ThinkProgress Logo

Economy

Education

Obama: ‘One Of The Best Anti-Poverty Programs Is A World-Class Education’

Our guest blogger is Pedro de la Torre, the Advocacy Senior Associate for Campus Progress.

AP10012712208With the Project on Student Debt reporting last month that the average student debt is now $23,200, and state budget cuts causing tuition hikes at a time of high unemployment, higher education has become a major concern for low- and middle-income families. In last night’s State of the Union address, President Obama endorsed two programs that would boost participation in postsecondary education and make college more affordable.

First, the President urged Congress to pass the student financial aid reform package that he proposed in his 2010 budget proposal:

Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. That’s why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let’s take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants.

The House passed a bill in September along these lines, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA), but it has stalled in the Senate because of the long and cantankerous health care debate and a multi-million dollar lobbying and PR campaign by student loan companies, who are interested in protecting their federal subsidies.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that cutting these subsidies would save about $87 billion over ten years, which would be used to fund grants for low- and middle-income students, community colleges, minority serving institutions, early learning programs, and programs to improve college. Campus Progress, part of the Center for American Progress, has been supporting the SAFRA through its campaign Students Over Banks.

Interestingly, the “$10,000 tax credit” mentioned in the speech is not dealt with in the House’s student aid bill. Obama was referring to the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which provides a partially refundable credit of up to $2,500 for four years. And the President also mentioned a brand new initiative that will be part of his 2011 budget proposal:

Let’s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years –- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college.

This would improve the Income Based Repayment program, passed in 2007 as part of a major student aid bill, which currently ties monthly payments on federal student loans to 15% of discretionary income, and forgives any debt remaining after five years. If passed, the new rates would increase the portion of borrowers that would benefit from the program from around 16 percent to around 36 percent.

Obama also put some of the onus of reform on colleges by urging them to hold down tuition costs, although he did not propose any specific policies to that effect.

Senate Republicans Who Used To Support PAYGO Now Vote Against It

Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME)

Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME)

In his State of the Union address last night, President Obama urged the Senate to adopt pay-as-you-go rules (PAYGO), which essentially stipulate that all spending increases will be offset by either cuts elsewhere or tax increases. “When the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s,” Obama said.

Today, the Senate followed through, and considering all of the deficit fearmongering that has been going on in Congress, you’d think that it would have passed by a fairly wide margin. But no. Instead, the rules passed on a party line vote of 60-40.

And the blanket Republican opposition is particularly interesting considering that some Senate Republicans used to support PAYGO, even when it was opposed by their own party. For instance, in 2004, three current Senate Republicans — Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — joined 47 Democrats in adopting PAYGO, against the majority Republicans’ wishes (although the rule was ultimately scuttled when Congress failed to pass a budget). The next year, the same three senators were joined by Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) in a failed attempt to implement the rule.

Yet all four of them opposed the rule today. Here’s what they’ve had to say in favor of PAYGO in the past:

VOINOVICH: I just don’t understand how we can continue to go this way. We’re living in a dream world. This deficit continues to grow.

COLLINS: [PAYGO is] much-needed restraint for members of Congress as we wrestle with fiscal decisions.

SNOWE: I believe now is the time for both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to commit to pay-as-you-go rules for both revenues and spending.

Just last year, Snowe approved of Obama’s advocating for PAYGO. And in the last few weeks, all of these Republicans have voiced concerns about the deficit and spending. So what changed? And why did all the supposed deficit hawks in the Senate — like Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) — vote against it as well? Could it be that they’re actually deficit peacocks, who “like to preen and call attention to themselves, but are not sincerely interested” in addressing deficits?

In last night’s address, Obama chided Senate Republicans, saying that “just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let’s show the American people that we can do it together.” They’re not off to a good start.

DJ Carella contributed research to this post.

GOP Refuses To Applaud Bailout Tax, Works With Chamber Of Commerce To Kill It

During last night’s State of the Union address, President Obama defended the government’s steps to shore up the banking system — particularly the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) — calling them “necessary,” but “about as popular as a root canal.” He then emphasized his intention to implement a fee on the banks aimed at recouping all of the money spent on TARP:

I supported the last administration’s efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took the program over, we made it more transparent and accountable. As a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we have recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I know Wall Street isn’t keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.

Notably, the Republicans did not join the Democrats in applauding the notion that banks ante up for the full cost of the bailout. Watch it:

As the New York Times’ Gail Collins wrote, “of course, everybody hates the bankers, except the Republicans who sat on their hands when the president called for taxing them.” And the GOP has made no qualms about its intention to oppose the bank fee, citing the usual argument that a modest fee on banks who can afford to pay billions in bonuses will somehow lead to crushing job loss.

In addition to withholding applause, House Republicans are actively working with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to kill the tax outright. As Ryan Grim reported, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is attempting to gin up signatories to a letter opposing the bailout tax, which he intends to send to Obama. And King “splashes in bold across the top of the letter: ‘The U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports this effort.’” The Chamber spent a whopping $123 million on lobbying efforts in 2009, including $71.1 million in the last three months of the year.

There are plenty of good economic reasons for the tax, including that it acts as a small payment for all of the subsidies which the big banks have taken advantage of over the past year outside of direct TARP funds. And if the large banks do attempt to pass the cost of the fee onto consumers, which Republicans continually claim they will, that’s all the more reason for consumers to find a smaller institution like a community bank or a credit union with which to do business. As James Kwak wrote, the fee is “simply sound regulatory policy (though, again, too small).”

Of course, the Chamber doesn’t support placing any limit on any industry, even when that industry brought the economy to the brink of collapse. And the GOP’s joining with it shows that the party has the same aversion to common sense measures.

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up