From the office of U.S. Sen. Barbara Mikulski:
MIKULSKI STATEMENT ON REPUBLICAN FILIBUSTER OF BILL TO PREVENT STUDENT LOAN RATE HIKE
‘I call on students all across America struggling under crushing tuition costs to make their voices heard,’ Senator says
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.)today expressed her strong disappointment that Senate Republicans filibustered theStop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act of 2012. Senator Mikulski cosponsored the legislation to prevent federal student loan interest rates from doubling for more than 103,000 Maryland students on July 1st.
“I believe in America’s opportunity ladder, and higher education is an important rung on that ladder,”Senator Mikulski said. “I’m appalled that Republicans would stand in the way of protecting middle class families being squeezed by rising tuition costs in order to protect a tax loophole for the wealthy. I call on students all across America struggling under crushing tuition costs to make their voices heard. It’s time to stand up and fight so that every student has access to the American dream and ensure that when they graduate, their first mortgage isn’t their student debt.”
As the cost of a college education continues to rise, this increase will add $1,000 to the cost of these loans for millions of Americans and will further squeeze middle class families already fighting to afford college. Without this legislation, interest rates on federal student loans will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Republicans voted against proceeding to debate the legislation in order to protect a tax loophole that allows the wealthy to avoid paying employment taxes on a significant portion of their income.
Senator,
I am totally in agreement with you that student loan rates should not be raised. The vast majority of Republicans and Democrats agree with each other on this. So, this is not a partisan issue. However, your press release is an obvious first step toward making it a partisan issue. What will be a partisan issue, as you very well know, is how it is funded. The conservatives are not going to allow Obama and Reid to decide all by themselves where the money comes from. Smart people will see thru this and uninformed ones won’t. At the end of the day we will see if all of that loan money has produced informed people or uninformed people. Or just people who are so self-centered that they don’t care where the money comes FROM as long as it goes TO them. If that is what it produced then we have all made a very poor investment indeed.
By the way I am part of the middle class that you say you want to protect. You can stop anytime. I don’t want the kind of help you offer.
The Republicans have in fact threatened a filibuster. I seem to think that they disagree with keeping the rate down.
Hey CDEV,
Actually, they disagree in the way the Democrats want to pay for it. From the New York Times, “Republicans say they want to extend Democratic legislation passed in 2007 that temporarily reduced interest rates for low- and middle-income undergraduates who receive subsidized Stafford loans to 3.4 percent from 6.8 percent. But the Republicans would not accept the Senate Democrats’ proposal to pay for a one-year extension by changing a law that allows some wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying Social Security and Medicare taxes by classifying their pay as dividends, not cash income.”
Anyways, have a nice day.
Furthermore,
The House Republicans passed a bill last month that would pay for extending the 3.4 percent rate by taking money from President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul. The Democrats opposed that. Should we say the Democrats disagree with keeping the rate down? What’s good for the goose and all that, right, CDEV?
Anyways, have a nice day.
Perhaps if a fillibuster actually still required debate like it once did and required someone to actually talk they would have explained this a little better. I think the modification of the fillibuster to not require day and night talking makes it nothing more than a way to waste time!
CDEV,
The House plan and vote was before the senate fillibuster, therefore making it quite obvious what the Republicans wanted. The Republicans wanted to keep the rate down but the Democrats obviously, using your logic, did not want to keep the rate down because they voted against a plan that would keep the rate down. Perhaps the Democrats could have accpeted the Republican plan and not disagree with keeping the rate down.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Well said ALEX R. It seems that most of the cost of a college education goes to wacky courses like “the history of rap”, badminton & dodge ball scholarships,huge beautiful buildings and extravagant salaries for the administrators. I’m sure if serious subjects were taught in high school type buildings the cost could be reduced and maybe only serious students would attend.
Yes, well said Alex. Hydesmann, a bit curious about your comment caused me to do some research about tuition at colleges. Wow.
Read this: http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/26/pf/college/college_tuition_cost/index.htm
Then I see inflation for 2011 (the time frame for the above article) was only 3.16%.
See: http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historicalinflation.aspx
Am I missing something?
I am a graduate student getting my Ph D in Chemistry. What this interest hike and more importantly removal of the 6 month grace period means to me is that I will be taking my knowledge into industry. It means I cannot afford to go into academia and pass down my knowledge to the next generation. I have to take a higher starting salary that is found in industry rather than participating in a post doctoral fellowship that pays less now but allows me to go into a university position.
I know I am not the only person that feels this way. There are quite a few graduate students who just made up their mind today to go into industry rather than academia because it pays better. I fear that this legislation will result in a flock to industry of the best and brightest. This intern will produce a surge in competition for science positions resulting in the “left overs” resigning themselves to teach. This may result in universities changing their hiring practicing to not requiring post docs but is this what we really want? Don’t we want the educators of tomorrow to have the experience and know how that the is required to be cutting edge in respective fields?
I am worried about future that this may lead to for my children. And would be happy to have a conversation with whoever needs their minds changed.
Chris,
Best of luck to you in private industry. It is time you started putting all that knowledge to work, earning a great wage, and paying back the money you borrowed from the taxpayers. This is truly a great country and you will be great in private industry. Get after it… you can do this!!
Christopher,
Mike is right, you’ll do fine. A couple decades ago I had a similar situation. Had to get a job rather than continue to post-undergrad right away. I paid my loans back early owing to working two jobs, and then went back for my graduate work later and did so debt free because 1) my employer picked up part of the tab, and 2) I was bringing in that good paycheck you will now be getting. Live frugally, spend wisely, stay on top of your game and you can save for that graduate work.
The sky is not really falling on your dreams and fulfillment to society. It will only look different.
Unfortunately, Republicans already made the issue political by going after funds from the Democrat’s only major piece of legislation.
And unfortunately, the Democrats made it more political by trying to frame it as more war on the middle class propaganda. The interest rate hike will hurt families in the long run because of increased loan costs, but even $1000 spread out over 20 years/240 months will be like an extra $4 or 5/month on the loan payment, on average– I think even the middle class can spare a cup of coffee for a college degree.
However, what is most disappointing about the whole matter is that neither has made any comment or has any real plan for the real problem, which is out of control college costs. More people need loans because costs have soared and income has not, as noted by a comment above.
So if either of them really wanted to help the middle class, they’d be talking about that, rather than, once again, pointing fingers at each other in a political blame game.
Pathetic.
Noble,
If it involves public money it is automatically political.
Why the spiraling costs? That’s easy. This rising generation expects glitz and glamour! My goodness, I went back to my alma mater a few years back – the place is a palace!! Where we had temp walls setting the student union apart from the bookstore you now have a retail outlet that rivals anything you’d see on Fifth Avenue in NY, and the millions poured into feeding the TV habit these kids have…
Educators must be compensated well. However, when those paychecks are approaching the levels seen by mid-level corporate execs… well, it’s a no brainer why it costs more.
These things, of course, are out of reach by politicians… yet another expense we the public pay for to benefit a few. Nothing new here, move along…
Largely, it is an issue for State governments to manage, however, there are tweaks the Federal govt can make to the grant and loan system that would help deter excessive college debt.
One would be diploma mills and unsavory technical and online colleges who purely take advantage of people who can qualify for loans.
A second would be changing the funding requirements for schools to even be considered for Federal loans. Losing that “guaranteed” tuition money would straighten some of them out a bit.
But you are totally correct, there is a massive marketing program underway to lure students, and these government loans party subsidize it.
Well stated and in full agreement.