Quantcast

Congress gives then takes away

Julianne Malveaux | 7/4/2012, 5 p.m.

Cheers to the Congress for holding interest rates on college loans down. Instead of doubling to 6.4 percent, the interest rate on federal college student loans will remain at the 3.2 percent level. However, this proviso is only in effect for one year.

This time next year, Congress will be waging the same fight. Young people, especially enrolled students and recent college grads, along with those who work in education, especially higher education, might want to think about these things when they head to the polls in November.

Of course, a man like Mitt Romney might ask why the entire population ought to subsidized loan rates for college grads that needed to borrow to complete their educations. Why should we subsidize anybody? We subsidized the automobile industry with low-cost loans because it helped up shore up our nation's economic strength. We subsidized banks with virtually no-cost loans because they were, supposedly, "too big to fail"; we subsidize homeowners by allowing them to deduct the interest costs of their loans. Why not subsidize the students whose college completion holds up our economic futures. President Obama says he wants our nation to lead the world in the percentage of our population that has either an AA or a BA degree. We won't do that unless we help students who come for low and moderate-income families with their college costs.

Despite holding interest rates down, Congress has found other ways to hurt, not help, college students. Effective this Sunday, the federal government will no longer subsidize interest on loans. That means that if a student takes out a loan to pay for her education, she must immediately pay the interest on that loan. In the past, those interest costs were subsidized, and students did not have to worry about paying their loans back until after graduation.

Students take out loans because they don't have the money to pay for graduation. Many also work long hours to pay for things like books, food, and other costs. Now, we are planning to add interest rate payments to this burden. Congress might as well say "bah, humbug" to students, especially after they've chosen to keep interest rates down.

Further, graduating students will have to pay their loans back as soon as they graduate, not with the six-month grace period they previously enjoyed. This makes no sense. Many students do not graduate with jobs already lined up; they graduate looking for jobs. So many have experienced job setbacks that they are moving back home with mom and dad, not out into the world. On top of survival costs, we are also saying that students have to start paying loans back immediately.

Again, it has been a matter of public policy to delay loan payments for some subgroups of people.

We have, for example, agreed to restructure mortgage rates for some mortgage holders; we have allowed large companies in trouble to both take out subsidized loans and also to delay repayment on them. We say we believe our young people are our future, but we hold them to harsher terms than we do to corporations. Congress say their two moves will save the treasury $20 billion, and that in times of economic challenges they have to save every penny they can. But at what cost and to what end?