PSLF revisions: New budget proposal screws anyone in PI. Forum

[smaug_]

I'm confused by the chaos ITT. Doesn't this just mean a return to university specific LRAP as opposed to general PSLF?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Assuming your school 1) hasn't tied its LRAP to a federal repayment plan and 2) actually has an LRAP that covers anything significant. Most non-t14s don't.

[worldtraveler]

Somebody send me Harkin's contact info. I used to be an Iowan. Maybe that will finally be useful.

[twenty]

Somebody send me Harkin's contact info. I used to be an Iowan. Maybe that will finally be useful.

https://www.harkin.senate.gov/offices.cfm

[Bikeflip]

Sent a reply to Colorado's Sen Bennet. Bro's my senator.

[cron1834]

Jarvis makes a pretty sound case that current borrowers are grandfathered in regardless. This would logically extend to CO '17, since they'll be in debt before any changes are in effect.

Honestly there IS probably a need for some sort of cap, but screwing over those prior to CO '18 would be morally indefensible, and "contrary to law" according to Jarvis.

[hdunlop]

I disagree it's a strong case. Of course she's right that the proposal is just a proposal, but the budget asks for all kinds of legislative changes. That's irrelevant to the broader question of what the budget's asking for. We all know this isn't a law, at this point, I hope. The people she's reassuring haven't figured that out yet.

The MPN argument is more interesting. But considering all the statement says is that debt "may" be discharged I'm not persuaded that anyone would be grandfathered in. Again, the main reason to do this is that it helps pay for the other new expenses proposed in the budget, and it wouldn't pay for anything if you grandfather folks in because it takes ten years for new borrowers to cost anything and these things are judged on a ten-year window. Even if the real true motivation was to bust down on Georgetown et al, it makes no sense to grandfather people in because it's huge savings you can claim toward your bottom line number. Politics.

Her argument is "this won't happen because Congress probably won't do this," which is true (and has been mentioned frequently in this thread) but is hardly complete reassurance. This is going to come up again and again and again and will eventually happen in some form because it's a politically easy pay-for. Getting federal employees and lawyers upset will not cost votes in middle America.

I didn't do education policy specifically but did some budget time, FWIW.

[Tanicius]

I disagree it's a strong case. Of course she's right that the proposal is just a proposal, but the budget asks for all kinds of legislative changes. That's irrelevant to the broader question of what the budget's asking for. We all know this isn't a law, at this point, I hope. The people she's reassuring haven't figured that out yet.

The MPN argument is more interesting. But considering all the statement says is that debt "may" be discharged I'm not persuaded that anyone would be grandfathered in. Again, the main reason to do this is that it helps pay for the other new expenses and it doesn't pay for anything if you grandfather folks in because it's a ten-year window.

Her argument is "this won't happen because Congress probably won't do this," which is true, but hardly reassuring.

I didn't do education policy specifically but have a fair amount of Congressional budget time.

Yeah it's hard to tell from those comment exchanges what her actual argument about the MPN is. It seems persuasive but not authoritative.

[Tanicius]

This is hearsay within hearsay, but a former White House intern on my school's Facebook group just posted this:

"Hi folks - a senior advisor at the Dept of Ed just said the cap is not retroactive and the loan forgiveness program is still available to students who took loans for graduate study. So sounds like we can all relax for now, and details will be forthcoming."

[cron1834]

I disagree it's a strong case. Of course she's right that the proposal is just a proposal, but the budget asks for all kinds of legislative changes. That's irrelevant to the broader question of what the budget's asking for. We all know this isn't a law, at this point, I hope. The people she's reassuring haven't figured that out yet.

The MPN argument is more interesting. But considering all the statement says is that debt "may" be discharged I'm not persuaded that anyone would be grandfathered in. Again, the main reason to do this is that it helps pay for the other new expenses proposed in the budget, and it wouldn't pay for anything if you grandfather folks in because it takes ten years for new borrowers to cost anything and these things are judged on a ten-year window. Even if the real true motivation was to bust down on Georgetown et al, it makes no sense to grandfather people in because it's huge savings you can claim toward your bottom line number. Politics.

Her argument is "this won't happen because Congress probably won't do this," which is true (and has been mentioned frequently in this thread) but is hardly complete reassurance. This is going to come up again and again and again and will eventually happen in some form because it's a politically easy pay-for. Getting federal employees and lawyers upset will not cost votes in middle America.

I didn't do education policy specifically but did some budget time, FWIW.

In addition to the fact that this isn't actually a law, that it's seemingly silent on the issue of grandfathering, and the MPN argument, she also makes a case in her other post that to retroactively screw folks over would be unprecedented in this policy field. I think that's important to consider. Normatively, yes, but also empirically. Previous changes haven't disadvantaged folks in this manner.

[twenty]

You know, a fairly easy way to figure this out would probably be to email DoED and ask.

Doing that now.

[hdunlop]

In addition to the fact that this isn't actually a law, that it's seemingly silent on the issue of grandfathering, and the MPN argument, she also makes a case in her other post that to retroactively screw folks over would be unprecedented in this policy field. I think that's important to consider. Normatively, yes, but also empirically. Previous changes haven't disadvantaged folks in this manner.

I'm just addressing the grandfathering question, really. I've never suggested this is going to be enacted as-is -- it won't. Worrying about it as some game-changer is just Pollyannaish in my view. But as I said earlier this is the first time something that's been discussed in previous deficit deals has been embraced by a major player and I wouldn't be surprised to see it in some form in the future.

I'd be shocked if we ever got to a point where people got $0, or even where people going into law school today got just $50,000 or whatever. But I wouldn't be surprised to, at some point in the next few years, see a cap put into place that lowers each year. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

[cron1834]

hdunlop:

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the general thrust of these changes won't happen. I expect they will, and I think we agree. I am saying that I'm with Jarvis in that it probably won't viciously screw over borrowers for CO '17 and prior. Previous policy changes haven't occurred that way.

[Hipster but Athletic]

Let's be clear that any form of welfare (and yes that's what the program is) can be eliminated at the drop of a hat. Loan forgiveness is another market-breaker that moves around costs from where they should be. If government/non-profit jobs aren't competitive on their own then the market should respond to that.

If it doesn't go away now, you can be that the seed has been planted. Counting on the government to pay your debts is probably a bad plan.

Twenty, could you put in the OP that egregious bootstrapper sympathizers will be the first to go in the revolution? We should give fair notice.

Lol at non-ironic suggestions of revolutions against government when government tries to shrink itself. Burn it down baby!!

[hdunlop]

Yeah, I meant to clarify since I think we're talking across each other. My two arguments are that this won't happen (for a whole host of reasons, and in general where we agree) and that the President's proposal does not grandfather folks in.

I hate to be the worst kind of pedantic 0L arguing something into the ground and of course I'm excited to hear what the ED folks have to say but pages 31 and 32 of the Dept of ED budget appendix mention nothing about an exemption, and as I argued above the context in the Department budget justification seem to clearly exclude it from the grandfathering clause referring to to folks participating in non-PAYE income-based repayment plans.

Note also in that document linked here the Budget (if enacted which it won't be) would establish a 25-year forgiveness period for borrowers with a debt above $57,500.

[Tanicius]

Yeah, I meant to clarify since I think we're talking across each other. My two arguments are that this won't happen (for a whole host of reasons, and in general where we agree) and that the President's proposal does not grandfather folks in.

I hate to be the worst kind of pedantic 0L arguing something into the ground and of course I'm excited to hear what the ED folks have to say but pages 31 and 32 of the Dept of ED budget appendix mention nothing about an exemption, and as I argued above the context in the Department budget justification seem to clearly exclude it from the grandfathering clause referring to to folks participating in non-PAYE income-based repayment plans.

Note also in that document linked here the Budget (if enacted which it won't be) would establish a 25-year forgiveness period for borrowers with a debt above $57,500.

Stop. As I said above, the Department of Ed has already clarified through individuals that the proposal is NOT retroactive. Official statements of confirmation are forthcoming.

[Hipster but Athletic]

EVERYBODY PANIC

[Cal Trask]

Lol at non-ironic suggestions of revolutions against government when government tries to shrink itself. Burn it down baby!!

I'm fairly certain it was a joke, but okay.

[hdunlop]

Stop. As I said above, the Department of Ed has already clarified through individuals that the proposal is NOT retroactive. Official statements of confirmation are forthcoming.

OK, sorry. I must have missed where you said that above. I look forward to the official word.

Edit to note huge mandatory savings starting in 2017 and ramping up hard on page 18 (Table S-9, "Expand and reform student loan income-based repayment"). I'm truly curious about this.

[Rahviveh]

Lol. The med students are shitting themselves on reddit.

[rad lulz]

m

[Cal Trask]

Lol. The med students are shitting themselves on reddit.

I would like a link please.

http://www.reddit.com/r/medicalschool/c ... pslf_loan/

That's one link at least.

[cron1834]

Lol. The med students are shitting themselves on reddit.

Yeah, they have even more reason to than we do!

I think this highlights how immoral and unprecedented it would be to fuck ppl over retroactively. I mean, that's obviously possible by Congressional statue, but I think and hope that Tan is right on this one.

[Tanicius]

Lol. The med students are shitting themselves on reddit.

Yeah, they have even more reason to than we do!

I think this highlights how immoral and unprecedented it would be to fuck ppl over retroactively. I mean, that's obviously possible by Congressional statue, but I think and hope that Tan is right on this one.

I honestly don't understand why med students need the PI forgiveness. Don't almost all of them start making lots of money *eventually*? Yes, I know it often takes 10+ years of hardwork before you start raking in those six-figure checks, but as I understand it, not all medical work qualifies for PSLF -- it's only public or nonprofit hospitals that do it, and those hospitals don't pay a lot of money.

[midwest17]

Lol. The med students are shitting themselves on reddit.

Yeah, they have even more reason to than we do!

I think this highlights how immoral and unprecedented it would be to fuck ppl over retroactively. I mean, that's obviously possible by Congressional statue, but I think and hope that Tan is right on this one.

I honestly don't understand why med students need the PI forgiveness. Don't almost all of them start making lots of money *eventually*? Yes, I know it often takes 10+ years of hardwork before you start raking in those six-figure checks, but as I understand it, not all medical work qualifies for PSLF -- it's only public or nonprofit hospitals that do it, and those hospitals don't pay a lot of money.

The point you were trying to make seems to have flipped about halfway through your third sentence.