, the following table lists historical Stafford loan repayment interest rates. </p>

<p>Year Rate Formula
2006-07 6.8% fixed rate
2005-06 5.30% (2.998 + 2.3%, cap 8.25%)
2004-05 3.37% (1.066 + 2.3%, cap 8.25%)
2003-04 3.42% (1.121 + 2.3%, cap 8.25%)
2002-03 4.06% (1.760 + 2.3%, cap 8.25%)
2001-02 5.99% (3.688 + 2.3%, cap 8.25%) </p>

<hr>

<p>2000-01 8.19% (5.893 + 2.3%, cap 8.25%)
1999-00 6.92% (4.621 + 2.3%, cap 8.25%)
1998-99 7.46% (5.155 + 2.3%, cap 8.25%)
1997-98 8.25% (5.16 + 3.1%, cap 8.25%)
1996-97 8.25% (5.16 + 3.1%, cap 8.25%)
1995-96 8.25% (5.82 + 3.1%, cap 8.25%)
1994-95 7.43% (4.33 + 3.1%, cap 8.25%)
1993-94 6.22% (3.12 + 3.1%, cap 9.0%)
1992-93 6.94% (3.84 + 3.1%, cap 9.0%) </p>

<p>In-School Interest Rates </p>

<p>The following table lists historical Stafford loan in-school/grace period interest rates. </p>

<p>Year Rate Formula
2006-07 6.8% fixed rate
2005-06 4.70% (2.998 + 1.7%, cap 8.25%)
2004-05 2.77% (1.066 + 1.7%, cap 8.25%)
2003-04 2.82% (1.121 + 1.7%, cap 8.25%)
2002-03 3.46% (1.760 + 1.7%, cap 8.25%)
2001-02 5.39% (3.688 + 1.7%, cap 8.25%) </p>

<hr>

<p>2000-01 7.59% (5.893 + 1.7%, cap 8.25%)
1999-00 6.32% (4.621 + 1.7%, cap 8.25%)
1998-99 6.86% (5.155 + 1.7%, cap 8.25%)
1997-98 7.65% (5.16 + 2.5%, cap 8.25%)
1996-97 7.65% (5.16 + 2.5%, cap 8.25%)
1995-96 7.65% (5.82 + 2.5%, cap 8.25%)
1994-95 7.43% (4.33 + 3.1%, cap 8.25%)
1993-94 6.22% (3.12 + 3.1%, cap 9.0%)
1992-93 6.94% (3.84 + 3.1%, cap 9.0%) </p>

<p>PLUS Loan Interest Rates </p>

<p>The following table lists historical PLUS loan interest rates. </p>

<p>Year Rate Formula
2006-07 8.5% fixed rate
2005-06 6.10% (2.998 + 3.1%, cap 9.0%)
2004-05 4.17% (1.066 + 3.1%, cap 9.0%)
2003-04 4.22% (1.121 + 3.1%, cap 9.0%)
2002-03 4.86% (1.760 + 3.1%, cap 9.0%)
2001-02 6.79% (3.688 + 3.1%, cap 9.0%) </p>

<hr>

<p>2000-01 8.99% (5.893 + 3.1%, cap 9.0%)
1999-00 7.72% (4.621 + 3.1%, cap 9.0%)
1998-99 8.26% (5.155 + 3.1%, cap 9.0%)
1997-98 8.98% (5.88 + 3.1%, cap 9.0%)
1996-97 8.72% (5.62 + 3.1%, cap 9.0%)
1995-96 8.98% (5.87 + 3.1%, cap 9.0%)
1994-95 8.38% (5.28 + 3.1%, cap 9.0%)
1993-94 6.64% (3.54 + 3.1%, cap 10.0%)
1992-93 7.36% (4.26 + 3.1%, cap 10.0%)
1991-92 9.34% (6.09 + 3.25%, cap 12.0%)
1990-91 11.49% (8.24 + 3.25%, cap 12.0%)
1989-90 12.00% (9.15 + 3.25%, cap 12.0%)
1988-89 10.45% (7.20 + 3.25%, cap 12.0%)
1987-88 10.27% (7.02 + 3.25%, cap 12.0%) </p>

<p>Oh, I forgot, who gives a crap about this. It's all Bush fault. After all, why could he not magically change the base rate ofstudent loans to a number lower than 4.843%. Coudl it be that variable rates could have been as follows</p>

<ul>
<li>Stafford Loans for students in school: 6.543%, up from 4.70%</li>
<li>Stafford Loans for graduates in repayment: 7.143%, up from 5.30%</li>
</ul>

<p>What about 2007? Lower? Higher?</p>

<p>xiggi - We love you, really! It's just that some of us old fogeys can't square tax cuts for millionaires (i.e., eliminating inheritance taxes) with high interest rates for student loans.</p>

<p>xiggi, with respect, throwing political punches at an economic reality? Huh? I live in a nation which has 7% student loans and much lower college education costs--( 3years @ $8k for a BA) and the results of high loan costs are horrendous. </p>

<p>A large percentage of non-professionals cannot pay the premiums on non-professional starting salaries. The default rate is ridiculously high. The housing market, automobile market and large appliance market is also affected when newly marrieds cannot afford down payments due to high student loan costs.</p>

<p>This rate hike will have enormous financial implications for the majority of college age students--as it has done in other countries.</p>

<p>I'm with xiggi on this one -- it is much ado about nothing. Until the states (and federal governments) address the high school drop out rate (which has a much more profound effect on society), a few (thousand?) kids attending a juco for two years is not a big deal.</p>

<p>Cheers, assuming you're not pulling my chain, please realize my comments were in answer to an article that did nothing but make this issue a political one. </p>

<p>As a consumer I hate every increase just like anyone else, but one has to be realistic and objective about the underlying issues. </p>

<p>I do hope that we can agree that interest rates are set according to market conditions, and not at the whim of the President. Further, I hope we can also agree that the now infamous 12 or 14 billions hike had a number of targets, including groups that had been protected by some of the strongest lobbying groups. </p>

<p>As far as the interest rate increases, why cannot we ascertain what would have happened without a change to a fixed rate. The figures of 4.7% and 6.8% make good press, especially when expressing an increase of 2.1% based on 4.7%. However, the reality is that the increase is not that significant compared to the index based rate that WOULD HAVE taken effect without the new Act. Actually, for one class of borrowers, the rate would have been HIGHER. In addition, the rate increase are seemingly high because the rates were so much lower than the historical averages. A base index of 1 to 3% is simply not realistic on a historical basis. </p>

<p>Part of this entire new legislation has been based on closing loopholes that benefitted the private sector to the tune of billions at the expenses of taxpayers. The Loan Guarantee program might have been great for citizens such as Lord and Fitzgerald, but not that great for taxpayers. </p>

<p>As far as political punches, I'd say that they do not hurt as much as the plain truth. This administration has spent more money on Education than the Clinton/Gore did, and during their reign, students paid a lot more in interest than today, and did not have the opportunity to consolidate at the rates of 2003-2005. If criticisms should be hurled at this President regarding the funding of education, what could be said about the previous one? Before speaking about devastating effects of this recent increase, why don't we evaluate the impact of the rates that were higher -or much higher- for a good 10 years of the past 15? </p>

<p>With all due respect, comments such "The Bushies at work" are the ones making political fodder out of an economic reality, not to mention distorting facts.</p>

<p>Interesting, that someone would claim such a huge increase in interest rates is no big deal. That cutting billions from student loans is no big deal.</p>

<p>Xiggi, your historic interest rates are interesting, but irrelevant to the current discussion for two reasons:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The historic floating rates need to be interpreted in the context of the economy at the time. I remember well when rates were a lot higher - even had a mortgage once costing over 11%. So what. Some investments were returning a lot more then, too. And, folks going in knew what was happening.</p></li>
<li><p>For a lot of families, this change is like changing the rules in the middle of the game: anyone ready to begin college shortly, or anyone in college is affected directly by this, in an unexpected way.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>The fact that congress allowed some lenders to make obscene profits off the spread has been known for several years. It stemmed from past decisions to guarantee a specified, rather high minimum rate of return for some lenders that did not adjust even as the cost of money went through the floor. (high guaranteed return, low cost = $$$). Many experts practically begged congress to trim these obscene profits and plow the savings into more financial aid.</p>

<p>Instead, what does the administration do? It cuts those profits AND it raises costs for students, for a savings of over $20 billion over 5 years.</p>

<p>There was no need to raise costs so much for student borrowers, especially in the face of the tax cut extensions for other folks.</p>

<p>Xiggi, your recent comments would be true IF one were to assume the fixed rate would stay what it is in the face of some serious inflation. If you really thing this administration would let that happen, then we have rather different assumption bases.</p>

<p>If you followed the politics behind the scenes on this, as I have, you would realize there was never anything in it other than stiffing the middle class, the ones that borrow the most. After all, this regime does consider subsidized loans to be another form of social welfare, for which the regime has little fondness. </p>

<p>The good news, if there is any, is that the Bushies have not hit just middle class families with students in college. You should see what they're doing to veterans. In the face of a swelling vet population, with some real high need cases, due to Iraq, they've cut the VA hard. After all, its just another form of welfare in their minds.</p>

<p>Xiggi:</p>

<p>For a smart guy, you have a lot to learn about politics --- and how these issues play out in middle America. Go to work instead of going to college? Whistle contentedly off to junior college instead of a four-year so that someone can buy his third vacation home or a even-bigger yacht? In an election year, this is ammunition, my friend, and rightly so. Your factual lists of figures don't fit in a 30-second ad.</p>

<p>NMD, let's set aside my so-called irrelevant figures, and simply answer this question:</p>

<p>What would the rate have been IF this law had not passed in February 2006. The answer should not be speculative as the index is known. </p>

<p>On July 1, 2006, the floating rates would have been <strong>.</strong> %. </p>

<p>How much MORE in interest would a 10 years 23,000 dollars cost a taxpayer, based on the 2006 fixed rate and the calculated floating rate rate? $_________.</p>

<p>And regarding this, "For a lot of families, this change is like changing the rules in the middle of the game: anyone ready to begin college shortly, or anyone in college is affected directly by this, in an unexpected way."</p>

<p>Wouldn't a fixed rate minimize unexpected changes? Why is the floating rate based on an index preferred? Are intimating that the fixed rate is actually something that is not ... fixed for the duration of the loan?</p>

<p>It would be a lot easier to say "go to junior college for two years" if:
*there were enough spaces at junior colleges for everyone who wants one, and
*if there were enough transfer spaces to four-year colleges for everyone who wants to transfer</p>

<p>but, sadly, neither is the case.</p>

<p>As for warning people in February of something that will happen in July---many people begin to make college decisions several years out. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, applications for many state schools (and places have filled) have closed long before February.... </p>

<p>We've had lovely low interest rates throughout much of Bush's term, indeed. That's been a real joy for those of us who DO have savings, rather than debt, by the way.</p>

<p>Tax cuts for millionaires? Resident millionaire here, and frankly our tax bill is higher than ever. No exemptions, limited schedule A deductions, medicare tax than goes on forever for a program I am certain we will never be allowed to collect from because by the time we're ready for either SS or medicare I'm sure there will be a rule regarding assets that will exclude us. </p>

<p>Here's something for you all to consider...we pay tax at the highest marginal rate. How would you like to give back 50 % of every dollar you EARN? Then, after you pay that, and all your bills, including the 45k for tuition times however many kids, whatever is left over gets invested. You pay tax on the earnings. Then you die, and your kids get to pay tax on the money that has already been taxed. Still want to join me? I know you all think you wouldn't care if you had a lot of money, but trust me you would.</p>

<p>Now you want the government to raise my taxes more? Are you aware of the alternative minimum tax? The limit on mortgage interest deductions? The phasing out to zero on exemptions? The removal of the cap on medicare tax? These are all hidden tax increases on the "wealthy." Before you all scream at me- I am NOT complaining, nor am I looking for sympathy.</p>

<p>My husband is a CEO who works 80 hours a week, travels extensively, and who has earned every penny we have. He is creating more jobs by helping grow a corporation, and increasing the profits which fund employee's retirement accounts. Most of those employees make it home for dinner every night-he doesn't. Many of those employees coach their children's teams-never an option for him because of his travel schedule. Most of those employees can make plans for the weekend to enjoy life-not true for internationally traveling executives, who frequently arrive Saturday, leave Sunday or stay over weekends to make a costly trip more cost effective.</p>

<p>We have sacrificed in ways most of you will never understand to achieve this level of financial security, and probably wouldn't even consider. A close friend said recently she wouldn't trade places with me even to get my bank balance, despite real financial need on her part (we pay her son's high school tuition and will do so for the two coming up behind him...but her husband is home at 2:30 every day from his job working for the town. They gave up good jobs to move back to the area they were raised, to live near family and friends.) And that's okay...but recognize the impact of life choices and teach your children to do the same. And if/when you make choices that affect your finances, don't expect that the "haves" should pay even more to help you.</p>

<p>Here's my two cents for kids who need to take loans to go to school.
Do it. Then think hard about what you are studying, how you will apply it in the real world and what kind of lifestyle it will afford, and make smart choices. Do well in school, get involved, help out the community. When you finish school, go to work. Work hard and long. Go the extra mile. Make sacrifices. Scrub floors if you need to (I did). And you will pay off those college loans-we did.</p>

<p>And then you can start dreaming about those vacation homes and yachts...or whatever you want...because you will have learned what you needed to achieve your goals, and the sky is the limit.</p>