Parent PLUS loans: African American families are being exploited by HBCUs

Rachel Fishman wrote a report for New America titled "The Wealth Gap PLUS Debt: How Federal Loans Exacerbate Inequality for Black Families."   But a better titled would have been this: "The Parent PLUS student-loan program screws African American families."

Parent PLUS is a federal student loan program that allows parents to take out student loans for their children's postsecondary education. Parents can borrow up to the student's total cost of attending the college of their choice--there is no dollar cap on the amount that parents can borrow.

Originally, the Parent PLUS program had very low eligibility criteria, and the Department of Education was making loans to parents who had a history of bad debts. DOE tightened the criteria in 2011, which raised an outcry from HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities).

HBCUs favor Parent PLUS loans because DOE does not report default rates on these loans and does not penalizes colleges for high Parent PLUS default rates.  As Fishman explained, "Parent PLUS loans are not included in CDR [cohort default rate] calculations, rendering them a no-strings-attached revenue source for colleges and universities" (P. 9). Indeed, for many colleges, "Parent PLUS loans are like grants; they get money from the federal government and the parent is on the hook to repay."

In response to strenuous protests from HBCUs, the Obama administration backed off on its efforts to make borrowing standards more rigorous, and the amount of money parents borrow under the program has increased.  According to Fishman, the percent of Parent PLUS borrowers with debt over $50,000 increased from 3 percent in 2000 to 13 percent in 2014 (p. 19).

Basically, the Department of Education is toadying to the HBCUs by loaning money recklessly to African American families that probably can't pay it back. In fact, Fishman reported that one third of African American parents taking out PLUS loans had incomes so low they were able to make zero estimated family contributions (EFC) to their children's college costs.

As Fishman points out, Parent PLUS loans adds to  a family's total debt for putting a child through college. Black families with zero EFC accumulate an average of $33,721 in "intergenerational indebtedness," which includes an average of $11,000 in PLUS loans in addition to the amount borrowed by the students themselves.

Fishman's report adds to a growing body of evidence showing that African Americans are getting screwed by the federal student loan program. Ben Miller, writing for the Center for American Progress (as reported by Fishman) "found that 12 years after entering college, the median Black borrower owed more than the original amount borrowed."  And default rates for African American college graduates is almost triple the rate for white graduates: 25 percent for black graduates and only 9 percent for white graduates.

A Brookings Institution report also calculates high default rates for black student borrowers. Judith Scott's Brookings report estimates that 70 percent of African American borrowers in the  2003-2004 cohort will ultimately default.

And the student-loan default rate for African Americans who drop out of for-profit schools without graduating is catastrophic.  Three out of four black students who borrow money to attend a for-profit institution and drop out before graduating default on their student loans.

But who gives a damn if the federal student loan program screws African American students and their families? HBCUs like the Parent PLUS program, because the Parent PLUS default rate doesn't penalize the colleges.  Parent PLUS money is essentially "free money" to a HBCU although one third of African American families who take out these loans show zero ability to repay.

References

Rachel Fishman. The Wealth Gap PLUS. How Federal Loans Exacerbate Inequality of Black Families. New America.org, May 2018.

Andrew Kreighbaum. How Parent Plus Worsens the Racial Wealth Gap. Inside Higher Ed, May 15, 2018.

CFPB to Shift Focus From Protecting Student Loan Debtors to Something Else. Essay by Steve Rhode

By Steve Rhode on May 10, 2018

Recently the Trump administration has tried to change the law so individual states would not be able to enforce ;laws covering student loan debt collectors.

The new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Mick Mulvaney, has just released the updated agenda for the CFPB.

According to the new agenda, the CFPB would drop its efforts to push forward regulations of student loan collectors and scrap “student loan servicing” from its focus.

Mulvaney has also indicated the CFPB will retreat from doing anything regarding student loans in general.

“This defangs the watchdog and instead turns the office into a lapdog for the industry,” said Chris Peterson, a former top CFPB official who is now director of financial services at the Consumer Federation of America.

The unit which has been the tip of the spear on these CFPB student loan efforts to protect debtors has been informed they will be reorganized into the CFPB Office of Financial Education. Now there is a department title which just screams no enforcement.

“This is a very significant change in the mission of the student office,” said Christopher Peterson, a law professor at the University of Utah and former enforcement attorney at the CFPB.

“America is facing an ongoing student debt crisis, with outstanding student debt surpassing $1.5 trillion and over 8 million borrowers in default on their student loans. Closing the office for students is like shuttering the fire department in the middle of a three-alarm fire,” Alexis Goldstein, the senior policy analyst at Americans for Financial Reform, said.

I don’t get it. All actions that have been taken by the Department of Education and now the new modified CFPB have the net effect of restricting supervision of student loan collectors, limit state authority to protect citizens from student loan collection abuse, reduce debt elimination from federal student loan fraud by schools, and give easier access to student loan money by for-profit schools.

You don’t need to read the tea leaves here to see what is going on, you just need to look at the billboard.

I don’t care what your political stripes are. With all these changes any student with any student loan debt should expect to be less protected from collector misinformation, bad advice, and poor servicing.

If you don’t believe me, just go ahead and file a complaint against your student loan servicer and see how much protection you get. Your new friend will be the word NONE.

Steve's essay was originally posted on The Get Out of Debt Guy web site.

*****

Steve Rhode is the Get Out of Debt Guy and has been helping good people with bad debt problems since 1994. You can learn more about Steve, here. 

Baby Boomers are stealing from the Millennials: Stocks and bonds for grandma and grandpa; perpetual debt for their grandchildren

Baby Boomers are stealing from the Millennials. People in their 60s and 70s are retiring comfortably in sunny Florida or taking luxury river cruises down the Danube. Meanwhile, their grandchildren are struggling with massive student-loan debt they will never pay off.

As John Rubino put it, "we baby boomers have rigged the system in our favor at the expense of pretty much everyone else," forcing younger generations to take out student loans to get their college degrees. "[S]tudent loans--barely necessary when most boomers graduated 40 years ago--have become a life-defining problem for our kids and grandkids."

Rubino is right. The people who run this country--judges, legislators, college presidents, and the captains of industry--got their college degrees for a modest sum; and most graduated with little or no student debt. But their grandchildren will take out massive student loans to get their postsecondary credentials, and many will remain indebted for decades.

According to a Brookings Institution report, most student borrowers with large loan balances are not defaulting on their loans; they just aren't paying them back. Millions have their loans in deferment, allowing them to skip their loan payments without being put into default.  Six million are now enrolled in some type of income-based repayment plan (IBR) that allows them to make smaller loan payments but keeps them indebted for 20 or 25 years.

Millions more are simply defaulting on their loans--which means their credit is shot and their loan balances have shot upward due to default penalties and accrued interest on their unpaid debt. According to the New York Times, college borrowers defaulted at the rate of 3,000 a day in 2016.

Rubino sees only one solution to this mess:"massive devaluation" of our currency to allow student debtors to pay off their loans with cheaper money. But that won't work unless Millennials' salaries rise high enough so that current debt loads are no longer burdensome. And there is no sign this is happening.

Total outstanding student-loan indebtedness is now about $1.5 trillion, or $1.6 trillion if you include private student-loan debt. About half of this amount will never be paid back. We really only have two options. We can forgive billions of dollars in uncollectable student-loan debt or we can continue to allow millions of Americans to slip out of the middle class--dragged down by their student loans and unable to buy homes or save for their retirement.

References

Adam Looney & Constantine Yannelis. Most students with large loan balances aren't defaulting. They just aren't reducing their debt. Brookings Institution, February 16, 2018.

Josh Mitchell. The Rise of the Jumbo Student Loan. Wall Street Journal, February 16, 2018.

John Rubino. Loan Shark Nation: Forcing Our Kids To Choose Between Student Loans And Everything Else.

The Wrong Move on Student Loans. New York Times, April 6, 2017.

College borrowers who see their student-loan debt triple will never pay off their loans: The tragic story of Rick Tallini

Pope Francis once said that a life prison sentence is essentially a death sentence, and of course he is right.

Something similar can be said about college borrowers who see their debt load double, triple, or even quadruple. They've received a life sentence of indebtedness, and a death sentence to any dreams they may have about retiring or purchasing a home.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Rick Tallini borrowed $55,000 to go to law school back in the 1990s.  Had he gotten a good job immediately after graduating, he would have been fine. But Tallini didn't find that good job, and so he put his loans in deferment for extended periods of time, while interest accrued at 8 or 9 percent.

Around ten years after he graduated (according to a CNBC story), Tallini's loans went into default, and his student-loan creditor tacked on additional fees. By the time Tallini consolidated his loans, he owed $150,000--nearly three times what he borrowed. Apparently, his debt continued to grow due to accruing interest, and now he owes $330,000--six times what he borrowed!

Will Tallini ever pay off this debt?  Of course not. The federal government sentenced him to a lifetime of indebtedness--an economic death sentence. Although the CNBC story did not say, Tallini probably does not own his own home, and he probably has inadequate savings toward his retirement.

Mr. Tallini, who is 61 years old, really has only two options: He can file for bankruptcy and attempt to discharge his debt in an adversary proceeding. If he goes that route, he could be in litigation for years because the U.S. Department of Education and its proxy debt collectors will overwhelm him with their teams of heartless attorneys.  And he might not prevail.

Alternatively, Tallini can sign up for a long-term income-based repayment plan that can last 20 or 25 years.  He could be dead before his repayment obligations are met. And if he is fortunate to still be above ground when his income-based repayment plan terminates, the IRS will send him a bill for the forgiven amount of his loan because the IRS considers forgiven debt to be income.

In my view, Mr. Tallini's case demonstrates irrefutably that America is no longer a just society and our colleges and universities are no longer working for the public good. Higher education (including legal education) is a racket financed by student loans owed by people like Rick Tallini, who went to law school more than 20 yeas ago hoping to build a good and satisfying life.

And look at what he got instead. Crushing debt he will never pay off.

Rick Tallini owes $330,000 in student debt. Photo credit: CNBC

References

Annnie Nova. He had $55,000 in student loans, now he owes $330,000 . . . Here's how it happened. CNBC.com, May 6, 2018.

Annie Nova. These are the ways student loans stop people from buying houses. CNBCcom. March 31, 2018.

Mount Ida College closes down: Knowing when to fold 'em

General George Washington fought a brilliant campaign in the Delaware Valley during the winter of 1776-1777, but he knew when to fold his cards. He won a stunning victory at the battle of Trenton, where he caught the Hessians with their pants down on the day after Christmas.  But a week later, Washington and his army found themselves facing General Cornwallis' elite British forces arrayed against him across Assunpink Creek. Night was falling; and Washington knew his army would be annihilated if it didn't hit the road before dawn.

What to do?

Washington didn't stick around for a battle. His army sneaked away under cover of darkness, leaving campfires burning and a small rear guard to deceive the British into thinking the Continentals were going to fight it out the next morning.

Mount Ida College, like George Washington, knows when to slip away. Following Washington's example, it gave every indication that it would be open for business for the 2018-2019 school year. The college admitted a new freshman class; it even offered scholarships to attract more students.

Then, seemingly out of the blue, Mount Ida announced it was shutting down.  It had been quietly negotiating with the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, which agreed to buy Mount Ida's 72-acre campus for $70 million. It also revealed that it had agreements in place with nearby colleges to take Mount Ida's transfer students.

Did Mount Ida behave reprehensibly? I don't think so. I'm sure Mount Ida's governing board knew it had to act in secrecy in order to make a clean getaway.

Understandably, students, parents, and Mount Ida professors are angry.  "Why are you preying on our children, luring them to come to Mount Ida with nonexistant money?" a mother of an incoming freshman asked.

Professor Fernando Reimers, a Harvard professor and member of the state board of higher education, also judged Mount Ida harshly. "It seems to me that this is not only an example of system failure," Reimers fulminated self-righteously.  "[T]his is an example of serious leadership failure."

But what does Professor Reimers know about running a small liberal arts college? Not much, I'll warrant.

Mount Ida is the latest name on a growing casualty list of small colleges that are calling it quits.  These little boutique schools just can't make it in an age of soaring tuition and an ever more burdensome regulatory environment.

We shouldn't condemn Mount Ida's governing board for the way it announced the school's closure. There is no painless way to shut down a college. It may have acted deceptively by pretending it was going to be operating for another year, but Mount Ida was simply stoking its campfires, much like Washington did on the banks of Assunpink Creek, sneaking away as best it could in the face of overwhelming forces.

As the immortal Kenny Rogers put it, you have to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, and know when to run. In the next few years, we will see a lot of small colleges shut down. Parents who don't want to run the risk that their children's college will shut down precipitously, should send their kids to a public university.

George Washington knew when to fold 'em.

Fail State, Alexander Shebanow's Documentary about For-Profit Colleges, is an excellent movie. Go see it.

A few nights ago, I watched Fail State, Alexander Shebanow's documentary movie about the seedy for-profit college industry.  Director Shebanow did a masterful job of explaining how for-profit colleges have used deceptive recruiting techniques, strategic campaign contributions, and congressional lobbyists to rip off vulnerable Americans: minorities, the poor, and first generation college students. Over the years, the for-profits have sucked up billions of dollars in federal student-aid money while offering shoddy education programs that left their students with enormous student-loan debt and no work skills.

Shebanow's movie has two broad themes. First, the director shows the for-profit college industry for what it is: a quasi-criminal enterprise that undermines the integrity of higher education. Second, Shebanow's story showcases community colleges as the proper institutions for offering inexpensive but useful postsecondary training.

The student-loan crisis is a long, sad saga of corruption and deceit, and no 90-minute movie can cover the whole story. Nevertheless, I wish Fail State had touched on some of the reforms that could offer student-loan victims relief from crushing debt.

About 20 million people are burdened by student loans they can't pay back. This number includes students who attended for-profit colleges, private nonprofit schools, and state universities.  The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has documented that this huge level of indebtedness is undermining the national economy. In my view, the only sensible thing to do is open up the bankruptcy courts to theses sufferers and give them an opportunity for a fresh start, freed from debs they cannot pay.

Moreover, although Shebanow's indictment of the for-profit colleges is damning and irrefutable, I wish the movie had more clearly stated that this industry needs to be completely shut down. Trying to clean up this gangster industry by enacting tougher regulations will be about as effective as trying evangelize a crocodile.

In a sense, Fail State is much like The Big Short, the star-studded movie about the subprime mortgage meltdown. Both stories are sagas about greed, corruption, and governmental indifference. Shebanow directed a fine movie, and everyone thinking about enrolling at a for-profit college should be required to see it before signing on the dotted line.

References

Zachary Bleemer, et al. Echoes of Rising Tuition in Students' Borrowing, Educational Attainment, and Homeownership in Post-Recession America. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Report No. 820, July 2017.

Professor Randa Jarrar, who rejoiced at the death of Barbara Bush, boasts she can't be fired

Randa Jarrar, a tenured English professor at Fresno State University, made the news this week for her tasteless tweet about the death of Barbara Bush. This is what Jarrar said:

Barbara Bush was a generous and smart and amazing racist who, along with her husband, raised a war criminal. F*** outta here with your nice words. 

PSA: either you are against these pieces of shit and their genocidal ways or you're part of the problem. that's actually how simple this is. I'm happy the witch is dead. can't wait for the rest of her family to fall to their demise the way 1.5 million iraqis have. byyyeeeeeeee.

All the hate I'm getting ALMOST made me forget how happy I am that George W Bush is probably really sad right now.

Jarrar has been roundly excoriated  by conservative pundits for her crude remarks about a great American, but she is unrepentant. Here is Jarrar's response to her critics: 

sweetie i work as a tenured professor. I make 100K a year doing that. i will never be fired. i will always have people wanting to hear what i have to say. even you are one of them!

Perhaps enough has been said about Jarrar's boorish behavior, but as a tenured professor myself, I would like to add a few reflections.

First, Randa Jarrar exemplifies all that is wrong with higher education today. A tenured professor--an English professor, for God's sake--apparently saw the death of Barbara Bush as an opportunity to spew sneering profanity into the twittersphere.  There was a time when university professors were expected to be models of civility and decency. The very idea that an English professor at a public university  would cruelly mock a recently deceased First Lady even before Mrs. Bush was buried should shock us all.

Secondly, Jarrar's taunting retort to her critics presents a strong argument against tenure. Tenure's defenders say it is necessary to preserve academic freedom, but Jarrar seems to think that tenure is nothing more than a license to behave boorishly. "[I] will never be fired," she boasted; and people will always want "want to hear what [I] have to say." Really?

Isn't it outrageous that Randa Jarrar has a tenured position at a California university, which comes with excellent health insurance and a good pension? Meanwhile millions of Americans have student loans up to their eyeballs--loans taken out to take classes from buffoons like Professor Jarrar.

But this is the saddest thing of all about the Jarrar affair: Professor Jarrar is probably right. She will never be fired.

Professor Randa Jarrar: "i will never be fired"

References

Leah Barkoukis. Fresno State Has Some News For Bush-Bashing Professor Who Thinks She Can't Be Fired. Townhall.com, April 19, 2018.

Don't Go To College, Says Kurt Schlichter; And By God, He May Be Right!

Kurt Schlichter wrote a sprightly essay for Townhall last month, arguing vigorously that young people should just skip college. "What passes for 'education' today is nothing of the sort," Schlichter writes, "and what calls itself 'academia' is really just a venal trade guild packed with mediocrities desperately trying to keep fooling people into forking over $60,000 a year--usually obtained via ruinous borrowing that ties a financial anchor around the defrauded grads' necks for the rest of their lives."

Who can disagree? As Schlichter says, "much of academia's product is largely garbage," particularly in the liberal arts. People are now graduating with English degrees without having read Shakespeare, or without knowing how to spell Shakespeare, for that matter.

Of course higher education argues ad nauseam that a degree in liberal arts has some intrinsic worth. As John Kenneth Galbraith put it years ago:

Education is, most of all, for the enlargement and the enjoyment of life. It is education that opens the window for the individual on the pleasures of language, literature, art, music, the diversities and idiosyncrasies of the world scene. The well-educated over the years and centuries have never doubted their superior reward; it is greater educational opportunity that makes general and widespread this reward.

 But who believes that anymore? Administrators at small liberal arts colleges purr seductively about the value of a liberal education while they lay off history professors to beef up their MBA programs-where the real money is. And ever so earnestly, they defend inflated tuition prices even as they discount their tuition rates by half.

Really, why pay good money for a liberal arts degree? Why study American literature if professors cannot identify a canon of great American writers? Why read Faulkner, Hawthorne, Henry James, Melville, or Fitzgerald if the English faculty writes them all off as a bunch of dead, white, misogynistic and racist males?

And in truth, I would not advise a young person to invest much time in reading William Faulkner or Henry James. Or Steinbeck, for that matter, although The Grapes of Wrath speaks to me as a great book, probably because I am a descendant of Okies.  

In fact, American writers are still writing great books, maybe better books than the ones our old professors said we must read. T.C. Boyle's Tortilla Curtain is as searing a book as you will ever read about being a despised refugee in America, every bit as good as The Grapes of Wrath. And although The Great Gatsby may be the great American novel, Tom Wolf's Bonfire of the Vanities, a more contemporary tale, describes the emptiness of wealth just as movingly as Fitzgerald's classic.

Today, American society has become so diverse that it makes no sense to argue that there are great American novels that everyone should read or even an accepted narrative of American history that everyone should learn. I read Marquis James' Pulitzer Prize winning biography of Andrew Jackson and was convinced Jackson was a great American. But we may take Old Hickory off the $20 bill; and if we do, he won't be coming back.

I read Douglas Southall Freeman's multi-volume biography of Robert E. Lee and concluded that General Lee was a decent man. But New Orleans ripped Lee's statue of its pedestal at Lee's Circle, and Lee definitely won't be coming back. 

Maybe we should all construct our own personal canon of great books, our own personal narrative of history.  As a Catholic, for example, I consider the Philadelphia Bible Riots every bit as important as the so-called Boston Massacre, but few people would agree with me. And for me, the great coming-of-age novel is not Catcher in the Rye by that sleazebag J.D. Salinger, but Richard Bradford's Red Sky at Morning, a book about being young in northern New Mexico during World War II.

But if we are all free to construct our own canon of literature and our own narrative of history, which liberal arts professors are basically arguing we should do, then why the hell should we pay sixty grand a year for our kids to attend some moldy liberal arts college in the upper Midwest?

Because the colleges need your money, I suppose. And if you don't have sixty grand, don't worry. The government is quite willing to loan it to you.

References

Kurt Schlichter. Don't Go To College, Townhall, March 22, 2018.

Betsy DeVos and the Republicans wants to dump the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program: Big Mistake

Betsy DeVos and the Republicans want to dump the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF)  because the program is too expensive. According to the Department of Education's Inspector General, costs of the government's various loan forgiveness programs shot up from $1.4 billion in 2011 to $11.5 billion in 2015--about a nine-fold jump.

In fact, all the Department of Education's loan-forgiveness programs are bleeding red ink. As the Government Accounting Office reported in November 2016, the Department underestimated the cost of these programs. For one thing, DOE assumed that student-loan debtors would sign up for a repayment plan and not switch.

But that's not what happened. Many college borrowers tried to repay their loans under DOE's standard 10-year plan but couldn't find jobs that paid enough to service their monthly loan payments. Millions then switched to income-driven repayment plans (IDRs), which lowered their monthly payments, but those payments were not large enough to cover accruing interest. In my estimation, most of the people in IDRs will never pay back their loans because interest is accruing on loan balances with every passing month.

PSLFs have specific problems, which make them particularly expensive for taxpayers.  First, the PSLF program, which was approved by Congress in 2007, defined eligibility far too broadly.  Anyone working for the federal, state or local government and anyone working for a nonprofit charitable corporation is eligible. As Jason Delisle observed in a Brookings Institution report, about a quarter of America's entire workforce is eligible for a PSLF plan.

PSLF advocates sometimes say the program was designed to encourage people to enter hard-to-fill public service jobs: police officers, fire fighters, ambulance drivers, and inner-city school teachers. But that description is misleading. Accountants, lawyers, public relations people--anyone working for the government or a non-profit--is eligible. 

And there's a second problem with PSLFs: Congress put no cap on the amount a PSLF participant can borrow. DOE apparently calculated costs based on the assumption that most PSLF beneficiaries had relatively low loan balances. But a lot of people applying for the program are people who accumulated massive debt from attending graduate school. A typical lawyer, for example, graduates law school with an average of $140,000 in accumulated student loans.

PSLF participants--including lawyers, accountants and MBA graduates--will make monthly payments based on a percentage of their adjusted income for 10 years, with the unpaid balance being forgiven when their 10-year repayment plans expire.  But most PSLF participants won't come close to paying off their loan balances after 10 years, and American taxpayers will be picking up the bill.

Thus, Trump and the Republicans have valid concerns about IDRs and PSLF programs.Nevertheless, I do not think these programs should be eliminated.

Why? Because 44 million Americans have student-loan debt and about half of them will never pay it back.  Congress has blocked bankruptcy relief for most of these people, which means they have two choices: default or sign up for an income-based repayment plan.

In my view, then, DOE's income-based repayment plans and the PSLF program should be continued  because the only other option for millions of distressed college borrowers is default.

But ultimately, there is only one way out of the student-loan morass. First. we must either allow insolvent student borrowers to discharge their college loans in bankruptcy or we must forgive the debt en masse. Second, we must shut down the venal and corrupt federal student-loan program and allow all Americans to get a free undergraduate education at a public college or university.

I realize this is a hard reality, which our government is refusing to face. But face reality it must; and the longer it waits to do so, the more people will be harmed by a student-loan program that is totally out of control.

Representatives Virginia Foxx: Republican Chair of the House Education Committee

References

Douglas Belkin, Josh Mitchell, & Melissa Korn. House GOP to Propose Sweeping Changes to Higher Education. Wall Street Journal, November 29, 2017. 

Ryan Cooper. The case for erasing every last penny of student debt. The Week, February 8, 2018.

Stacy Cowley. Student Loan Forgiveness Program Approval Letters May Be Invalid. New York Times, March 30, 2017. 

Danielle Douglas-Gabriel. GOP higher ed plan would end student loan forgiveness in repayment programs, overhaul federal financial aid. Washington Post, December 1, 2017.

Scott Fullwiler, Stephanie Kelton, Catherine Ruetschlin, & Marshall Steinbaum. The Macroeconomic Effects of Student Loan Cancellation. Levy Economics Institute. Bard College, February 2018.

Jason Delisle. The Coming Public Service Loan Forgiveness Bonanza. Brookings Institution Report, Vol 2(2), September 22, 2016.

Andrew Kreigbaum. GAO Report finds costs of loan programs outpace estimates and department methodology flawed. Inside Higher Ed, December 1, 2016.

Eric Levitz. We Must Cancel Everyone's Student Debt, for the Economy's Sake. New York, February 9, 2018.

Amanda Palleschi. Student Loans Are Too Expensive To Forgive. fivethirtyeight.com, March 27, 2018.

US. Government Accounting Office. Federal Student Loans: Education Needs to Improve Its Income-Driven Repayment Plan Budget Estimates. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accounting Office, November, 2016. 

Jordan Weissmann. Betsy DeVos Wants to Kill a Major Student Loan Forgiveness Program, Slate, May 17, 2017.

Betsy DeVos is shilling for debt-collectors and for-profit colleges: The destruction of Americas's middle class

The New York Times published an editorial this week strongly criticizing Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, whom the Times accurately describe as a "shill" for the student-loan industry.

As the Times reported, DeVos' Department of Education has issued a new policy statement that says federal law can preempt state consumer-protection laws aimed at curbing abuses in the loan-servicing and debt-collection business.  DeVos' Department argues that state consumer-protection laws can undermine uniform administration of the student loan program.

The Times also criticized the Republican-sponsored bill to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. This bill, if it becomes law, will preempt the right of the states to regulate the student-loan business--including student-loan debt collectors and loan servicers.

Betsy DeVos' craven and servile pandering to the student-loan industry is a scandal; and DeVos--not the Russians--should be the focus of Democratic attacks on the Trump administration.  DeVos' behavior belies all the blather coming out of the White House about how Trump policies benefit the middle class. DeVos apparently hopes to remove all restraints on the venal and corrupt student-loan business, which is doing a pretty good job of dismantling the middle class.

In fact, the federal student-loan program is a disaster, with millions of casualties as student borrowers are pushed into default or into long-term repayment plans that never pay off borrowers' loan balances.

Here's what can be done to stop DeVos' mad-dog scheme to line the pockets of her debt-collector cronies:

1) The state attorney generals should sue Betsy DeVos and DOE every time they attempt to dismantle the states' proper role of protecting consumers from fraud.  As the Times noted, this is what the state AGs are doing.

2) Other states should follow the example of the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Massachusetts Attorney General  and organize teams of volunteer lawyers to represent distressed student-loan debtors in the bankruptcy courts.  If just a few more state AGs joined the Bay State--California, Florida, Illinois, and Texas, for example--I believe the bankruptcy courts would begin revising their harsh attitude toward college borrowers in the bankruptcy courts.

3) The Democrats should take every opportunity to question Trump administration officials under oath about the activities of the student-loan guarantee companies who act as DOE's debt collectors. Why do four of these agencies--nonprofit organizations--individually hold $1 billion in assets while they hound elderly debtors in the bankruptcy courts.  Let's see a breakdown of the attorney fees these agencies are paying to hire asshole lawyers to crush student-loan debtors.

Everyone of good will should take heart at Fed Reserve Chair Jerome Powell's candid admission that he could not explain why the Bankruptcy Code treats student-loan debtors so harshly--basically putting them in the same category as criminals.

As someone once said, when a thing can't go on forever, it won't. The abuses of the federal student loan program can't go on forever. More than 40 million borrowers collectively owe $1.5 trillion in student loans (including private loans); and about half of these borrowers will never repay their debt.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and other agencies have documented that student-loan debt is hurting the economy--preventing people from buying homes and saving for retirement.

The time has come for American society to decide: Do we want to continue enriching a bunch of crooks in the for-profit college business and the debt-collecting racket or do we want a middle class?

We know Betsy DeVos' answer: she wants to enrich her corrupt buddies even if she helps destroy the middle class.


References

The Student Loan Industry Finds Friends in Washington. New York Times, March 18, 2018.

Robert Shireman and Tariq Habash. Have Student Loan Guaranty Agencies Lost Their Way? The Century Foundation, September 29, 2016.

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell says he can't explain why student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy: An astonishing admission that the emperor wears no clothes

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell made an astonishing admission at a Senate Banking Committee hearing last month.  He said he could not explain why federal law does not allow distressed debtors to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy.

"I think alone among all kinds of debt, we don’t allow student loan debt to be discharged in bankruptcy," Powell said. "I'd be at a loss to explain why that should be the case."

Powell also acknowledged that mounting student indebtedness could injure the American economy. "It’s not something you can pick up in the data right now," Powell told the Banking Committee, "but at this goes on, and as student [debt] gets larger and larger, it absolutely could hold back growth." 

Fed Chairman Powell is not the first senior Washington official to admit that the student loan program could hurt the American economy. Former Fed Chair Janet Yellen made a similar observation in 2014. "The [student] debt loads certainly are high enough that they may play a role in, for example, making it hard for people to buy first homes, to build a down payment,” Yellen said at a hearing of the Senate Budget Committee.  

But Powell's remarks last month is the first time a senior federal official has candidly admitted that he cannot explain why the Federal Bankruptcy Code makes it very difficult for overburdened college debtors to discharge their student loans through bankruptcy.

In essence, Chairman Powell's surprisingly candid remark is very much like the children's story about the emperor who wore no clothes. Everyone knew the emperor wasn't wearing clothes, but no one was brave enough to state the obvious until a child explained: "The emperor is naked!"

I think Chairman Powell's frank observation may be just the nudge our government needs to honestly address the fact that millions of Americans who took out student loans in good faith simply can't pay them back.

How can the Chairman's remarks be exploited?

I. Alert the bankruptcy judges to the Fed Chair's remarks

First, all student debtors who attempt to their discharge student loans in bankruptcy should notify the bankruptcy judge--either in the complaint itself or in a pleading--that a top economic official in the federal government cannot explain why honest student debtors are barred from shedding their burdensome student loans through bankruptcy.

Powell's observation stands in stark contradiction to the stance taken by the Department of Education and the student-loan debt collectors that have fought bankruptcy relief for almost all student debtors.  For example, DOE opposed bankruptcy relief for a quadriplegic debtor in the Myhre case, and Educational Credit Management Corporation (ECMC) fought Janet Roth, an elderly woman in poor health who was living on less than $800 a month, all the way to the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.

How can DOE and ECMC defend their heartless behavior when the Chair of the Federal Reserve says he can't explain why our government puts onerous restrictions on bankruptcy relief  for insolvent student debtors? Powell's remark might be just the piece of evidence bankruptcy courts need to begin discharging student loans in bankruptcy under more humane standards than currently prevail.

II. Powell's statement should spur a bipartisan effort in Congress to amend the Bankruptcy Code

Second, Powell's admission should prompt Republicans and Democrats to join in a bipartisan push to amend the Bankruptcy Code to remove the "undue hardship" provision in 11 U.S.C. sec. 523 (a)(8). Representatives Katko and Delaney have filed a bill to remove the "undue hardship" clause from the Bankruptcy Code, but so far the bill has gone nowhere.  Senators Warren and McCaskill have introduced a bill to stop the federal government from garnishing Social Security payments to insolvent, elderly student debtors, but that bill too has gone nowhere.

Surely Powell's statement should be all the encouragement Republicans and Democrats need to revise the Bankruptcy Code so that student loans are dischargeable in bankruptcy like any other consumer debt.

Fed Reserve Chair Jerome Powell

References

Joseph Lawler. Federal Reserve chairman: Mounting student debt could hold back economic growth. Washington Examiner, March 1, 2018.

Joseph Lawler. Janet Yellen warns student debt may be holding back housing recovery. Washington Examiner, May 8, 2014.

Representative John Delaney press release. Delaney and Katko File Legislation to Help Americans Struggling with Student Loan Debt. May 5, 2017.

Alexander Holmes v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust: Don't co-sign your children's student loans!

In 2006, Alexander Holmes co-signed a student loan with Charter Bank One to fund his son's education at the University of Southern Indiana. Charter Bank sold Holmes' loan in a pool of loans to National Collegiate Funding, which then sold the loan to National Collegiate Student Loan Trust (NCSLT).

Ten years later, NCSLT sued Mr. Holmes, claiming he owed more than $16,000 on the loan plus accrued interest. Holmes denied NCSLT's claim and argued that NCSLT did not have standing to sue him.

NCSLT moved for summary judgment, which an Indiana trial court granted. The court then ordered Holmes to pay NCSLT $18,183.26 plus interest and costs.

But Mr. Holmes had a good lawyer and he appealed. An Indiana appellate court reversed the lower court's order against Mr. Holmes on the grounds that NCSLT had not provided admissible evidence that it had the right to collect on the debt Holmes owed Charter Bank.

The court's reasoning is a bit technical; but this is a summary of the appellate court's decision:
In support of its motion for summary judgment against Mr. Holmes, NCSLT offered the affidavit of Jacqueline Jefferis, an employee of Transworld Systems, Inc. (TSI), which was the "loan subservicer" for U.S. Bank, National Association, which the court identified as the "Special Servicer" working for NCSLT.

In a sworn statement, Ms. Jefferis' said she was familiar with TSI's business practices regarding loan records. But, as the Indiana Court of Appeals pointed out:

[T]he Jefferis affidavit provided no testimony to support the admission of the contract between Holmes and Charter One Bank or the schedule of pooled loans sold and assigned to National Collegiate Funding, LLC, and then to NCSLT . . . . There was no testimony to indicate that Jefferis was familiar with or had knowledge of the regular business practices or record keeping of Charter One Bank, the loan originator, or that of NCSLT regarding the transfer of pooled loans . . . . [Emphasis added by me.

In other words, as far as the appellate court was concerned, Ms. Jefferis didn't know nuthin' about no loan from Charter Bank to Mr. Holmes. Consequently, the trial court's judgment against Mr. Holmes was reversed.

Why is the Holmes case, decided by an Indiana state court, important to other student-loan debtors? Three reasons:

I. The private student-loan industry is bundling student loans and selling them to investors

First, the private student-loan industry has been packaging student loans into bundles (or pools) and selling them to third parties, and these third parties often then sell these bundled loans to yet other parties. In fact, these loans can have multiple owners.

In this flurry of transactions, the paperwork often gets mislaid or lost. Sometimes the companies suing student-loan debtors for payment do not have the critical documents necessary to show that they have the legal right to collect on the debt.

This confusion sometimes occurs due to "robo-signing," the mindless signing of documents by people who are not familiar with the original transactions. This was a significant issue during the home-mortgage crisis of 2008, and judges sometimes dismissed home-foreclosure suits because the parties trying to foreclose on houses could not prove they were entitled to grab someone's home.

Thus, anyone who is sued by a company trying to collect on a private student loan should demand that the suing party show that it is the legal entity entitled to sue for the money. Fortunately for Mr. Holmes, NCSLT was unable to show that it was the party that had legal standing to sue him.

II. Student-loan debtors need good lawyers

This brings me to the second reason the Holmes case is significant for other student-loan debtors. Mr. Holmes defeated NCSLT on a technicality. Specifically, NCSLT's documentation did not pass muster with Indiana Evidence Rule 803(6). But only a competent lawyer would know how to make the technical argument that benefited Mr. Holmes.

I once thought that student-loan debtors with the right facts could go into court without lawyers and be successful. And indeed, some debtors have won their cases in federal bankruptcy courts over the ruthless opposition of the debt collectors' lawyers.

But many of these cases turn on legal technicalities that a nonlawyer could not be expected to know. The Holmes case was based on Indiana law, but federal bankruptcy law also has technicalities that nonlawyers will find very difficult to master.

That is why I was heartened by the decision of the Massachusetts Bar Association to organize teams of volunteer lawyers to represent student-loan debtors in bankruptcy courts. If student-loan debtors can get good lawyers, they will have a far better chance of winning their cases than if they go to court without legal counsel.

III. Never co-sign your children's student loans

There's a third lesson to be learned from the Holmes case. Mr. Holmes co-signed a student loan with his son Nicholas to enable Nicholas to enroll at the University of Southern Indiana. In my view, that was a mistake. If Nicholas couldn't figure out a way to attend a regional state university without having his dad co-sign a student loan, then Nicholas needed to figure out another way to go to college.

I've said this before, and I'll say it one more time. Parents should never co-sign their children's student loans. Never. Never. Never.


Note: My thanks to Steve Rhode for calling my attention to Holmes v. NCSLT.

References

Alexander Holmes v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2018).

Steve Rhode. Perfect Example Why Most National College Student Loan Trust Lawsuits are BS. Getoutofdebtguyorg., March 1, 2018.

Lady Bird, the movie, sends an insidious message about elite East Coast colleges (Spoiler Alert)

Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig's  new coming-of-age movie, has been nominated for five Academy Awards, including Best Picture. But it is an insidious movie, which delivers a treacherous message that self-fulfillment can be found at an elite East Coast college.

Christine, who calls herself Lady Bird, is a discontented California girl who attends a Catholic high school in Sacramento. Her mother doesn't understand her, the guy she is sweet on is gay, and she cheats on her exams.

To make matters worse, Lady Bird's parents live in a tiny ranch-style home, with only one bathroom. She self-deprecatingly tells her boyfriend she lives on the wrong side of the tracks, an insult he guilelessly passes on to her mom and dad.

Sacramento bores Lady Bird, which she dismisses as "the Midwest of California." She longs to escape California to go to college on the East Coast.   Although several elite schools reject her, she finally get accepted to a fancy college in New York.

But the school is expensive. Her father, who comes across as a genuinely nice guy, recently lost his job; and at his age, he is unlikely to get another one. Lady Bird's mother, a nurse, works double shifts at a hospital to make ends meet.

But Lady Bird simply must go east to college, so her dad refinances the family home to cover the cost. The movie ends with Lady Bird in New York City, where she lies to one of the first guys she meets and tells him she is from San Francisco.

What a piece of crap! Any young woman who allows her out-of-work father to refinance the family's pathetic little house so she can attend a snooty East Coast college is a self-absorbed jerk. Although the movie is pitched as a young woman's heroic quest for self-fulfillment, it's really just a gratuitous insult to flyover country, which the filmmaker expanded to include parts of California.

Congress enacts teeny weeny student-loan reform legislation: Is the glass half full or half empty?

As reported by Steve Rhode, Congress passed a very modest student-loan reform bill late last year.  Titled the Stop Taxing Death and Disability Act, the new law eliminates an unfair tax on forgiven student loans.

Prior to passage of this law, the government would forgive student loans held by debtors who became permanently disabled, but the amount of the forgiven debt was considered taxable income by the IRS. You may remember the story of Will Milzarski,  a military veteran who was wounded and disabled while fighting in Afghanistan.  The Department of Education forgave about a quarter of a million dollars in student loans, but the IRS sent Mr. Milzarski a tax bill for $62,000.

The Stop Taxing Death and Disability Act, which was adopted by Congress with bipartisan support, eliminates this unfair tax provision. Under the new law, all student-loan debt (including private student loans) that is forgiven due to the death or disability of the debtor is exempt from federal income taxes.

In addition, the law gives a tax break to the parents of student-loan debtors. Parents who owe student loans on behalf of their children may obtain a student-loan discharge if their child becomes disabled.  And parents who obtain such a discharge won't be taxed on the forgiven debt.

So, is the glass half full or half empty?

On the good side, passage of this modest and noncontroversial bill is a sign that Republicans and Democrats can work together to pass student-loan reform legislation. The bill's three co-sponsors--Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Chris Coons (D-Delaware), and Angus King (I-Maine) are to be commended for getting this little bill adopted.

But on the other hand, as Mr. Rhode pointed out, the bill did not address the enormous tax liability that college borrowers face who are in income-driven repayment plans (IDRs).  More than six million student debtors are enrolled in IDRs, and most of them are making monthly loan payments so small that they will never pay off their loans.  Why? Because the monthly payments aren't large enough to cover accruing interest on the underlying debt.

People locked into IDRs are obligated to make monthly loan payments for terms that stretch out for 20, 25 and even 30 years. At the end of the repayment term, any remaining unpaid debt is forgiven, but the amount of the forgiven debt is considered taxable income.

In other words, a student debtor who successfully completes a 20-year IDR sheds one unpayable debt to the Department of Education and acquires another unpayable debt to the IRS.

Nevertheless, the fact that Congress passed the Stop Taxing Death and Disability Act is a good sign. Maybe Democrats and Republicans can build on this tiny victory to enact more sweeping student-loan reform.

For example, perhaps a bipartisan coalition could rally behind the Warren-McCaskill bill to stop the IRS from garnishing the Social Security checks of elderly student-loan defaulters. Who in good conscience could vote against that bill?

And is it too much to hope that Congress might someday reform the Bankruptcy Code and allow suffering student-loan borrowers to discharge their crushing student loans in bankruptcy?

Will Milzarski, Wounded Veteran (photo credit: Chicago Tribune)

References

Associated Press. Wounded Michigan vet gets student loan debt forgiven, but now IRS wants $62,000. Chicago Tribune, October 20, 2017.

Judith Putnam. Student debt forgiven, but wounded vet gets $62,000 tax bill. USA Today, October 20, 2017.

Representative John Delaney press release. Delaney and Katko File Legislation to Help Americans Struggling with Student Loan Debt, May 5, 2017.

Representative John Katko press release. Reps. Katko and Delaney File Legislation to Help Americans Struggling with Student Loan Debt. May 8, 2017.

Steve Rhode. 15 Seconds of Positive News About Student Loans and Congress. Get Out of Debt Guy, February 15, 2108.

Some physical or mental impairments can qualify you for a total r permanent disability discharge on your federal student loans and/or TEACH grant service obligation. U.S. Department of Education web site (undated).

For the sake of the economy, let's forgive all student-loan debt

Forty-four million people are burdened by student loans--totally about $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt. What would happen if the federal government just forgave all those loans?

Researchers at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College asked that question, and their answer might surprise you. Forgiving all this debt, they say, would boost the Gross National Product by $86 billion to $108 billion a year over a ten-year period. Released from their student loans, millions of people would see an immediate increase in their disposable income, permitting them to buy homes, save for retirement, purchase consumer goods, and start families.

Moreover, as Eric Levitz pointed out, Congress passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut last year, with most of the benefits going to the wealthy. Wouldn't it have made more sense to have forgiven $1.5 trillion in college loans instead? Most of the benefits would have gone to low-income and middle income Americans--not the rich.

Of course, our government can't simply forgive $1.5 trillion in student loans and continue the federal student loan program. The thing to do, then, is to replace the student-loan program with free undergraduate education at a public college or university.

But wouldn't that be prohibitively expensive? No it wouldn't. As Ryan Cooper argues, the total cost of tuition at public institutions was only $58 billion in 2014.  Our government invests twice that amount each year in the federal student loan program. It would actually be less expensive to American taxpayers if we simply shut down the student loan program and gave everyone a free college education at a public college.

Theoretically, it is true, the federal government is only loaning students money to attend college; it expects to get that money back at interest as students pay off their student loans. But in fact, about half of the nation's outstanding student-loan balance will never be paid back. It's just going down a rat hole for educational experiences that are overpriced and that often don't lead to well-paying jobs.

Of course, forgiving everyone's student loans and providing a free college education would have some major collateral consequences. If Americans could get a free college education at a public institution, they would stop enrolling in private colleges and for-profit schools.  If the federal government actually implemented this plan, small liberal arts institutions all over the United States would close their doors and the for-profit college industry would collapse.

But the private liberal arts colleges will be closing anyway. Harvard professor Clay Christensen predicts that half of them will close within the next 10 to 15 years as Americans figure out that it makes no sense at all to spend $200,000 to get a liberal arts degree from a nondescript college in the upper Midwest.  As for the for-profit schools, they are a cancer and should be closed down anyway.

But, critics might ask, what about the moral hazard of forgiving all that debt? Is it fair to allow people to borrow $100,000 or more to get an MBA and then not pay it back?

First of all, the student borrowers who are suffering the most have been people who borrowed a relatively small amount of money. People who have borrowed the least are most likely to default. It is true that some people whose student loans are forgiven would receive a windfall, but the vast majority of people who would benefit from wholesale student-loan forgiveness would be people who paid too much money for postsecondary education and did not get fair value.

Furthermore, whatever moral taint can be found in student-loan forgiveness is as nothing compared to fraud committed by the for-profit college industry, the exploitation by the student-loan debt collectors, and the venality of university presidents making million-dollar salaries while students are forced to borrow more and more money to pay escalating tuition rates.

And if massive student-loan forgiveness still sticks in the nation's craw, then let's just reform the bankruptcy laws and allow deserving debtors to obtain relief from their student loans in the bankruptcy courts. If the "undue hardship" provision were removed from the Bankruptcy Code, literally millions of Americans would file bankruptcy and get relief.

But the Bard College researchers have gotten to the heart of the matter. We should forgive all student loans and simply allow people to study for free to get an undergraduate education at a public university.

References

Ryan Cooper. The case for erasing every last penny of student debt. The Week, February 8, 2018.

Doug Lederman. Clay Christensen, Doubling Down. Inside Higher Ed, April 28, 2017.

Eric Levitz. We Must Cancel Everyone's Student Debt, for the Economy's Sake. New York, February 9, 2018.

Scott Fullwiler, Stephanie Kelton, Catherine Ruetschlin, and Marshall Steinbaum. The Macroeconomic Effects of Student Debt Cancellation. Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, February 2018.

Loan-Forgiveness and Income-Driven Repayment Plans Are Costing Taxpayers a Bundle of Money

The Department of Education's Office of Inspector General (OIG)issued another one of those mealy-mouth reports we've come to expect from the Department. In essence, the OIG told us something we already knew: DOE's income-driven repayment plans (IDRs) and debt forgiveness plans are costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

For several years now, the higher education community has touted income-driven repayment plans as the panacea for the rising  cost of going to college.  Back during the 2016 presidential campaign, Catharine Hill, president of Vassar College, wrote an op ed essay for the New York Times attacking Senator Bernie Sander's proposal to allow people to go to college for free.  Free college is not the answer, Hill argued. Rather we need to expand income-driven repayment programs.

Indeed, DOE has expanded income-driven repayment options. President Obama's administration rolled out the PAYE and REPAYE, programs that allow student borrowers to pay 10 percent of their adjusted income for 20 years in lieu of the standard 10-year repayment plan. Borrowers who make regular payments for 20 years will have their loan balances forgiven.

As outlined by OIG, the Department of Education offers six income-driven repayment plans and two loan forgiveness plans. Of course, all the student loans under these plans accrue interest. Even an idiot knows that borrowers who makes loan payments that aren't large enough to pay accruing interest will never pay off their loans.

So it shouldn't surprise anyone that DOE's flexible spending plans and loan forgiveness plans are costing the taxpayers billions of dollars because the government is loaning people more money than they will ever repay.

As the OIG reported, DOE's loan balance for income-driven repayment plans increased from $7.1 billion to $51.5 billion between 2011 and 2015. That's an increase of 625 percent in just four years.

Meanwhile, government subsidies for income-driven repayment plans ballooned from $1.4 billion to $11.5 billion over the same four years--an increase of more than 800 percent.

Why did our government create these insane flexible repayment plans?  I can think of one primary reason.

IDRs allow DOE to maintain the fiction that the vast majority of college borrowers are paying back their loans. For most of the people in these plans, an IDR is the only alternative to default. In fact, DOE has encouraged college-loan defaulters and people in danger of default to sign up for IDRs.

But most people in income-driven repayment plans are not paying off their loans because their payments aren't large enough to cover accrued interest. Thus, while IDR participants are not officially in default, they are only making token payments on loans they will never pay off.

What is the OIG's advice to DOE about how to handle the enormous cost of its income-driven repayment plans and its loan forgiveness programs? Here is OIG's gobbledygook recommendation:

We recommend that the Department enhance its communications regarding cost information related to the Federal student loan program's IDR plans and loan forgiveness plans to make it more informative to decision makers and the public.

That's right: All OIG can think of to recommend is more transparency!

As the Wall Street Journal reported about 20 months ago, 43 percent of college borrowers--approximately 9.6 million people--weren't making loan payments as of January 1, 2016. Some of these borrowers were in default, some had delinquent loans and some had loans in forbearance or deferment.

And thanks to DOE's income-driven repayment plans, an additional six million people are making payments too small to pay off their loans.

It is time for DOE to be more than transparent. It needs to admit that about half the people who took out student loans will never pay them back. Thus, of the $1.4 trillion in outstanding student loans, more than half of it will never be collected.

References

Paul Fain. Costs Mount for Federal Loan Programs. Inside Higher Ed, February 5, 2018.

Catharine Hill. Free Tuition Is Not the Answer. New York Times, November 30, 2015, p. A23.

Josh Mitchell. More Than 40% of Student Borrowers Aren't Making Payments. Wall Street Journal, April 7, 2016.

U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General (2018, January 31). The Department's Communication Regarding the Costs of Income-Driven Repayment Plans and Loan Forgiveness Programs. ED-OIG/A09Q0003. Washington DC: Author

U.S. Government Accountability Office (2016 December). Federal Student Loans: Education Needs to Improve Its Income Driven Repayment Plan Budget Estimates. Washington DC: Author.