Students play waiting game while Congress catches up on student loan debacle

This summer, millions of students might see the interest rate double on their student loans unless Congress takes action. Doubling of the interest rate will cost the average college student about $1,000 more per year of school.
Think you’re having déjà vu? Last summer, Congress narrowly stopped interest rates from doubling. One year later, here we are facing the same crisis. This time around, students and taxpayers need a strong long-term solution that makes the student loan system more effective and affordable for students and families.

Wednesday morning, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on the federal student loan program. The consensus among the witnesses who testified at the hearing was that systemic changes are needed. Notably, neither students nor student representatives were among the witnesses called, so here’s our synopsis and response:
•    Student loan interest rates

One major question discussed today was not just what the interest rate on federal student loans should be, but how Congress should set that rate. Currently, federal student loans have a fixed interest rate set by Congress. This rate does not change when the cost of borrowing changes in the market. Several witnesses proposed having a market-based fixed rate. Under this proposal, the interest rate available for federal loans would vary from year to year based on market conditions, but would be fixed for borrowers throughout repayment. There was disagreement as to whether such a rate should have a cap. 

Our take: If we change the rate to a market-based fixed rate, we need protections like a cap to ensure affordability over the long-run. Moreover, some bills we’ve seen change interest rates by shifting debt from the government to students, taking billions out of student aid to reduce the deficit – a move that is bad for students and bad for our country’s future.

•    Income-based repayment

Witnesses also supported increasing participation in income-based repayment as a way of promoting college affordability and decreasing default rates. Under income-based repayment, a borrower’s monthly loan payment is a set percentage of her income. One witness suggested improving financial aid counseling so students know about the repayment options available to them before they find themselves struggling to pay back their loans. Another popular suggestion: automatically enroll all students in a single, income-based repayment program.

Our take: Income-based repayment should be a priority, and we need more students taking advantage of the benefits it offers.  Defaulting students into IBR would ensure that would happen. Federal counseling also needs to be improved, and today, Senators Harkin and Mikulski introduced the Smarter Borrowing Act that aims to do just that.

•    Increase college access and completion

Some participants discussed how a college education is a worthwhile investment. College graduates have lower unemployment rates and can expect to earn more over their lifetimes than those who do not complete college. Having an educated workforce improves the overall economy and benefits society as a whole.

Our take: We know that, they know that, so let’s get to work on making college more accessible and affordable. For example, we need to support investments like Pell grants.

With the looming July deadline, the coming months are likely to invite more congressional noise on the topic. We plan to make sure that students and borrowers are a part of that process. 
Postolowski is a legal fellow at Young Invincibles - a non-profit, non-partisan youth advocacy organization dedicated to amplifying the voices of young Americans and expanding economic opportunity for our generation.

View Comments

View the original article here

South Dakota Bill Would Exclude Weekends And Holidays From 72-Hour Abortion Waiting Period

South Dakota Republicans aren’t satisfied with imposing one of the nation’s longest waiting periods for women seeking abortions. As RH Reality Check reports, the state legislature will also consider a bill that would adopt a “business hours only” definition for its waiting period: while women wait the state-mandated three days before getting an abortion, weekends and holidays won’t count toward fulfilling that quota.

South Dakota’s extreme waiting period was enacted in 2011 and has been tied up in court for the past year — but since Planned Parenthood recently decided to drop the case in order to focus their resources on more pressing attacks to women’s health in the region, it may soon take effect. But on top of the restrictive law itself, RH Reality Check points out that a new bill seeks to further clarify the strict parameters of the 72-hour waiting period:

No surgical or medical abortion may be scheduled except by a licensed physician and only after the physician physically and personally meets with the pregnant mother, consults with her, and performs an assessment of her medical and personal circumstances. [...] No Saturday, Sunday, federal holiday, or state holiday may be included or counted in the calculation of the seventy-two hour minimum time period between the initial physician consultation and assessment and the time of the scheduled abortion procedure. No physician may have the pregnant mother sign a consent for the abortion on the day of this initial consultation.

Mandatory counseling sessions and waiting periods are simply methods of limiting women’s reproductive rights, and they don’t actually help women decide whether or not to have an abortion. Women can make up their own minds, and studies show that nearly 90 percent of the women seeking an abortion already feel very confident about their decision when they first approach their doctors. Unnecessary roadblocks that attempt to shame them out of having the voluntary medical procedure don’t actually work, and simply end up creating outsized barriers for low-income women who may not be able to make multiple trips to a health clinic.

Excluding weekends and holidays from South Dakota’s unnecessary waiting period puts an even bigger burden on women seeking reproductive care, and there’s no good justification for it. RH Reality Check notes that no other state with this restrictive policy defines their waiting period in this way.

View the original article here