Susan Dynarski's Fix for the Student Loan Crisis: Simplistic, Dangerous, and Ineffective

Susan Dynarski published an essay recently in the Business section of the Sunday Times with the provocative title of "America Can Fix Its Student Loan Crisis. Ask Australia." Her prescription is simplistic, dangerous, and ineffective.

Essentially, Dynarski recommends putting American student borrowers into income-based, long-term repayment plans. She doesn't say how long, but she wrote approvingly of the English system--which, she attests, gives students 30 years to pay off their loans.

She also recommends putting student borrowers into a payroll withholding system whereby
debtors have their monthly loan payments deducted from their paychecks based on a percentage of their income.  When borrowers' incomes go up, their payments would be larger; if their incomes go down, their payments would be reduced as well.

Dynarski's proposal is very close to what the Obama administration is already doing--pushing millions of student borrowers into income-based repayment plans that stretch out over 20 or 25 years.

Dynarski says long-term student-loan repayment plans make sense because college graduates benefit from their college experience over their entire lives. "A core principle of finance is that the length of debt payments should align with the life of the asset," she writes didactically. "We pay for cars over five years and homes over 30 years because homes last a lot longer than cars." Likewise, Dynarski reasons, "[a]n education pays off over a lifetime, so it makes sense that student loans should be paid off over a long term."

Dynarski urges the United States to follow the example of those savvy Europeans, who give students longer to pay off their student loans than we do here in the U.S. "All the international student loan experts I have spoken with are shocked by how little time American students are given to pay off their student loans," she informs us. Shocked!

Simplistic

Dynarski's simplistic proposal is based on erroneous premises.  First of all, contrary to Dynarski's view, many student borrowers do not have college experiences that benefit them over a lifetime. Students who borrow to attend for-profit colleges and have substandard experiences don't receive a lifetime of benefits. Perhaps that is why almost half of a recent cohort of students  who attended for-profit colleges defaulted within five years. People who drop out of college before graduating don't receive a lifetime of benefits either, although they may acquire a lifetime of debt.

And many people who borrow money to obtain liberal arts degrees are not receiving much benefit. I for one received almost no benefit from the sociology degree I obtained from Oklahoma State University many years ago. But at least I didn't borrow money to pay for it.

People who borrow $100,000 or more to get degrees in sociology, history, women's studies, religious studies, etc. generally are paying far more than their degrees are worth.  In fact, 45 percent of recent graduates take jobs that don't even require a college degree.  And in the workplace as a whole, about a third of college graduates are in jobs that don't require a college education.

Moreover, Dynarski's comparison between American college financing and Europe is not very useful. As she herself points out, higher education in many European countries is free, and most European countries have a bigger social safety net for their citizens than the U.S. does. It is one thing to pay on student loans for 20 years if health care is free and an old-age pension is assured. It is quite another thing for people to pay on their student loans over a majority of their working lives while saving for retirement and paying for health insurance.

Ineffective

If we think about Dynarski's proposal for just a few moments, we can see how ineffective it is for solving the student loan crisis. American higher education is the most expensive in the world, and stretching out students' loan repayments for 25 or 30 years will do nothing to get those costs under control. In fact, the reason so many higher education insiders favor long-term income-based repayment plans is because it enables them to continue jacking up tuition prices.

And Dynarski's plan takes no account of accruing interest.  Borrowers who make small monthly loan payments due to their low salaries won't be paying off interest as it accrues. Most Americans who enter these plans will never pay off their loan balances even if they faithfully make their monthly loan payments for 300 consecutive months.  Isn't it also a core principle of finance that people should actually pay off their loans?

Dangerous

Finally, Dynarkski's proposal is simply dangerous to the long-term well being of Americans who go to college.  Basically, she is proposing a special tax that everyone who borrows to attend college must pay over the majority of their working lives. Student loan payments will just be another deduction from people's paychecks--like federal income tax withholding and Social Security contributions.

Essentially, Dynarski is proposing a modern-day sharecropper system very much like the one that prevailed in the American South prior to World War II. The sharecropper system of the 1930s required tenant farmers to pay a portion of their crops to Southern plantation owners; the modern system forces college students to pay a portion of their future wages to the government over a majority of their working lives.

Both sharecropper systems are unjust: and Dynarski, by pitching the new sharecropper system in the Business section of the  New York Times, has become an apologist for exploitation.

References

Mathew Boesler. More College Grads Finding Work, But Not in the Best Jobs. Bloomberg.com, April 7, 2016. Accessible at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-07/more-college-grads-finding-work-but-not-in-the-best-jobs

Susan Dynarski. American Can Fix Its Student Loan Crisis. Ask Australia. New York Times, July 10, 2016. Business  Section, p. 6.

The Labor Market for Recent College Graduates. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 2016. Accessible at https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market/index.html

Adam Looney & Constantine Yannelis, A crisis in student loans? How changes in the characteristics of borrowers and in the institutions they attended contributed to rising default rates. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution (2015). Accessible at: http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/papers/2015/looney-yannelis-student-loan-defaults

Susan Dynarski, Brookings Institution, and the U.S. Housing Market: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and President Emeritus of Harvard, has expressed concern about growing student-loan indebtedness, which he linked to a slowdown in home ownership in the United States. Joe Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winner in economics, and the Federal Reserve Bank in New York have also expressed the view that growing levels of college-loan debt is hurting the housing market.

But Susan Dynarski, writing for the Brookings Institution, says this is nonsense. Crunching the data from the Federal Reserve System in a different way than the Federal Reserve Bank, she came to this conclusion: education levels, not student-loan indebtedness, explain the difference in home-ownership rates among Americans. In a nutshell, here are Dynarski's conclusions:

Those who borrow for college do have a slower start to homeownership than those who went to college debt-free. . . . But by the time people are in their thirties, when the typical borrower would have finished paying off her student loans, the home ownship rates of the two college-educated groups are statistically indistinguishable. The striking, large gap is between the college-educated and those who stopped with high school.

I have two observations to make about Dynarski's paper for the Brookings Institution.  First, if Dynarski disagrees with Larry Summers, Joe Stiglitz and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, I"m inclined to be persuaded by these eminences rather than Dynarski.

Second, speaking purely as a layperson with no expertise in economics, Dynarski's arguments simply defy common sense. How can she say that rising levels of student-loan indebtedness has no impact on home ownership given what we know about the massive hardship that millions of college-loan borrowers are suffering?

As the New York Times noted several months ago, 10 million people have either defaulted on their student loans or are in delinquency. Can anyone say this group of people have not been shut out of the housing market?

Another 5 million people have been shoved into long-term income-based repayment plans that stretch out for 20 years or more; and the Obama administration hopes to increase that figure by another 2 million people by the end of 2017. Can anyone argue that having a 20-year financial obligation hanging around one's neck has no impact on the ability to buy a home?

Susan Dynarski and the Brookings Institution have published numerous papers that basically contend  that the student-loan program is under control. Like those cops at a murder scene in a 1950s detective movie, they constantly mutter, "Move along, folks; nothing to see here; move along."

But everyone from Joe the Plumber to Larry Summers knows the federal college-loan program is out of control, with millions of people unable to make their loan payments. In my view, the Brookings Institution and many of its researchers are nothing more than shills for the higher education industry, which desperately needs large infusions of federal cash to keep the doors open.

Like all of higher education's apologists, Dynarski repeats the old bromide that people who graduate from college make more money than people who only hold a high school diploma. Of course that is true. But this platitude doesn't excuse higher education for running up tuition costs at twice the rate of inflation. It doesn't justify the behavior of the for-profit universities, which charge far too much for substandard programs and have shockingly high student-loan default rates.

In my opinion, policy makers and the public in general should discount almost everything the Brookings Institution says about the student-loan crisis, which by and large the Brookings people don't even acknowledge.  We should listen to the Vermont House of Representatives, which adopted a resolution a few days ago calling on Congress to lift restrictions on bankruptcy for student-loan debtors. After all, the small-town legislators in the Green Mountain State live in the real world, which is not the world that Susan Dynarski and her Brookings colleagues live in.

References

Micahel Bielawski. Vermont House asks Congress to let student-loan borrowers file for bankruptcy. VermongtWatchdog.org, May 3, 2016.  Accessible at http://watchdog.org/264079/legislature-requests-student-debt-relief-bankruptcy/

Editorial, "Why Student Debtors Go Unrescued." New York Times, October 7, 2015, A 26. Accessible at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/why-student-debtors-go-unrescued.html

Susan Dynarski. The dividing line between haves and have-nots in home ownership; Education, not student debt. Brookings Institution, May3, 2016. Accessible at http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2016/05/03-dividing-line-between-haves-have-nots-home-ownership-education-not-student-debt-dynarski

Harvard Economist N. Gregory Mankiw Provides a Lazy and Self-Serving Answer to Why College Costs So Much

Harvard Professor N. Gregory Mankiw wrote a lazy and self-serving op ed essay in the New York Times today, in which he purported to explain why college costs so much.

Like most of higher education's shills (Sandy Baum, Susan Dynarski, Catharine Hill, etc.), Professor Mankiw began his pitch by assuring us that college is still a good investment. The median wage for a college graduate, Mankiw reminds his readers, is about twice as much as the median wage for a worker with only a high school education.

Of course it is true that college graduates generally make more money than people with only a high school education, but that fact doesn't justify skyrocketing costs across almost all sectors of higher education. Nor does it justify the ever-increasing amount of money people are borrowing in order to attend college.

Mankiw then goes on to give three explanations for why college costs are going up--all bogus:

First, Professor Mankiw instructs us, we have "Baumol's cost disease."  According to Mankiw, Baumol recognized that as wages rise across all sectors of society, salaries rise even for services that have seen no increase in productivity.

Of course everyone knows that. It costs more for a haircut today than it did a generation ago, even though barbers haven't grown more efficient. Likewise, the cost of higher education has gone up. We used to call that phenomenon inflation, but Professor Mankiw prefers to call it Baumol's cost disease.

But of course this blather does not explain why the cost of higher education has gone up three times the rate of inflation over the past 30 years.

Second, Mankiw argues, higher education seems more expensive due to rising inequalities in society as a whole.  Here I'll let Mankiw explain this argument in his own words:

Educational institutions hire a lot of skilled workers: It takes educated people to produce the next generation of educated people. Thus, rising inequality has increased not only the benefit of education but also the cost of it.

OK, Professor Mankiw, what you say may be true. But again, how does that argument explain why college costs have risen much faster than inflation?

Finally, Mankiw explains, college costs haven't gone up as much as the public thinks because most students aren't paying the sticker price.  Colleges engage in "price discrimination," with only the suckers paying full price. And of course this is true. On average, private liberal art colleges are only collecting about 60 percent of the sticker price because they give discounts in the forms of grants and scholarships to preferred students.

In other words, Professor Mankiw is trying to assure Mr. and Mrs. America that when their children go to college, they'll probably get some sort of brother-in-law deal and won't be paying full price.

All this is pure horse manure. At bottom, Professor Mankiw is merely defending the status quo in higher education, just as Vassar's Catharine Hill did a couple of weeks ago in the Times when she argued against free college education. In fact, when you read Professor Mankiw's essay closely, which he hopes you won't do, he really isn't saying anything at all.

The reality is this: the cost of higher education has gone up for a variety of reasons, and many of those reasons are tied to greed and laziness.  At the elite universities, tenured professors are teaching fewer classes--ostensibly to have more time to do more important things.  College costs could go down if every professor taught the typical teaching load of 30 years ago.  I would be surprised, for example, if Professor Mankiw teaches more than three courses a year.

Moreover, the cost of attending for-profit colleges is especially high, much higher than a comparable educational experience at a community college or public university.  Students who attend these rapacious institutions borrow more money than students who go to public schools. and their student-loan default rates are shocking. According to the Brookings Institution, the five-year loan default rate in the for-profit sector is nearly 50 percent.  But of course, Professor Mankiw didn't even mention the for-profit colleges.

College costs have also gone up because the number of ancillary employees has increased. For example, Harvard was recently ridiculed for printing special placemats that contained instructions to students about how to answer their parents' embarrassing questions when they went home for the holidays.  As if Harvard students are too stupid to know how to talk to their parents or to have their own opinions.

How much, do you suppose, Harvard is paying the person who dreamed up and printed those embarrassing placemats? Well--whatever it is, that amount adds to the cost of Harvard's tuition.

In truth, the cost of postsecondary education is out of control for multiple reasons, and the problem varies in its seriousness across higher education's many sectors. For-profit colleges charge too much; almost all objective commentators agree. Professional education is far too expensive. In particular, the law schools have jacked up tuition prices and are producing about twice as many lawyers as the nation needs. Administrators' salaries have gone up faster than professors' salaries, and numerous frills--fitness centers, luxury student housing, recreational facilities like LSU's "Lazy River"--all this has contributed to the spiraling cost of higher education.

About all these issues, Professor Mankiw had nothing to say.

Personally, I found Professor Mankiw's essay offensive. Millions of people can't pay back their student loans, and most can't discharge those loans in bankruptcy.  Meanwhile, the Department of Education and the policy wonks are urging the expansion of long-term repayment plans that will force Americans to pay on their student loans for 20 or 25 years. In short, the student loan program is a mess, and Professor Mankiw prattles on about Baumol's cost disease!

Professor Mankiw's op essay in the Times was nothing  more than a lazy and self-serving defense of the status quo--a status quo than benefits people like Professor Mankiw.

Professor N. Gregory Mankiw: He likes the status quo.

Susan Dynarski wrings her hands because we don't have enough information about the student debt crisis. But we know enough to take action.

Susan Dynarski recently wrote a half-page article in the Sunday Times, complaining about the government's lack of useful data about the federal student loan program. She's right of course.

The U.S. Department of Education releases very little useful information about the student-loan crisis. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which has issued alarming reports on the problem, relies on Equifax, a private credit reporting agency, for most of its information--not DOE. 

Why don't we have better data? Dynarski quotes a former DOE official who says "lack of will" on the part of DOE's data  collectors is part of the answer, along with "reluctance of senior political leadership in the Department of Education to press for action."

In other words, the Obama administration and Arne Duncan's Department of Education don't want the public to know just how bad the student loan crisis really is.

Barack Obama and Arne Duncan just want to get out of town before the federal student loan program collapses. They are like those American officials during the Vietnam War who scrambled to get on one of the last helicopters leaving Saigon before the city fell to the North Vietnamese.

Barack & Arne just want to get out of town before the student loan crisis blows up.

Make no mistake. Barack and Arne know what's going on. They know the lid is about to blow off this smoothly managed crisis.  And they are trying to strew a little evidence around to show they are trying to address the problem without really doing anything about it. For example, President Obama released his laughable and toothless "Student Bill of Rights" earlier this month.

Solving the student-loan crisis will take more than empty platitudes. It will take courage.

• It will take courage to rein in the for-profit college sector, which is raping low-income and minority students by enticing them to enroll in high-cost educational programs that don't lead to good jobs.
• It will take courage to amend the Bankruptcy Code so that insolvent student-loan debtors can get reasonable access to bankruptcy relief.
• It will take courage to stop garnishing the Social Security checks of elderly debtors who defaulted on their student loans.
•  It will take courage to stop the private student-loan debt collectors from tacking huge penalties on to the loan balances of defaulted student-loan debtors.

And it will also take a sense of human decency, which President Obama's Department of Education apparently does not have.

Thus, in the Myhre bankruptcy case,  we see the Department of Education opposing bankruptcy relief for a quadriplegic student-loan debtor who was working full time and was still unable to support himself financially, much less pay off his student loans.

And in the Lamento bankruptcy case, the Department of Education opposed bankruptcy relief for a single mother of two who was working full time and was only able to put a roof over her children's heads because she was living rent free with her mother and stepfather.

In both the Myhe case and the Lamento case, DOE wanted these unfortunate student-loan debtors to sign up for 25-year repayment plans. And that has been the Obama administration's overall strategy for dealing with the student loan crisis.

Yes, rather than do the decent thing and work for bankruptcy relief for worthy student-loan debtors, President Obama's Department of Education is trying to force most oppressed student-loan debtors into 25-year repayment plans.

And why is DOE doing that? Because if President Obama and Arne Duncan's Department of Education were forced to publicly admit that millions of student-loan debtors are insolvent and will never pay off their loans, the whole sorry business of the federal student loan program would collapse.

But they won't admit it. And that is why, Ms. Dynarski,  the Department of Education is not releasing useful data about the student-loan crisis.

But I'll bet you already knew that, didn't you, Ms. Dynarski? After all, you are one of President Obama's advisers.

Susan Dynarski: We need more information!

 References

Susan Dynarksi. So Much Student Debt, So Little Information. New York Times, March 22, 2015, Business section, p. 5.

Richard Fossey & Robert Cloud. In re Lamento: An Honest But Unfortunate Debtor is Entitled to Sleep at Night Without Worrying About Unpayable Student-loan Debt. Teachers College Record, February 23, 2015.

In re Lamento, 520 B.R. 667 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2014).

Myhre v. U.S. Department of Education, 503 B.R. 698 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2013).

A Comment on Susan Dynarski's Op Ed Essay in the NY Times on President Obama's Proposed Federal College Rating System

Susan Dynarski contributed an op ed essay in a recent issue of the New York Times on President Obama's proposed college rating system.  As Ms. Dynarski explained, the President's intent is to rein in college costs.

Ms. Dynarski said up front that she does not think the President's proposal will help bring spiralling tuition costs under control--at least for the public colleges. She urged President Obama to slow down the initiative to put a college rating system in place in order to get it right.

I will go further and say that the President's college rating plan will do nothing to control college costs. Instead, it will simply add another layer of bureaucracy to the nation's higher education sector, which is already burdened with red tape created by efforts to comply with FERPA, the Clery Act, Title IX, the federal student aid program, and a blizzard of "Dear Colleague" letters issued by the Department of Education.

Without a doubt, the nation's elite schools will do just fine under any rating system that President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan are likely to devise; they have large endowment funds, lobbyists, and lawyers that will make sure they come out on top.  Don't worry about Harvard, Stanford, or Yale.

The HBCUs will also do all right under any rating system that the Obama administration designs; nobody wants to increase pressure on them. And, judging by their past success in fending off effective federal oversight, most of the for-profits will also manage to thrive under any new college rating system that is likely to be put in place.

But, as Ms. Dynarski pointed out, the new rating system will probably hurt the private, nonprofit colleges most, particularly the non-selective nonprofits that do not have large endowments.  Many may be forced to close their doors. She is right to warn that these colleges "will do everything they can to avoid this, including lobbying to tweak the ratings."

I hope President Obama and Secretary Duncan heed Ms. Dynarski's advice and put their college-rating system on the back burner.  If Obama and Duncan want to bring costs under control, they should continue putting the heat on the for-profit college sector, where tuition costs are highest. In my view, the for-profits should be kicked out of the federal student-aid program, which would cause most of them to be shut down. The federal aid money that now goes to the for-profits receive--about $35 billion per year-should be invested in low-cost community colleges.


References

Dynarski, Susan. Why Federal College Ratings Won't Rein in Tuition. New York Times, September 20, 2014. Accessible at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/upshot/why-federal-college-ratings-wont-rein-in-tuition.html

Senators Lamar Alexander and Michel Bennet Propose a Simpler FAFSA form: What a Good Idea!

"Everything should be made as simple as possible," Albert Einstein observed, "but not simpler."  And indeed, simplicity, is a great virtue.  How many of us have struggled with a problem we thought was complicated, only to have an "ah ha" moment when we realized our problem was not as complicated as we first believed.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Senator Lamar and Senator Bennet Have A Good Idea for Streamlining Federal Student Aid Applications

Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado have struck a blow for simplicity in the federal student aid program, a program that is entirely too complicated.   As they explained in an op ed essay in the New York Times earlier this week, the two senators have introduced a bill to reduce the complexity of the standardized federal student aid form, which every college student must fill out to qualify for federal student aid.

Currently, this form, commonly called the FAFSA form, has 108  questions and is 10 pages long. With its attached instructions, the entire form is 82 pages long!

Senators Lamar and Bennet propose to throw this form out, which is so complicated and time-consuming that many students simply forgo applying for federal student aid. 

They want to substitute a form that only has two questions:  What is your family size? What was your household income two years ago?

Senators Lamar and Bennet's proposed legislation would also reduce the number of federal student loan programs to three: one program for undergraduates, another for graduate students, and a third for parents who borrow money to pay for their children's college education .  And, perhaps most importantly, they propose just two repayment options: the standard 10-year repayment plan and an income-based repayment plan.  

Lamar and Bennet's op ed essay did not provide any details about what their income-based repayment plan would look like.  Would it be a variation of President Obama's Pay As You Earn plan, requiring borrowers to pay 10 percent of their discretionary income over 20 years or would it would be a less generous variation?  But the simplicity of having a single income-based repayment plan will reduce the confusion many college-loan borrowers experience when they try to convert their 10-year repayment plans to long-term income-basde repayment plans.

Senators Lamar and Bennet acknowledged the input they got for their reform proposals from Susan Dynarski and Judith Scott-Clayton. Ms. Dynarski is co-author of a provocative Brookings Institution study that recommends payroll deductions as the most efficient way for students to make their loan payments if they are enrolled in income-based repayment plans. (I discussed this proposal in my last blog posting.)

Efficiency-Driven Reforms Are Good But Radical Reforms of the Federal Student Loan Program Are Necessary
Senator Lamar and Senator Bennet have made sensible proposals for improving the way the Federal Student Loan Program Operates. And Susan Dynarski and the Brookings Institution have also made reasonable proposals for collecting student-loan payments from borrowers who participate in income-based repayment programs.  

Without a doubt, these proposals will help make the federal student aid program operate more efficiently. But they won't help bring the federal student loan program under control.  These proposals do nothing to stop the runaway cost of higher education. They do nothing to address the abuses in the for-profit college industry, and they do nothing the ease the strain on millions of student-loan debtors who are already in default. 

We won't be getting serious about addressing the student loan crisis until we amend the bankruptcy laws to allow worthy college-loan debtors to obtain bankruptcy relief, publicize the real student-loan default rate, and rein in the for-profit colleges.  Unless we do these things, other reform proposals will do nothing more than put a band-aid on a gaping wound. 

References

Lamar Alexaner & Michael Bennet. An Answer on a Postcard. New York Times, June 19, 2014, p.  A25.

If You Have a Student Loan, You Should Read Susan Dynarski's Proposal for Having Student Loan Payments Automatically Deducted From Debtors' Pay Checks

Susan Dynarski

If you took out a federal student loan to attend college, you should read Susan Dynarski's op ed essay in last Sunday's New York Times entitled "Finding Shock Absorbers for Student Debt."  Ms. Dynarski explains why two proposals for assisting overburdened student-loan debtors will not be very effective.  And she makes her own proposal for deducting borrowers' monthly student-loan payments directly from borrowers' pay checks.

Reducing Interest Rates on College Loans Won't Give Borrowers Much Relief

Recently, Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced legislation to significantly lower  interest rates on student loans, legislation that President Obama supported. Warren's bill would have covered the cost of lower interest rates by raising taxes on the wealthy. Not surprisingly, Republicans opposed the bill, and it did not get enough votes to move forward.

Ms. Dynarski points out that even a large cut to student-loan interest rates won't have much impact on individual students' monthly loan payments.  Borrowers with $30,000 in student loans (which is the average amount that college graduates owe when they finish their studies) would only see a $44 reduction in their monthly loan payments  if the interest rate on their loans was reduced from 6.5 percent to 3.5 percent--which  is a big reduction.

Thus the recent hype about Senator Elizabeth's failed attempt to pass legislation to reduce interest rate on student loans is a tempest in a teapot.  Even if Senator Warren's bill had bee adopted into law, it would not have given the mass of student-loan debtors much relief.

President Obama's Pay As You Earn Plan Is Too Cumbersome to Give Borrowers Much Relief

Dynarski also pointed out that the President Obama's Pay As You Earn program, whereby students make student-loan payments based on a percentage of their income, is so cumbersome that a high percentage of borrowers haven't applied for it even though they are behind on their loans or in default. One problem with Pay As You Earn is that the program does not respond quickly enough to borrowers who lose their jobs. A student-loan borrower's monthly loan payments are based on the borrower's previous year's income, so a borrower who is thrown out of work in mid-year would have to wait many months before seeing a reduction in the size of  monthly loan payments.

Dynarksi and the Brookings Institution Propose Automatic Student-Loan Payroll Deductions

Dynarksi proposes an automatic income-based loan repayment program, whereby employers would simply deduct the appropriate college-loan payment from borrowers' paychecks just like they make deductions for federal income tax, Social Security contributions and health insurance.  The borrower's monthly payment would fluctuate as income goes or up or down; and a borrower who is unemployed would pay nothing during the period of unemployment.

Dynarski's plan is a little more complicated than I've explained but not much.  The proposal is set out in detail in a paper released recently by the Brookings Institution, which recommended that an automatic income-based repayment program be the default option for students who take out federal student loans.

Dynarksi's automatic income-based loan repayment plan has many attractive features. First of all, if fully implemented, it would completely eliminate all student-loan defaults.  Any student-loan borrower who is employed would see a payroll deduction for student loans on every paycheck.

Second, an automatic paycheck deduction plan would virtually eliminate the need for loan collection agencies.  The IRS (or perhaps the Department of Education) would in essence by a giant federal student-loan collection agency.

Long-Term Automatic Payroll Deductions for College-Loan Borrowers Is a Sharecropper Plan

What's the downside?

As I've said before, income-based student-loan repayment plans  do nothing to stop the spiraling cost of higher education. Putting millions of students on income-based repayment plans might actually reduce the incentive for colleges an universities to get their costs under control.

Second, and far more ominously, in my opinion, putting students on long-term income-based repayment plans, whereby college-loan payments are automatically deducted from borrowers' paychecks over a period of 20 or 25 years, essentially transforms all young people who borrow money to attend college into a class of sharecroppers who fork over a percentage of their income over the majority of their working lives simply for the privilege of getting a college education.

And this is why I don't like the Dynarski/Brookings Institution proposal.  But my best guess is that something like what Dynarksi and the Brookings Institution have proposed will eventually become the default option for most people who pursue postsecondary education.


References

Susan Dynarski. Finding Shock Absorbers for Student Debt. New York Times, June 15, 2014, Sunday Review Section, p. 8.

The Brookings Institution Makes A Proposal for Student Loan Reform: Let's Turn College Graduates Into Sharecroppers

The Hamilton Project, a public policy initiative sponsored by the Brookings Institution, issued a report this month that offers some promising ideas for reforming the federal student loan program. At the same time, not all of the ideas are good.

The Hamilton Project Proposal in a Nutshell

In a nutshell, the Hamilton Project proposes a simple income-based repayment plan for student borrowers that will replace the hodgepodge of repayment options now in place. Students will make loan payments based on a percentage of their income for a maximum of 25 years. Any unpaid balance owing at the end of this 25 year period will be forgiven with no tax consequences for the debtor.

Loan payments would be paid through a payroll deduction similar to Social Security deductions and debtors would be free to make larger loan payments than the minimum if they want to pay off their loans early. The proposal calls for the government to manage the repayment program instead of contracting out this work to private loan servicers.

In addition, the Hamilton Project recommends the elimination of interest subsidies for low-income borrowers while they are in school. The authors point out that these subsidies do nothing to increase the number of low-income students who enroll for college since the subsidy doesn't really benefit them until they enter the loan-repayment phase.  In the authors' opinion, money spent on subsidizing interest rates should be directed toward grants.



Long-Term Student-Loan Repayment Plans Will Create a New Class of Sharecroppers
Sharecropper cabin, 1936
Photo by Carl Mydans

Finally, the Hamilton Project proposes important reforms for the private student-loan industry.  Most significantly, the Project recommends the repeal of a 2005 Bankruptcy Code provision that makes it almost impossible for borrowers to discharge private student loans in bankruptcy.  The Project recommends that private student loans be treated like any other unsecured debt in bankruptcy.

The Hamilton Project's Proposal Contains Some Good Ideas

I like some of the Hamilton Project's proposals.  First of all, I heartily endorse the Hamilton Project's proposal for providing better bankruptcy protection for people who took out private loans from the banks. Congress made a mistake when it amended the Bankruptcy Code in 2005 to make it almost impossible for debtors to discharge their private student loans in bankruptcy. As I have said before, repealing the 2005 provision would probably have the salutary effect of driving the banks out of the private student- loan business.

I also like the Hamilton Project's proposal for simplifying the process for student debtors to participate in an income-based repayment plan and for having the government handle loan repayments through payroll deductions rather than having private student-loan servicers manage the repayment process.  Some of the private loan servicers are harassing delinquent student-loan debtors, and I would like to see their operations shut down.

Flaws in the Hamilton Project's Proposal

But  the Hamilton Project's proposal has some flaws.  First and most importantly, the plan calls for student-loan repayment obligations to stretch out for as long as a quarter of a century. In essence then, student-loan debtors will become sharecroppers for the government, paying a portion of their wages over most of their working lives in return for the privilege of going to college. I am opposed to lengthy income-based repayment plans as a matter of principle.

And, as I have said before, income-based repayment plans reduce students' incentives to borrow as little as possible and they reduce the colleges' incentives to keep their costs down.

The Hamilton Proposal is Based on a False Assumption

The Hamilton Proposal is based on the premise that most students don't borrow that much money, and thus they should have no trouble paying off their loans under an income-based repayment plan in just a few years. It points out that almost 70 percent of student-loan debtors borrow less than $10,000.

But as the Hamilton Project acknowledged in footnote 7 of its report, by the time people go into default, they owe considerably more than they borrowed due to penalties and accruing interest. If interest rates accrue for low-income borrowers while they are in school or if low-income borrowers' income-based payments are too low to cover accruing interest, then the amount of their debt will become larger--probably much larger--than they originally borrowed.

Conclusion: Some of the Hamilton Project's Proposals Have Promise, But We Should Avoid Putting Student Loan Debtors in Long-Term Repayment Plans

Some of he Hamilton Project's proposals have promise.  Restoring bankruptcy protection for private student-loan borrowers and eliminating the private student-loan repayment servicers are good ideas.

But the people who have been hurt the most by the federal student loan program are young people who attended for-profit colleges. As the Hamilton Project pointed out, people under 21 years of age have the highest loan default rates of any age group, and we know from many sources that people who attended for-profit colleges have the highest student-loan default rates.

The Hamilton Project's proposal is likely to put a lot of young, low-income people into long-term repayment plans they will never pay off.  And many of these long-term debtors--perhaps most of them-will be people who attended expensive for-profit colleges.

We simply must shut down the for-profit colleges.  Otherwise, the Hamilton Project's proposal for putting student-loan debtors in 25-year repayment plans will likely created a 21st century version of indentured servants--people who attended for-profit colleges that were too expensive and who will spend the majority of their working lives paying for college experiences that did not enable them to earn a salary large enough to quickly pay off their student loans.

References

Susan Dynarski and Daniel Kreisman. Loans for Equal Opportunity: Making Borrowing Work for Today's Students. Hamilton Project, Brookings Institution, October 2013. Accessible at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/10/21%20student%20loans%20dynarski/thp_dynarskidiscpaper_final.pdf