Student Loan Assistance Companies on Notice Now for Inflating Repayment Plans to Get $0 Payments: Essay by Steve Rhode

Written by Steve Rhode (originally published in Get Out of Debt Guy on July 26, 2019)

A long implemented trick by some student loan assistance companies has been to tell consumers they can inflate the number of people they support in order to reduce the monthly payment on Income-Drive Repayment (IDR) Plans.

Consumers have reported and I’ve covered stories where sales representatives of student loan assistance companies, sometimes pretending to be only “document preparation” companies, have said things like:

• If you give someone a ride to work you can count them as a dependent towards reducing your student loan payments.
• How many people regularly hang out at your house? You can count them as people you support.
• Do you have any roommates because you can count them as dependents?
• How many people do you buy presents for?

A brave inside tipster (send in your tips here) told me, “In order to make the sale, sales agents would falsely increase family sizes on government documents in order to deceptively get clients reduced or free monthly payments on their Federal student loan payments.”

Consumers fell for this false inflation of family size either out of blind faith the company they hired to lower their student loan payments actually knew what they were talking about, or they just wanted a lower payment.

The problem with this strategy is it is based entirely on a mountain of lies on a federal form. And the reality has always existed that either the government was going to ask for documentation before eventually forgiving loans in an IDR plan or monthly payments were going to explode when the actual proof was requested to verify family size.

Now imagine what will happen when the proof is demanded to support the IDR and you can only provide the required proof for three people and you’ve been claiming 15. Now there is a red flag.

The Jig is Up

Just recently the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) submitted a report titled – “Education Needs to Verify Borrowers’ Information for Income-Driven Repayment Plans.”

Here is what the GAO investigation found:

“GAO identified indicators of potential fraud or error in income and family size information for borrowers with approved Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. IDR plans base monthly payments on a borrower’s income and family size, extend repayment periods from the standard 10 years to up to 25 years, and forgive remaining balances at the end of that period.

• Zero income. About 95,100 IDR plans were held by borrowers who reported zero income yet potentially earned enough wages to make monthly student loan payments. This analysis is based on wage data from the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH), a federal dataset that contains quarterly wage data for newly hired and existing employees. According to GAO’s analysis, 34 percent of these plans were held by borrowers who had estimated annual wages of $45,000 or more, including some with estimated annual wages of $100,000 or more. Borrowers with these 95,100 IDR plans owed nearly $4 billion in outstanding Direct Loans as of September 2017.

• Family size. About 40,900 IDR plans were approved based on family sizes of nine or more, which were atypical for IDR plans. Almost 1,200 of these 40,900 plans were approved based on family sizes of 16 or more, including two plans for different borrowers that were approved using a family size of 93. Borrowers with atypical family sizes of nine or more owed almost $2.1 billion in outstanding Direct Loans as of September 2017.

These results indicate some borrowers may have misrepresented or erroneously reported their income or family size. Because income and family size are used to determine IDR monthly payments, fraud or errors in this information can result in the Department of Education (Education) losing thousands of dollars of loan repayments per borrower each year and potentially increasing the ultimate cost of loan forgiveness. Where appropriate, GAO is referring these results to Education for further investigation.”

And as hard as Education has pushed back on forgiving loans under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, I can only imagine what will happen when these fraudulent IDR plans come up for forgiveness and are denied.

The consumers will be on the hook for the fraud and the student loan assistance and document preparation companies will be long gone.

Fraud in the Federal Student Loan Program? We're shocked! Shocked!

Everyone knows the federal student-loan program is a train wreck. Even Education Secretary Betsy DeVos described it as a looming thunderstorm and admitted that 43 percent of all student loans are "in distress."

Now the Government Accountability Office has issued a report indicating there may be fraud in the income-driven repayment programs. (IDRs)  This is what GAO reported based on an analysis of a sample of IDR plans:

• About 95,000 people who are enrolled in a sample of IDRs report they have zero income, which means they are excused from making any payments on their student loans. A GAO analysis found that 34 percent of these people had estimated annual wages of $45,000 or more (p. 12).

• Monthly payments for people in IDRs are partly determined by family size, with payments adjusted downward for borrowers who have dependents. GAO identified 40,00 IDR plans held by borrowers who claimed to have nine people or more in their families (p. 17). More than a thousand IDR participants claimed to have a family size of 16 people or more!

GAO's report undoubtedly understates the extent of the problem. According to GAO, there are 1.1 million people in IDRs who report having zero annual incomes (p. 36, footnote 8), and GAO did not look at all those individuals. If GAO's findings for a sample of IDRs is representative of all the borrowers who claim to have no income, then about 375,000 people who claim to have zero income are lying.

The GAO report is disturbing because more and more student borrowers are entering income-driven repayment plans. According to the College Board, 29 percent of all student debtors in repayment were in IDRs in 2018 and their debt constituted almost half of all the money in repayment.

Even if all the people in IDRs are honestly reporting their income--and GAO found thousands of liars-- almost everyone in an IDR is making income-based payments that are so low that they are not paying down the loan principal.

In short, the Department of Education's income-driven repayment plans are hemorrhaging red ink, but it is unclear just how many billions of dollars are being lost. No wonder Betsy DeVos commissioned a private accounting firm to audit the student-loan program. Apparently, she wants to know the true scope of this disaster.

Fraud in the student loan program? We're shocked! Shocked!

Student charged $3,800 for failing to return rented textbook on time

Like blind hogs rooting for acorns, America's universities and their associated vendors constantly seek ways to snuffle out cash from hapless college students. Here's a fine example of what I'm talking about.

Amazon charged Amelia San Filippo, a sophomore at the University of Delaware, a $3,800 fee for failing to return a rented textbook on time. Apparently, San Filippo missed the fine print in her rental agreement. If she didn't return the book by June 4 she would be charged to purchase the book.

What is the title of this valuable tome? Cultural Anthropology: A Toolkit for a Global Age, which can be bought online for $150!

Amelia returned the book and her father got the charge reversed after a nine-hour phone call to Amazon's customer service.  Amazon issued a statement to a local television news program saying:

This was an isolated error that we quickly resolved directly with the customer and have issued a refund. We've apologized to the customer and are taking additional actions to ensure this situation does not happen again.

In my mind, this message is corporatespeak for "Oops! We got caught."

This kind of nonsense happens all the time in our brave new world where universities and their corporate outsourcers treat college students like cash cows.

I myself had a similar encounter with Louisiana State University a few years ago. My wife and I arrived to do volunteer work at the Catholic student center located on the LSU campus. We came in separate cars and parked in a lot marked "Church Parking." There was a gate to the parking lot, but the gate was open.

At the end of our volunteer activity, we found parking tickets on our cars informing us that we were each being charged $330 for unauthorized parking: $660 in total. Must be some mistake.

I walked to the LSU Visitor Center, where a parking employee immediately knocked off two $300 fees. But she would not clear two fees for $30. To no avail, I explained that we were on church business and that we parked in a lot designated for church parking. If I wanted to challenge the tickets, I was told, I could file an administrative appeal.

For about a year, LSU sent my wife and I separate monthly bills of $30. Then we got letters saying the matter was being turned over to the District Attorney for collection. At that point, I wrote checks totally $60.

My wife is an LSU graduate and we once made a small donation to the LSU Foundation. I occasionally get a cheery message asking me to donate money to the university.

I don't respond to these messages, but if I did I would say: No thank you!

Like blind hogs rooting for acorns

Let the Good Times Roll! Murder, Corruption, Abuse, and Negligent Homicide in South Louisiana

I was obsessed by Hurricane Barry, which, the media assured us, was going to overtop the levees and destroy New Orleans. Mesmerized, I watched the Weather Channel so much last week that I feel like I  should get an online degree in meteorology.

But Barry punked out on us with minimal damage so I turned my attention to reading the local news. So what's going on in South Louisiana?

Matthew Naquin, a former LSU student and fraternity member, was convicted of negligent homicide in the death of Max Gruver, an LSU freshman from Georgia. Gruver's Phi Delta Theta fraternity brothers forced Gruver to chug hard liquor in a hazing exercise the frat boys euphemistically called "Bible study." Gruver died of alcohol poisoning, so full of booze that a testifying toxicologist said he was "a dead man walking." At the time of his death, his blood alcohol count was six times the legal limit for driving.

In other news, Ronn Jermaine Bell was arrested for the murder of Sadie Roberts-Joseph, a local civil rights activist who was found suffocated in the trunk of her car. In addition to her civil rights work, Roberts-Joseph was a landlord, and Bell was two months behind on his rent. Was Roberts-Joseph killed over a rent dispute? A motive has yet to been determined.

Also in the news, police charged Salvatore Euggino with negligent homicide in a hit-and-run accident near St. Francisville. Police say Euggino killed a 50-year-old pedestrian with his car. This incident occurred on Monday, just one day after Euggino was charged with reckless driving in another incident. According to the Baton Rouge Advocate, Euggino also faces negligent homicide charges relating to a head-on car accident last March that killed a 34-year-old woman.

Also this week, Sarah James, a 19-year-old LSU sophomore, was struck and killed by a car on Nicholson Road near the LSU campus.  Ms. James had a life full of promise ahead of her and wanted to be a doctor. The newspaper story didn't identify the car's driver.

Over in New Orleans, four police officers were fired for engaging in an unauthorized high-speed pursuit of some joyriders in a stolen car. Two teenage kids were killed when their car rammed into a hair salon. The hair salon caught fire and a woman inside was also killed.

And then today's Advocate reported that Moses Evans, a justice of the peace and former police officer, was arrested on a "litany of domestic abuse counts." According to the newspaper report, Evans is "accused of  brutally abusing his now ex-girlfriend and her three children over more than a decade, causing them severe injuries and permanent disfigurement."

Finally, Ray Nagin, New Orleans' telegenic mayor during Hurricane Katrina, lost the appeal of his conviction on charges of bribery and money laundering, rendered 5 years ago. The news story said Nagin wrote his appeal brief himself while serving time in a federal prison camp in Texas.

Much of the mayhem that occurs in South Louisiana takes place at the margins of society, and middle-class Louisianians don't think much about the murder, abuse, and corruption that the local newspaper reports on a daily basis. Laissez les bons temps rouler, we like to say. Let the good times roll!

But maybe Louisianans could do more as individuals to nurture a saner and healthier culture. Perhaps we could slow down a little bit, drive a little slower, drink a little less, try to be a little more civic-minded, and let the good times roll at a more moderate pace. Or maybe, to borrow a phrase from the immortal Merle Haggard, we'll keep our eyes closed to the pathological currents in our communities and continue to allow them to roll downhill like a snowball headed for hell.

"Are we rolling downhill like a snowball headed for hell?"

Weingarten v. DeVos: American Federation of Teachers accuses the Department of Education of mismanaging the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program

Last week, Randi Weingarten and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) sued Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and the U.S. Department of Education, accusing DOE of mismanaging the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program (PSLF). AFT sued on behalf of itself and eight educators whose applications for public-service loan forgiveness were denied. 

Weingarten is president of AFT and she sued the Department of Education in her official capacity as an AFT officer. In a call to reporters, Weingarten was highly critical of DOE's handling of the PSLF program. “This program was not supposed to be negotiable or debatable," Weingarten told reporters.  "It is a right under [the] law. It shouldn’t be a crapshoot, but under Betsy DeVos, that is exactly what it’s become." 

PSLF was enacted by Congress in 2007 to aid student-loan borrowers who desired to enter public service occupations but were deterred by their burdensome student loans. Under the program, student-loan borrowers in qualified public-service jobs who make 120 monthly payments in approved federal loan programs are entitled to have their remaining student-loan debt forgiven. 

The first PSLF participants became eligible for student-loan forgiveness in the fall of 2017, after having made 120 student-loan payments over the previous ten years. When they applied for loan forgiveness, however, DOE denied 99 percent of the applications. Most PSLF loan-forgiveness applications were denied on the grounds that the applicants were not eligible to participate even though their loan servicers had assured them they were eligible.

Why is AFT interested in the way DOE is managing the PSLF program? 

AFT represents 1.7 million teachers and public-service professionals, and many AFT members are hoping to obtain student-loan relief under PSLF. In a survey of its members, AFT learned that 82% of AFT members who had submitted PSLF applications were denied. Many applicants were denied for failing to meet eligibility requirements due to misinformation provided by their loan servicer. 

According to AFT's lawsuit, DOE disregarded repeated misrepresentations by its student-loan servicers that student-loan borrowers were qualified for PSLF loan forgiveness. 

Those servicers misinformed [AFT members] that they were “on track” for PSLF and making “qualifying” payments for PSLF, even though they did not actually have qualifying loans or were not in qualifying repayment plans. Only years later, after they had made 120 payments and applied for forgiveness, did these public servants learn for the first time that their payments did not count. Had the loan servicers given these Plaintiffs the correct information, they easily could have consolidated their loans, entered qualifying repayment plans, and been eligible for forgiveness under PSLF. 

AFT is suing under two primary legal theories. First, AFT argues that DOE violated the Administrative Procedure Act in the way it handled PSLF loan-forgiveness applications. Second, AFT accuses DOE of violating due process under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

In some ways, AFT's lawsuit is similar to the one filed by the American Bar Association (ABA) against the Department of Education in 2016. The ABA accused DOE of wrongly denying ABA the right to participate in the PSLF program. It also sued on behalf of four public-service lawyers whose applications for PSLF loan forgiveness were denied.

Judge Timothy Kelly ruled on the ABA lawsuit last February and the ABA won a partial victory. Judge Kelly ruled that the ABA had no legal right to be recognized as a qualified participant in the PSLF program. On the other hand, Judge Kelly ruled that DOE violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it denied PSLF loan-forgiveness applications by three of the lawyer-plaintiffs in the ABA's lawsuit. In Judge Kelly's view, DOE had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in handling the lawyers' PSLF applications. Judge Kelly ordered DOE to reconsider the lawyer's PSLF applications in accordance with his opinion. 

Judge Kelly elected to rule in the ABA lawyers' favor based solely on Administrative Procedure Act violations and did not consider the ABA's due process claims.  Now AFT is raising a constitutional due process claim in its own case. 

Why are these developments important to the 45 million people who have outstanding student loans? 

PSLF  an important avenue of relief for people who are heavily burdened by student loans and can't pay them back. If these individuals work in approved public-service jobs for ten years and make 120 payments on their student loans, they are entitled to have their remaining loan balances forgiven. 

Thus, the Trump administration's decision to deny PSLF eligibility to 99 percent of applicants is alarming. If AFT prevails in its lawsuit, that victory could pave the way for PSLF relief for millions of other Americans working in public-service jobs.

*****

Note: The individual plaintiffs in AFT's lawsuit are: Cynthia Miller, Crystal Adams, Connie Wakefield, Deborah Baker, Janelle Menzel, Kelly Finlaw, Gloria Nolan, and Michael Giambona.

Louisiana professor sentenced to 90 years in prison for misusing his university credit card: The shocking case of State v. Dufus Dorkmeister

Dr.  Dufus Dorkmeister, a folklore professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, was sentenced to 90 years in prison last Friday for abusing his university credit card. Judge Shelly Dick sentenced Dorkmeister to 30 years in prison on each of three counts of fraud, with the sentences to be served consecutively. 

"This is one of the most serious cases of fraud and embezzlement I have ever seen," Judge Dick lectured  Dorkmeister before pronouncing sentence. "Therefore, in essence, I am sentencing you to life in prison. You will not be eligible for parole until you are 137 years old."

Dorkmeister was accused of three separate acts of fraud.  First, while traveling to an academic conference on 19th-century Prussian folklife, he used his university credit card to buy an unauthorized donut in the New Orleans airport. According to the district attorney, the donut cost $1.82 (including sales tax).

 Dorkmeister testified it was a simple mistake. "My university card," he told the jury, " looks almost exactly like my personal credit care.  I just got the cards mixed up and  gave the cashier the wrong card."

Second, the District Attorney accused Dorkmeister of fraudulently seeking reimbursement for his parking fee at the New Orleans Airport.  State Policy requires all state employees to provide parking attendants with a signed form verifying they are on state business and should not be charged sales tax for parking fees.  Dorkmeister's fee was $7.70 cents, which included a 70 cent sales tax.

Again, Dorkmeister argued he was innocent. "I tried to give my official form to the parking attendant,' Dorkmeister testified tearfully, "but she laughed in my face and refused to deduct the 70 cents."

The third criminal charge, which the District Attorney described as the most serious offense, involved a purchase of 25 official University of Louisiana ballpoint pins without verifying that the pens were manufactured by a  vendor licensed to reproduce the University's logo. State policy requires professors to submit purchase requests for souvenir items to the Office of Communication and Technology, along with a photo of the vender's trademark license.

Dorkmeister testified at length on this matter. "I bought the ballpoint pens for my freshman students as little prizes for their academic work," Dorkmeister explained. "I did not know I had to get special permission from the Office of Communications and Technology to buy souvenirs bearing the University logo. I assumed the pens were legitimate because I bought them at the student union."

The District Attorney put Dorkmeister under savage cross-examination, forcing the professor to admit that ignorance of the law is no excuse. After deliberating for six minutes, the jury found Dorkmeister guilty on all three counts and recommended the maximum sentence.

After sentencing, Judge Dick denied bail while Dorkmeister appeals. The judge declared him a flight risk and remanded him for immediate delivery to Angola prison, where he will join 16 other professors. All 16 are housed in a maximum-security cell block reserved for rapists, child molesters, and credit-card abusers.

*****

This essay is a satire and Professor Dorkmeister is a fictional character. The policies lampooned in this satire are actual university policies.

College professors convicted of credit card abuse.

In re Engen: Nondischargable student loans create a "prison of emotional confinement"

Bankruptcy Judge Robert Berger issued an opinion in 2016 that deserves to be better known than it is. Although the substance of Judge Berger's decision focused on an arcane provision of bankruptcy law, it also contains a trenchant summary of the misery that has been inflicted on millions of Americans by the federal student loan program.

In re Engen concerns Mark and Maureen Engen, a married couple who filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13. Mr. and Mrs. Engen submitted a plan to pay creditors about $5,000 a month over five years. Under their plan, the Engens would completely pay off the first mortgage on their home, a car loan, and state and federal taxes. In addition, the Engens would make payments to nonsecured debtors who would only receive partial repayment.

In their plan, the Engens categorized their student-loan debt as a separate class of unsecured creditors and proposed to pay off this debt completely (without interest) before making payments on other unsecured claims (p. 529). The trustee in the Engens' case objected to giving student loans preferential treatment.

In a well-reasoned opinion, Judge Berger approved the Engens' repayment plan over the trustee's objection and explained why it was appropriate to categorize student loans as a separate class of unsecured debt.

First of all, Judge Berger explained, student-loan debt is a particularly onerous debt because it is quite difficult to discharge in bankruptcy.  Bankrupt debtors must file an adversary proceeding to discharge their student loans, and "[t]his bankruptcy litigation is sufficiently expensive and . . . so demanding, that debtors rarely even try to have student loan debt discharged" (p. 531, internal punctuation and citation omitted).

Indeed, a debtor's attempt to discharge student-loan debt is generally "an exercise in futility," with debtors forced to overcome what amounts to an "assumption of criminality" in order to obtain relief (p. 57, internal citation omitted).

In Judge Berger's opinion, the hardships associated with student-loan debt justify treating it as a separate classification in a Chapter 13 repayment plan. In fact, in some instances, lumping student loans with other unsecured debt would cause debtors to owe more on their student loans after bankruptcy than before they filed for bankruptcy relief.

Judge Berger then turned to an extended discussion of the pernicious quality of student-loan debt in the United States. Student loans, he observed, have caused many college graduates to delay marriage, defer car purchases, postpone home ownership, and put off saving for retirement.  Student debt is becoming a growing concern for older Americans, with more than a quarter of student loans held by debtors age 65-74 in default.

Judge Berger went on to articulate the grave harm suffered by distressed student-loan debtors who are unable to discharge their loans in bankruptcy. "Nondischargeable student loans may create a virtual debtors' prison," he wrote, "one without physical containment but assuredly a prison of emotional confinement" (p. 550).

Finally, Judge Berger ended his opinion with the forceful argument that bankruptcy relief benefits not just the distressed debtor; it also benefits society.

It is this Court's opinion that many consumer bankruptcies are filed by desperate individuals who are financially, emotionally, and physically exhausted. Sometimes lost in the discussion that the bankruptcy discharge provides a fresh start to honest but unfortunate debtors is that, perhaps as importantly, it provides a commensurate benefit to society and the economy. People are freed from emotional and financial burdens to become more energetic, healthy participants. (p. 550)

The Student Borrower Bankruptcy Relief Act of 2019 is now pending in Congress. This legislation, if adopted, will remove the "undue hardship" provision from the Bankruptcy Code and allow overburdened debtors to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy like any other nonsecured consumer debt. Supporters of this bill should cite Judge Berger's opinion in In re Engen, because it expresses one federal judge's view that the "undue hardship" provision in the Bankruptcy Code has created "a prison of emotional confinement" that burdens not only student debtors but our society as a whole.

"A prison of emotional confinement"

References

In re Engen, 561 B.R.523 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2016).

Hill v. ECMC: An Army veteran with PTSD sheds her student loans in bankruptcy

Hill v. ECMC: A veteran seeks to discharge her student loans in bankruptcy

Risa Rozella Hill enrolled at Wichita State University after getting out of the Army, and she obtained a bachelor's degree in social work in 2002. She went on to pursue a master's degree from Newman College but did not graduate. In 2008, she received an MBA from DeVry University.

Hill financed her studies with 23 student loans totally $127,000. She never paid anything on these loans, but she was never in default because she obtained various deferments or forbearances that entitled her to skip her loan payments.

In 2013, Hill began to experience symptoms of psychosis, including delusions, hallucinations, and voices that "instructed her to behave in certain ways." In 2014, she was involuntarily committed to psychiatric care in a Georgia hospital. She was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Hill was released from the hospital, but she was readmitted to another hospital a few months later after showing signs of psychosis. She was released again in November 2014.

Prior to filing for bankruptcy, Hill experienced periods of homelessness. The Social Security Administration deemed her disabled and she began receiving disability-benefit checks--her sole source of income. She also began living in publicly subsidized housing.

In 2017, Hill filed for bankruptcy and sought to have her student loans discharged. Hill was represented by the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Educational Credit Management entered the litigation as the sole defendant.

Judge Sage Sigler discharges Hill's student loans over ECMC's objections

In evaluating Hill's claim, Judge Sage Sigler applied the three-pronged Brunner test to determine whether repaying the loans would constitute an "undue hardship" under 11 U.S.C. § 523 of the Bankruptcy Code. In Judge Sigler's opinion, Hill's disability income was hardly adequate to meet her basic needs.  Hill could not maintain a minimal lifestyle if she were forced to pay back her student loans, Judge Sigler concluded; and thus, Hill satisfied the first prong of the Brunner test.

Moreover, Judge Sigler continued, Hill's financial circumstances were unlikely to improve during the loan repayment period. "[T]he weight of the evidence demonstrates that [Hill's] condition will persist indefinitely," Judge Sigler observed; and any recovery from Hill's bipolar disorder was "purely speculative." Indeed, Judge Sigler wrote, "The prospect of [Hill] obtaining and maintaining employment commensurate with her prior jobs is unfortunately hopeless." In short, Hill met part two of the Brunner test.

Part Three of the Brunner test required Hill to show that she had handled her student loans in good faith.  Again, Judge Sigler ruled in Hill's favor. Hill met the good faith standard in spite of the fact she had not made a single loan payment.

Judge Sigler pointed out that Hill took the steps necessary to obtain deferments or forbearances, which the judge evidently viewed as a sign of good faith. Moreover, the judge noted, "Good faith effort only requires the debtor to have made payments when she was in a position to make such payments. [Hill] was never in such a position."

Implications

In some ways, the Hill decision is unremarkable. Hill's mental illness (psychosis and PTSD) clearly qualified her for a student-loan discharge. What is remarkable is the fact that ECMC opposed it. ECMC dragged out its shopworn tactic of demanding that Hill sign up for REPAYE, a long-term income-based repayment plan--a plan that would have required her to make monthly payments of zero dollars due to her low income.

But Judge Sigler did not buy that line. ECMC's calculation of Hill's loan payments under REPAYE demonstrated that Hill had no discretionary income to dedicate to student-loan repayment. "The very reason [Hill's] payment amount would be zero-dollars a month under REPAYE is because she cannot afford to make payments under her student loans and maintain a minimal standard of living."

The Hill case is probably most significant as another case in which a bankruptcy judge refused to adopt ECMC's tiresome argument that all student-loan debtors should be placed in income-based repayment plans as an alternative to bankruptcy relief.  Judge Sigler identified the fundamental flaw in ECMC's argument, which is this: Debtors so destitute that they are required to make zero-dollar payments on their student loans clearly meet the first criterion for student-loan relief under Brunner. They cannot maintain a minimal lifestyle and pay off their student loans.

Bernie Sanders wants to cancel $1.6 trillion in student debt: A bridge too far?

Senator Bernie Sanders is running for President a second time. Last week he made the news with his proposal to cancel all federal student-loan debt-- $1.6 trillion.  If Bernie makes good on this pledge, he will certainly make 45 million student-loan borrowers very happy.

Bernie also proposes to make a four-year college education tuition-free at public universities. If he can pull that off, millions of Americans will be delighted. A free college education! What's not to like?

I have supported student-loan reform for more than 20 years, and I applaud Senator Sanders for putting the student-loan crisis on the front burner of national politics. But in my view, Bernie's proposals may have gone a bridge too far.

First of all, the federal student loan program, which Congress inaugurated 50 years ago, has morphed into a giant Improvised Explosive Device (IUD). As we saw in the movie Hurt Locker, an IUD must be defused very carefully or it will blow up in our faces. No one really knows what the impact would be on the national fisc if the federal government were to write off $1.6 trillion in student-loan debt. Bernie says he will pay for this bonanza by taxing Wall Street, but that tax would fall heavily on retirees, who have most of their savings in mutual funds tied to the stock market.

Even if Bernie could cancel all student debt tomorrow, most students would still have to take out additional student loans to pay for their next semester's tuition, fees, and living expenses. Of course, Bernie's solution to that problem is to simply make a college education at a public institution tuition-free.

But let's think about Bernie's tuition-free college proposal for a moment. All public colleges receive some kind of financial support from the 50 individual states. Any plan for a tuition-free college education at a public institution must involve some coordination with 50 state governments. Is it realistic to think a Sanders administration could successfully negotiate with California, Illinois, New Jersey, and 47 other states to provide tuition-free college from sea to shining sea? I doubt it.

As for Bernie's proposal to forgive all student-loan debt, that notion seems unwise. Although it is true that millions of student-borrowers are unable to pay back their loans, some portion of the 45 million student debtors received fair value for their student-loan dollars. Do we really want to forgive student-loan debt taken out by people who attended Harvard Law School and landed high-paying jobs?

In my view, the best way to resolve the student-loan crisis is to reform the Bankruptcy Code and allow insolvent student-loan debtors to discharge their student loans through bankruptcy. People who took out student loans in good faith and cannot pay them back should get relief from their debts like any other insolvent debtor.

After all, the bankruptcy judges have the expertise and experience to determine who is entitled to bankruptcy relief from their student loans. All that needs to be done is simply to strike the "undue hardship" clause from the Bankruptcy Code.

In fact, Senator Sanders and several other presidential aspirants in Congress are co-sponsoring just such a bill. Titled the Student Borrower Bankruptcy Relief Act of 2019,  the bill has been filed in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Rather than forgive $1.6 trillion in student debt in one fell swoop, Congress needs to pass this bill so that distressed student-loan debtors can obtain relief in bankruptcy.

Bernie Sanders: We can have our cake and eat it too!

Student Borrowers Beware: Joe Biden is a Lackey of the Banks

Fourteen years ago, Congress passed a so-called bankruptcy reform law at the behest of the banking industry. One provision--inserted solely for the benefit of the banks—made private student loans non-dischargeable in bankruptcy unless the debtor could show “undue hardship.” The banks justified this heartless legislation as a way to reduce interest rates on private student loans. They argued that the additional protection for creditors would make it possible for banks to loan students money at a lower interest rate because defaulting borrowers would find it virtually impossible to discharge their private college loans in the bankruptcy courts.

This legislation benefited Sallie Mae, Wells Fargo and other major players in the private student-loan market, but the U.S. Department of Education issued a report in 2015 arguing that this provision should be repealed.

This is what the DOE report had to say:

There has been no evidence that the 2005 changes to bankruptcy caused interest on student loans to decline or access to credit to increase significantly. As private student loans generally do not include the consumer protections, such as income-driven repayment plans, included in federal loans, the undue-hardship standard for bankruptcy discharge leaves private student loan borrowers in financial distress with few options.

According to an article in International Business Times (IBT), Senator Joe Biden was an enthusiastic supporter of this Fat Cat Assistance Act, which made it harder for insolvent student-loan debtors to obtain bankruptcy relief. As IBT’s David Sirota observed:

Though the vice president has long portrayed himself as a champion of the struggling middle class--a man who famously commutes on Amtrack and mixes enthusiastically with blue-collar workers—the Delaware lawmaker has played a consistent and pivotal role in the financial industry’s four-decade campaign to make it harder for students to shield themselves and their families from creditors, according to an IBT review of bankruptcy legislation going back to the 1970s.

Indeed, Ed Boltz, who was president of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys in 2015, observed that “Joe Biden bears a large amount of responsibility for passage of the bankruptcy bill.” In fact, the New York Times reported that Biden voted for the bill four times: in 1998, 2000, 2001, and in March 2005, when the bill finally passed the Senate by a vote of 74 to 25.

And—surprise, surprise!—as of 2015, the financial industry had donated $1.9 million to Biden over the course of his career. Now Joe is launching another campaign for the presidency.

So if you get an opportunity to vote for Joe Biden, keep this mind: he is a lackey of the banks. And if you are a student-loan debtor who supports Mr. Biden's presidential bid, then you are an idiot.

References

Christopher Drew & Mike McIntire. Obama Aides Defend Bank’s Pay to Biden Son. New York Times, August 24, 2008.

David Sirota. Joe Biden Backed Bills to Make It Harder for Americans to Reduce Their Student Debt. International Business Times, September 15, 2015.

U.S. Department of Education. Strengthening the Student Loan System to Better Protect All Borrowers. Washington D.C., October 1, 2015. [Note: This DOE report has been removed from the web.]

Dude! Don't move to India to escape student loans!

Zero Hedge posted an article yesterday about people who fled the United States to escape their student loans. (Annie Nova wrote the original story for CNBC).  Chad Haag, for example, graduated from the University of Northern Colorado and emigrated to India to get away from $20,000 in college-loan debt.

Apparently, Haag is somewhat ambivalent about India. He gets to see elephants--a plus.  But Haag is not crazy about the plumbing. "Some toilets here are holes in the ground you squat over," he confided.

Zero Hedge went on to report on a woman who went to Japan to teach English and a guy who moved to China--also to teach English. Both said they were partly motivated to leave the U.S. by their student-loan debt.

Dudes! Don't move overseas to dodge your student loans. People who cannot find good jobs can enroll in one of the Department of Education's income-based repayment plans (IBRPs). If they are unemployed or living below the poverty line, their monthly loan payment will be zero. An IBRP is a terrible option, as I have often said. But for most people, it beats moving to Asia.

Frankly, I'm not buying the underlying premise of this story. Millions of people have defaulted on their student loans and hardly any of them have left the U.S.  Why would they? People can't dodge their student loans by moving overseas. The debt will be waiting for them when they return, along with accumulated interest and penalties.

My guess is that student-loan debtors who leave the United States have multiple motives. Mr. Haag, for example, married an Indian national, which must be the major reason he is living in a country that doesn't meet his hygiene standards. And thousands of people teach English overseas simply to experience another culture.

If we are looking for signs of suffering, we shouldn't focus on a handful of people who have left the country with student loans hanging over their heads. We should reflect on plummeting birth rates, declining homeownership, and inadequate savings for retirement.

The student-loan program is a catastrophe but publicizing a few outliers is a distraction. We need to relieve the suffering experienced by millions of people. In my mind that can best be accomplished in the bankruptcy courts. And then we need to find a better way to finance higher education.

How Can I Get Out of the Student Loan I Cosigned for My Son? Advice from Steve Rhode, the Get Out of Debt Guy

If you are thinking about taking out a Parent PLUS loan to finance your child's college education or co-signing a relative's loan, you should read Steve Rhode's essay, first published at Get Out of Debt Guy, a consumer counseling web site.

Question:

Dear Steve,

It took my son 6 years to get a BA degree. By the 5th year, I ran out of money so I co-signed a private loan for him. For the past 4-5 years, I pay on this loan diligently every month because he refuses to the pay the loan or give me anything towards the payment and I don’t want to jeopardize my credit.

The original loan amt was 34K it is now only down to 29K because the interest rate keeps going up ..now it is at 7.75%. Additionally, he refuses to re-finance the loan

How can I get out from under the responsibility of his debt without jeopardizing my credit?

Sue

Answer:

Dear Sue,

Your son is being kind of a jerk. You helped him finish school and he can at least make some payment, even if he can’t pay it all each month.

Unfortunately, when you cosigned the loan you agreed to be 100% responsible for the loan. There is nothing good in cosigning if you are the one signing. My universal law of cosigning is don’t do it.

If you don’t want to ding your credit then you either need to pay the loan off in full or keep making at least the minimum monthly payment.

If you wanted to remove your liability for the debt you can do that but it will have a credit impact. Some of those options include filing bankruptcy or paying less than you owe on the balance as a settlement. However, you will need to go delinquent to settle it and the balance forgiven may be reported as a bad debt and be taxable.

The only way to make this situation different without harming your credit or costing you a big chunk of change would be to go back in time to the minute before you cosigned for him.

*******

Steve Rhode is the Get Out of Debt Guy and has been helping good people with bad debt problems since 1994. 

Brookings Institution researcher criticizes federal student-loan program: "It is an outrage"

Last month, Adam Looney of the Brookings Institution released a paper that is chock full of ideas for fixing the federal student-loan program. Looney began his paper with a withering condemnation of the program in its present form, which he accurately described as an outrage. I am quoting his critique verbatim, just putting his words into a bullet-style format:

• "It is an outrage that the federal government offers loans to students at low-quality institutions even when we know those schools don't boost their earnings and that those borrowers won't be able to repay their loans."

• It is an outrage that we make parent PLUS loans to the poorest families when we know they almost surely will default and have their wages and social security benefits garnished and their tax refunds confiscated . . ."

• "It is an outrage that we saddled several million students with loans to enroll in untested online programs, that seem to have offered no labor market value."

• It is an outrage that our lending programs encourage schools like USC to charge $107,484 . . . for a master's degree in social work (220 percent more than the equivalent course at UCLA) in a field where the median wage is $47,980."

All these failures, Looney charges, "are entirely the result of federal government policies." 

Nevertheless, for all its faults, Looney thinks the federal student loan program is worth fixing, and he makes several interesting reform proposals:

First, Looney recommends a cap on loans to graduate students. Currently, graduate students in the Grad PLUS program can take out student loans to pay the entire cost of their studies, no matter what the cost, which is nuts. 

This "sky is the limit" loan policy has led to the escalating cost of getting an MBA or law degree. In fact, the American Bar Association estimates that the average student at a private law school takes out  $122,000 in student loans. 

Second, Looney recommends applying an "ability-to-pay" standard to parent loans or eliminating them altogether. In my view, the Parent PLUS program should be shut down. It is insane to lure parents into financing their children's college education by taking on massive student-loan debt--debt which is almost impossible to discharge in bankruptcy.

Third, Looney recommends the REPAYE program as the default student-loan repayment plan for all students. Unless a student opts out, all student-loan borrowers would be automatically enrolled in the REPAYE program when they begin repaying their student loans.

REPAYE, introduced by the Obama administration, allows student debtors to pay 10 percent of the discretionary income (income minus 150 percent of the poverty level) for 20 years rather than attempt to pay off their loans in the standard 10-year repayment plan.

In conjunction with automatic REPAY enrollment, Looney calls for voiding all fees, capitalized interest, and collection costs on current borrowers--costs and fees they wouldn't have suffered if they had been automatically enrolled in REPAYE. In addition, he proposes to cancel all student-loan debt that is 20 years old or older--without regard to the status of these loans.

Finally, Looney calls for a halt in wage and Social Security garnishment, and an end to the Treasury Offset program--the program that allows the government to capture defaulted borrowers' tax refunds.

These are all good proposals, but I have reservations. First, is it good public policy to automatically enroll all student-loan debtors in REPAYE--a 20-year income-based repayment plan? If we go that route, we will be creating a massive class of indentured servants who will be paying a percentage of their income to the government for the majority of their working lives.

Moreover, most people in those plans will never pay back the principal on their loans and could wind up with huge amounts of forgiven debt after 20 years, which would be taxable to them as income.

Secondly, Looney's proposals--all good, as I have said--are complicated, and the Department of Education has a dismal record managing just about every aspect of the student-loan program. For example, individuals enrolled in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program have been applying for debt relief, and the Department of Education has rejected 99 percent of all claims.

So these are my revisions to Mr. Looney's proposals:

• Amend the Bankruptcy Code to allow distressed student-loan debtors to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy like any other consumer debt.

• Shut down the Parent PLUS program immediately, and allow parents who took out Parent PLUS loans or cosigned private loans for their children to discharge those loans in bankruptcy.

• Stop funding the venal and corrupt for-profit college industry (as Senator Elizabeth Warren recommends).

• Finally (and this is basically Mr. Looney's proposal) wipe out all penalties, fees, and capitalized interest for all 45 million student-loan borrowers and stop garnishing wages, tax refunds, and Social Security checks of student debtors in default.

My proposals, Mr. Looney's proposals, and for that matter, Senator Warren's debt-forgiveness proposal are shockingly expensive. Any policy that grants student-loan forgiveness to the millions of people who deserve it will cost billions--a quarter of a trillion dollars perhaps or even more.

But let's face facts. Millions of student borrowers are not paying back their loans under the present system. Indeed, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos acknowledged last November that only one debtor out of four is paying down principal and interest on student loans.

Let's admit that the student-loan program is a catastrophe, grant relief to its victims, and design a system of higher education that is not so hideously expensive.

Image credit: Quora.com

References

Adam Looney. A better way to provide relief to student loan borrowers. Brookings Institution, April 30, 2019.

Education Secretary Betsy Devos Hires Private Accounting Firm to Audit the Student Loan program: Asking For Bad News

Secretary of Education Betsy Devos hired McKinsey & Company, a global consulting firm, to audit the federal student loan program. Why did she do that?

After all, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office or the Inspector General could have done the job. Why hire a private firm?

I'm thinking Secretary DeVos and the Trump administration realize the federal student-loan program is under water. They know the news is bad, but they want to know just how bad it is. After all, Secretary DeVos compared the program to a looming thunderstorm in a speech she made last November.

It took 42 years, DeVos pointed out, for the federal student-loan portfolio to reach half a trillion dollars (1965 until 2007). It took only 6 years--2007 to 2013--for the portfolio to reach $1 trillion. And in 2018--just five years later--the federal government held $1.5 trillion in outstanding student loans. In fact, uncollateralized student loans now make up 30 percent of all federal assets.

This wouldn't be a problem if student borrowers were paying off their loans. But they're not. As DeVos candidly admitted last November, "only 24 percent of FSA borrowers—one in four—are currently paying down both principal and interest." One in five borrowers are in delinquency or default, and 43 percent of all loans are "in distress" (whatever that means).

Although DeVos did not say so explicitly, she basically acknowledged that we've arrived where we are because the government is cooking the books. Student loans now constitute one third of the federal balance sheet. "Only through government accounting is this student loan portfolio counted as anything but an asset embedded with significant risk" DeVos said. "In the commercial world, no bank regulator would allow this portfolio to be valued at full, face value."

We can hope that McKinsey and Company will give us an accurate accounting. But we already know the news will be catastrophic.  More than 7.4 million people are in income-based repayment plans (IBRPs) that stretch out for 20 and even 25 years. IBRP participants make loan payments based on their income, not the amount they borrowed. Virtually no one in these plans will ever pay off their loans. 

Millions more have their loans in deferment or are prolonging their education to postpone the day they will be obligated to start making loan payments. Thus--as DeVos disclosed--only a quarter of student-loan borrowers are paying back both principal and interest on their loans.

Over the past 15 years or so, presidential administrations have juggled the numbers to postpone the day of reckoning. "After us, the deluge," has been the watchword.  Meanwhile, university presidents are saying nothing about this looming thunderstorm. They hope the deluge won't come until they are drawing their pensions.

The McKinsey report, when it comes, will be a shock to the public consciousness. And there is only one solution. We must admit that the federal student-loan program is totally out of control and allow its victims to discharge their loans in bankruptcy.

Before the deluge: Photo Credit Yale Center for British Art

References

Michelle Hackman, Josh Mitchell, & Lalita Clozel. Trump Administration Hires McKinsey to Evaluate Student-Loan Portfolio. Wall Street Journal, May 1, 2019.

A Kansas bankruptcy judge grants Vicky Jo Metz a partial discharge of her student loans, and she wins her appeal

Vicky Jo Metz borrowed $16,613 back in the 1990s to attend a community college, but she never got a degree. Over the years, she filed for bankruptcy three times, but she continued making payments on her student loans under court-approved repayment plans. In fact, she paid almost 90 percent of what she originally borrowed.

Nevertheless, Metz's student-loan debt kept growing due to accruing interest. By 2018, her total debt had grown to $67,277--four times what she borrowed. 

In 2017, Metz commenced an adversary proceeding in a Kansas bankruptcy court, seeking to discharge her student loans. Her creditor, Educational Credit Management Corporation (ECMC), objected to a discharge. Put Metz in an income-based repayment plan (IBRP), ECMC demanded. 

But Bankruptcy Judge Robert Nugent disagreed. Metz, who was 59 years old, would never pay off her student loans under an IBRP, Judge Nugent reasoned. On the contrary, if Metz entered a 25-year IBRP and faithfully made her income-based monthly payments, her debt would continue to grow due to accruing interest. By the time Metz completed her repayment plan, she would owe $157,277—nine times what she borrowed! Although her student-loan debt would be forgiven after 25 years of making payments, Metz would face significant tax liability because the IRS considers forgiven debt as taxable income.

 Judge Nugent granted Metz a partial discharge of her student loans. He canceled all the accrued interest on her student debt but required her to pay the original $16,613.

ECMC appealed Judge Nugent's decision to a federal district court, and Judge John Broomes upheld Judge Nugent's ruling. Like Judge Nugent, Judge Broomes applied the three-part Brunner test to determine whether it would be an undue hardship for Metz to repay her student loans.

In Judge Broomes' view, Metz could not repay her student loans and maintain a minimal standard of living. Thus, she met part one of the Brunner test. Moreover, she met part two of Brunner because her financial situation was not likely to change. Finally, in Judge Broomes’ view, Metz met part three of the Brunner test because she had handled her student loans in good faith.

In its appellant’s brief, ECMC renewed its argument that Metz should be placed in an IBRP and downplayed the tax consequences of such a plan. Metz would probably suffer no tax consequences from an IBRP, ECMC argued, because she would likely be flat broke when her IBRP concluded.  Under current law, ECMC pointed out, individuals pay no federal tax on forgiven debt if they are insolvent at the time the debt is forgiven.

In a footnote, Judge Broome pointed out the absurdity of ECMC’s position. “The import of that argument,” Judge Broome wrote, “is that under ECMC’s plan, [Metz] will be kept insolvent, if not entirely impoverished, until she is eighty years old and the debt is forgiven—what a pleasant system.”

Judge Broomes’ Metz decision is the second appellate court decision out of Kansas to uphold a bankruptcy court’s partial discharge of student-loan debt. The first decision, Murray v. ECMC, granted a partial discharge to Alan and Catherine Murray, a married couple in their late forties, whose student-loan debt had quadrupled over 20 years due to accruing interest.

Together, Metz and Murray stand for the proposition that long-term, income-based repayment plans are not appropriate for insolvent student-loan debtors when it is clear that debtors in these plans will never pay off their loans. Had ECMC had its way with Vicky Jo Metz, she would have made monthly student-loan payments for a quarter of a century—until she was in her eighties.  At that point, she would face a huge tax bill for $150,000 in forgiven debt or she would be insolvent. As Judge Broome remarked: What a pleasant system.

References

Educational Credit Management Corporation v. Metz, Case No. 18-1281-JWB (D. Kan. May 2, 2019).

In re Murray, 563 B.R. 52 (Bankr. D. Kan 2016); aff’d sub nom. Educational Credit Management Corporation v. Murray, No 16-2838, 2017 WL 4222980 (D. Kan. Sept. 22, 2017).

Senator Elizabeth's Student-Loan Forgiveness Plan Isn't Radical: The Feds are Already Forgiving Billions of Dollars in Student Debt

Adam Levitin, writing for Credit Slip, made a profound observation about Senator Elizabeth Warren's proposal to forgive massive amounts of student-loan debt.  Her harsh critics, Levitin, writes, moan and grown about the morality of contracts, the unfairness of allowing some student borrowers to escape their legal obligations, and the enormous cost of forgiving billions of dollars of accumulated student-loan debt.

In Levitin's view, these critics are only demonstrating that they don't know anything about how the federal student-loan program works. If they did, Levitin explains, they would know that "we crossed the debt forgiveness Rubicon long, long ago." In fact, enormous debt forgiveness is already "baked into the federal student loan program."

Levitin is absolutely right. Far less than half of student borrowers who have entered into repayment are paying down the principal of their loans. Millions of student-loan debtors have their loans in deferment, which means they aren't paying anything on their debt. Another 7.5 million borrowers are in income-based repayment plans (IBRPs) with their repayment schedules set so low that their monthly payments don't even cover accruing interest on their loan balances.

And then we have the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF), which allows qualified public-service workers to make income-based payments for 10 years, after which their loan balances are forgiven. How many people are in the PSLF  program (or think they are in it)? We don't really know, but well over a million student borrowers have applied to become PSLF eligible.

Even Betsy DeVos, Trump's Secretary of Education, publicly admitted that the student loan program is a mess. As DeVos revealed last November, only one borrower out of four are paying down both principal and interest on their student-loan debt.  Almost one out of five borrowers are delinquent on their loans or in default. And 43 percent of student loans, by DeVos's calculation, are currently "in distress."

As Mr. Levitin succinctly put it:

The only real difference between Senator Warren's proposal and the existing forgiveness  feature in the student loan program is whether the forgiveness comes in a fell swoop or is dribbled out over time. Given the federal government's infinite time horizon, the difference is really just an accounting matter. 

In other words, to baldly state the point, millions of student-loan debtors aren't paying back their loans and never will. Probably half of the $1.56 trillion in outstanding student loans will never be paid back.

Levitin argues that all student borrowers should be enrolled in income-based repayment plans by default when they finish their studies.  But I disagree. Putting every college graduate into a 20- or 25-year repayment plan is basically making these degree recipients indentured servants for the government--bound to pay a percentage of their wages to the Department of Education for a majority of their working lives.  If we do that, we will have basically created a permanent underclass of 21st century sharecroppers.

Moreover, as Levitin correctly points out, there is an enormous psychological benefit to Senator Warren's plan, which grants immediate debt forgiveness rather than dribbling it over over two decades or more in income-based repayment plans. "Consumers feel weighed down by the stock of their debt, even if they won't actually have to repay a large chunk of it." Indeed, it is well established that student-loan debt is preventing Americans from buying homes, having children, or saving for their retirement.

And then there is a rarely discussed problem with  the current debt-forgiveness system: tax liability. People whose loans are forgiven after a quarter century of making income-based payments will get tax bills for the amount of their forgiven debt because the IRS considers forgiven loans as taxable income.  Of course that problem could be easily fixed if Congress would enact legislation making forgiven student-loan debt nontaxable.

But Congress hasn't done that. Why? Because our politicians want to pretend that the federal student loan program isn't broken. It's like that old explanation of the Russian economy during the days of the Soviet Union. "The government pretends to pay us," a proletarian explained, "and we pretend to work."

Student-loan debtors: The new sharecroppers