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

[Hipster but Athletic]

fuck it, yall can enjoy your padded walled room for now. I'll make a lounge thread later

[bjsesq]

fuck it, yall can enjoy your padded walled room for now. I'll make a lounge thread later

Thanks. I'd actually be more than willing to debate it with you there, dude. I just don't want this thread to devolve like all the other ones do.

[nenydcusc]

I'm a staffer for a Member of Congress and I work on education policy. First—the President's budget request is dead on arrival. However, as has been pointed out by other posters, specific ideas and proposals from the president's request can and have been incorporated into budget resolutions passed by the House and Senate. The vast majority don't. For example, the President has proposed a number of changes in the K-12 Ed budget since his first budget request in 2009 that congress has simply ignored.

The fact that this proposal would save money and could be used as a "pay-for" (all new spending must be "paid-for" by cuts or increased revenue) does make it far more likely to get slipped into an otherwise unrelated bill. But at least in the near term, there will be no grand bargain and there don't appear to be any upcoming budget showdowns that would require further savings to be squeezed from the margins. The Budget Control Act, which gave us the sequester, eliminated subsidized stafford loans for grad students in order to reduce spending. It did not apply retroactively and only began applying to loans taken out for the following academic year.

It is unlikely this part of the budget will be enacted within the next year and I can say almost unequivocally that it will not apply retroactively.

If there's one thing that would make enactment of this proposal more likely, its be a big midterm victory for the GOP this fall. If you care about protecting this program and higher ed opportunities for yourselves and future students, volunteer your time to protect the current majority in the Senate and prevent the GOP from gaining seats in the House. It may be easy to gloss over the differences between the national parties if you are not paying very close attention, however, one party clearly believes that individuals and communities should be on their own in almost all matters while the other believes that investments in individuals and communities can pay dividends for society as a whole in addition to those specific individuals and communities.

The public service and health loan forgiveness programs were not created primarily to benefit individual students. It has been determined that there are a shortage of lawyers and doctors practicing in certain areas and fields, and that society would benefit if the government incentivized young professionals to enter these fields.

[bjsesq]

Jesus fuck, president's budget, GOP's problem. Thanks, dem staffer.

[Hipster but Athletic]

Stop trolling bro. This isn't a thread for you to campaign for your sissy party.

Edit nvm BJesq was fair. Carry on

[jenesaislaw]

I'm only on page 4, but a lot of you are talking about speaking with your congressional representatives. Please pass on my contact info. I live in DC and have been meeting with various senate staffs and think tanks about these issues.

Info:
Kyle McEntee
Executive Director, Law School Transparency
kyle@lawschooltransparency.com

[Lightworks]

Obviously, there should be a limit on how much PSLF will cover. I think ~$250K would be a good start. Ideally, the liability for that ~$250K would be split between the law school and the government, but a simple cap on government forgiveness is a good start. Presumably, law schools would be under pressure to keep their total COA as close to the limit as possible. Any additional COA would be a major consideration for 0L's committed to public service, and would provide at least some pressure for schools to keep costs under control.

While the "live lavishly, take out $700K in loans, get them all forgiven by doing ten years of mediocre work at the DMV" people aren't common, they do exist. Of course, a cap would limit the potential for abuse.

I also think that there ought to be a reduction in the types of employment that qualify for PSLF. Limit it to public defenders, legal services for the poor, DA's offices, and a handful of others.

The government should have a seperate process for "certifying" which graduate programs from which schools are PSLF-eligible (largely on the basis of employment numbers). Probably never going to happen, though.

[Tanicius]

Obviously, there should be a limit on how much PSLF will cover. I think ~$250K would be a good start. Ideally, the liability for that ~$250K would be split between the law school and the government, but a simple cap on government forgiveness is a good start. Presumably, law schools would be under pressure to keep their total COA as close to the limit as possible. Any additional COA would be a major consideration for 0L's committed to public service, and would provide at least some pressure for schools to keep costs under control.

While the "live lavishly, take out $700K in loans, get them all forgiven by doing ten years of mediocre work at the DMV" people aren't common, they do exist. Of course, a cap would limit the potential for abuse.

I also think that there ought to be a reduction in the types of employment that qualify for PSLF. Limit it to public defenders, legal services for the poor, DA's offices, and a handful of others.

The government should have a seperate process for "certifying" which graduate programs from which schools are PSLF-eligible (largely on the basis of employment numbers). Probably never going to happen, though.

I agree. I know I was definitely denied scholarship aid at various schools because when I asked for it on the basis that I wanted to become a humble-wage PI attorney, they would just dismiss the request and refer me to their website that explained IBR, PSLF and their LRAP. In their infinite USWNR rankings wars, law schools are quite strapped for cash. They are wasting all of it on beautiful facilities and prestigious faculty. When the PSLF became a thing, they ended some of their merit aid for PI people and put that cash straight into the faculty hiring war.

[twenty]

The Budget Control Act, which gave us the sequester, eliminated subsidized stafford loans for grad students in order to reduce spending. It did not apply retroactively and only began applying to loans taken out for the following academic year.

If anything, that's support for the argument that current students will get screwed because that was a place students were screwed before. Students applied to graduate school expecting to be able to have subsidized loans, and then halfway through their program, "oh, no, just kidding, next years' loans are going to be unsubsidized at higher interest rates, hth."

[Hipster but Athletic]

Anyone have time to do the math on how much this cap affects the avg public service interested bro on IBR? Like assume starting salary $45k, and starting debt of $160k @ 7.5%.

[hdunlop]

Not that it matters since this is DOA but since we're still talking about it, I keep waiting for ideas from folks on how else the Administration generates the claim of massive savings beginning in 2017 (table S-9) through its student loan reform package. I'm pretty sure the only proposal that doesn't involve expanding subsidies is this one. Which is why you get the spike in costs in 2015 and 2016 followed by savings in 2017 and ramping up into the out years.

Also, again not that it matters since this budget is pretend, I think people should take into account that the budget also proposes doing complete forgiveness after 25 years. So really true, true public servants would be OK right?

[Cal Trask]

Not that it matters since this is DOA but since we're still talking about it, I keep waiting for ideas from folks on how else the Administration generates the claim of massive savings beginning in 2017 (table S-9) through its student loan reform package. I'm pretty sure the only proposal that doesn't involve expanding subsidies is this one. Which is why you get the spike in costs in 2015 and 2016 followed by savings in 2017 and ramping up into the out years.

Also, again not that it matters since this budget is pretend, I think people should take into account that the budget also proposes doing complete forgiveness after 25 years. So really true, true public servants would be OK right?

There's a big fricking difference between being in the clear after 10 years and 25 years. Good luck buying a house or any other major purchase while that monster is growing.

[timbs4339]

I can't believe there's going to be a welfare queen meme about student loan debtors. Maybe "Ramen Duke."

[A. Nony Mouse]

Not that it matters since this is DOA but since we're still talking about it, I keep waiting for ideas from folks on how else the Administration generates the claim of massive savings beginning in 2017 (table S-9) through its student loan reform package. I'm pretty sure the only proposal that doesn't involve expanding subsidies is this one. Which is why you get the spike in costs in 2015 and 2016 followed by savings in 2017 and ramping up into the out years.

Also, again not that it matters since this budget is pretend, I think people should take into account that the budget also proposes doing complete forgiveness after 25 years. So really true, true public servants would be OK right?

In terms of the total forgiveness after 25 years, I don't see how that's any different from PAYE (and it's worse in that it's a longer repayment term). I can seen the argent that that's a sufficient way to deal with student debt generally, but it doesn't offer much incentive for public service. (I guess it removes $57k you'd be accruing interest on for the remainder of your payment term, which isn't nothing, but I'm too math challenged to figure out the real-life difference.)

Also, except for the "vote out the GOP" paragraph I thoughts the ed policy staffer's post was helpful.

[patogordo]

There's a big fricking difference between being in the clear after 10 years and 25 years. Good luck buying a house or any other major purchase while that monster is growing.

why wouldn't you be able to buy a house/car/whatever? as long as your debt payments are low you'll still have a good debt-to-income ratio.

[Nomo]

I've always supported the Democratic Party. But, this is the President's budget. I feel betrayed. This is really testing my faith in the party; and if these changes end up applying to people who already took out loans I'll never vote Democrat again. I'm not changing parties, I'm just not going to vote.

I'm a staffer for a Member of Congress and I work on education policy. First—the President's budget request is dead on arrival. However, as has been pointed out by other posters, specific ideas and proposals from the president's request can and have been incorporated into budget resolutions passed by the House and Senate. The vast majority don't. For example, the President has proposed a number of changes in the K-12 Ed budget since his first budget request in 2009 that congress has simply ignored.

The fact that this proposal would save money and could be used as a "pay-for" (all new spending must be "paid-for" by cuts or increased revenue) does make it far more likely to get slipped into an otherwise unrelated bill. But at least in the near term, there will be no grand bargain and there don't appear to be any upcoming budget showdowns that would require further savings to be squeezed from the margins. The Budget Control Act, which gave us the sequester, eliminated subsidized stafford loans for grad students in order to reduce spending. It did not apply retroactively and only began applying to loans taken out for the following academic year.

It is unlikely this part of the budget will be enacted within the next year and I can say almost unequivocally that it will not apply retroactively.

If there's one thing that would make enactment of this proposal more likely, its be a big midterm victory for the GOP this fall. If you care about protecting this program and higher ed opportunities for yourselves and future students, volunteer your time to protect the current majority in the Senate and prevent the GOP from gaining seats in the House. It may be easy to gloss over the differences between the national parties if you are not paying very close attention, however, one party clearly believes that individuals and communities should be on their own in almost all matters while the other believes that investments in individuals and communities can pay dividends for society as a whole in addition to those specific individuals and communities.

The public service and health loan forgiveness programs were not created primarily to benefit individual students. It has been determined that there are a shortage of lawyers and doctors practicing in certain areas and fields, and that society would benefit if the government incentivized young professionals to enter these fields.

[hdunlop]

Yeah I was kinda kidding about the 25 years thing, though it's paired with PAYE expansion that would limit your interest rates so your loan doesn't just grow out of control the entire time. It's something. Without details, it's hard to see how it would all work. And, of course, it doesn't matter (though I do think something very roughly approximating parts of this will become law eventually because the Georgetown scam is too tempting a target).

To understand more what I'm getting at regarding the funding stream above, for those who care, I was proud of this post. This is 100% budget games. I'm learning quickly that no one but former budget staffers cares, though

[cron1834]

Also, except for the "vote out the GOP" paragraph I thoughts the ed policy staffer's post was helpful.

Agree. I get why the select spoiled rich kids ITT wouldn't like it, but the substance was helpful (presuming it's legit, I suppose!).

[kay2016]

To understand more what I'm getting at regarding the funding stream above, for those who care, I was proud of this post. This is 100% budget games. I'm learning quickly that no one but former budget staffers cares, though

There are a few budget dorks outside of staffers

[bjsesq]

Also, except for the "vote out the GOP" paragraph I thoughts the ed policy staffer's post was helpful.

Agree. I get why the select spoiled rich kids ITT wouldn't like it, but the substance was helpful (presuming it's legit, I suppose!).

Dude, I grew up in a poor ass family and survived on government cheese. I now have 200k in debt and work at a 501(c)(3). Eat my penis with that bullshit.

[anyriotgirl]

I've always supported the Democratic Party. But, this is the President's budget. I feel betrayed. This is really testing my faith in the party; and if these changes end up applying to people who already took out loans I'll never vote Democrat again. I'm not changing parties, I'm just not going to vote.

You should still vote. Politicians don't try to pander to groups that don't vote. Vote for the Green Party or whatever third party you want, but still vote.

[timbs4339]

I'm a staffer for a Member of Congress and I work on education policy. First—the President's budget request is dead on arrival. However, as has been pointed out by other posters, specific ideas and proposals from the president's request can and have been incorporated into budget resolutions passed by the House and Senate. The vast majority don't. For example, the President has proposed a number of changes in the K-12 Ed budget since his first budget request in 2009 that congress has simply ignored.

The fact that this proposal would save money and could be used as a "pay-for" (all new spending must be "paid-for" by cuts or increased revenue) does make it far more likely to get slipped into an otherwise unrelated bill. But at least in the near term, there will be no grand bargain and there don't appear to be any upcoming budget showdowns that would require further savings to be squeezed from the margins. The Budget Control Act, which gave us the sequester, eliminated subsidized stafford loans for grad students in order to reduce spending. It did not apply retroactively and only began applying to loans taken out for the following academic year.

It is unlikely this part of the budget will be enacted within the next year and I can say almost unequivocally that it will not apply retroactively.

If there's one thing that would make enactment of this proposal more likely, its be a big midterm victory for the GOP this fall. If you care about protecting this program and higher ed opportunities for yourselves and future students, volunteer your time to protect the current majority in the Senate and prevent the GOP from gaining seats in the House. It may be easy to gloss over the differences between the national parties if you are not paying very close attention, however, one party clearly believes that individuals and communities should be on their own in almost all matters while the other believes that investments in individuals and communities can pay dividends for society as a whole in addition to those specific individuals and communities.

The public service and health loan forgiveness programs were not created primarily to benefit individual students. It has been determined that there are a shortage of lawyers and doctors practicing in certain areas and fields, and that society would benefit if the government incentivized young professionals to enter these fields.

I know this is probably just a form post, but if the budget was dead in the water, then why not propose GRADPLUS caps, Skin in the Game, or any of the many other direct ways to lower tuition? When Democrats like Pelosi shill for the higher ed industry while passing the buck to students it doesn't exactly get me fired up about your party.

[patogordo]

any idea what formula CBO uses to cost debt forgiveness?

[Cal Trask]

There's a big fricking difference between being in the clear after 10 years and 25 years. Good luck buying a house or any other major purchase while that monster is growing.

why wouldn't you be able to buy a house/car/whatever? as long as your debt payments are low you'll still have a good debt-to-income ratio.

I probably misspoke on that bit really. Still, I think it's ridiculous to say "well you were clear after 10 but at least you have the option to do it in 25". That's another 15 years of required payments, another 15 years of wondering whether you'll be subject to budget cuts or lack of grant funding.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Also, except for the "vote out the GOP" paragraph I thoughts the ed policy staffer's post was helpful.

Agree. I get why the select spoiled rich kids ITT wouldn't like it, but the substance was helpful (presuming it's legit, I suppose!).

Dude, I grew up in a poor ass family and survived on government cheese. I now have 200k in debt and work at a 501(c)(3). Eat my penis with that bullshit.

Hope it's clear that's not what I meant with my comment.