Download

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.

The total outstanding balance of federal student loans: $1.3 trillion.

Whether it’s because of for-profit colleges shutting down or popular debates about the moral necessity of repayment, the issue consistently makes headlines, and it shows signs of emerging into political prominence during this election cycle. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., made news recently when she spoke out about creating a debt-free option at public institutions.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has called for cutting student debt. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, also running for the Democratic nomination, has introduced a bill to eliminate four-year public college tuition altogether. And Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida has led the field of Republican candidates in backing new repayment options.

Lauren Asher, the president of The Institute for College Access and Success, says that all this interest is a big change from a decade ago.

“There wasn’t a term or an awareness of the trend in a broad sense,” she says.

Over the past 10 years, the nonprofit, nonpartisan organization’s Project on Student Debt has been laser-focused on this issue. Their first big campaign, backed by a broad range of student and education groups, was to introduce income-based repayment for loans, a proposal adopted by the Obama administration and passed into law in 2007.

Asher’s group isn’t the only policy shop that recognizes that student debt is having a moment.

“All the major Democratic candidates have committed to pushing for debt-free higher ed,” observes Robert Hiltonsmith, a senior policy analyst at Demos, a progressive think tank based in New York. “I think that just reflects both, first, the efforts of a lot of groups to bring the issue to the fore, and the students themselves who have become increasingly vocal about a huge economic issue.”

The nation’s reliance on loans as a means of financing education has grown inexorably in the past decade. And that, says Asher, is more by happenstance than design.

“This was not a result of a conscious top-down decision, in the way that the U.K. or Australia or New Zealand changed from a tuition-free system to one heavily financed by student loans,” she says. “This instead, in the U.S., was a shift over a generation.”

The primary driver of that shift? A dramatic erosion of support for higher education at the state level.

The consequences, meanwhile, of the United States’ reliance on student loans have been abundantly demonstrated by researchers. People with debt have a harder time leaving the family nest, buying homes, starting businesses and saving for retirement, all of which creates a negative headwind for the economy at large.

They are much less likely to be thriving in all aspects of their lives, including health and mental health. And the system is inequitable:

“Low-income students are the most likely to have loans, and when they graduate they owe more than anyone else,” Asher points out.

So, what solutions are politicians supporting? And what should they be supporting?

Asher says that, with the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act on the horizon, “Congress should be looking at the whole student loan program soup to nuts.”

I spoke with both of these experts, plus Beth Akers of the Brookings Institution, and pulled out five top recommendations to make college more affordable and reduce the societal impact of student loans.

States need to act. “States have a critical role to play in reducing the need to borrow,” Asher says. “To rein it in, we need more investment and more need-based grant aid, so that those who can least afford to are not being forced to take the most risk.”

Demos, where Hiltonsmith works, has been engaged in conversations with both Clinton’s and Sanders’ campaigns to flesh out what a debt-free higher ed proposal might look like. This could include tying federal student aid — and possibly other federal funds as well — to some kind of mandate that states hit their own funding markers and reduce tuition costs.

But Akers isn’t so sure. “Debt-free college is a fantastic branding, because everyone hates debt,” she says. “But it’s a concern because the more subsidies you put into the system, it won’t necessarily lower costs.”

Reduce repayment choices. Since 2009, the Department of Education has added several different repayment plans designed to reduce the burden of repayment and the risk of falling into default. There’s income-contingent repayment, income-based repayment, Pay As You Earn, or PAYE, and public service loan forgiveness. And that’s on top of standard repayment, graduated repayment and extended repayment. All have slightly different terms and qualifications.

Even Asher, who does this every day, gets a bit tangled up trying to explain them to me. “It’s confusing for people,” she says. “There are too many repayment plans right now. They ought to be streamlined.”

But there is hope in the interim, she says. Today, if you go on to studentaid.ed.gov and create an account, you can electronically link your tax return and there is an option for the system to automatically put you into the most affordable plan you qualify for.

Create options for debt relief. Student loans, both federal and private, are currently nondischargeable in bankruptcy under most circumstances. This makes them different from any other kind of consumer debt. It’s an issue that’s been in the news recently with the shutdown of the for-profit Corinthian Colleges; borrowers are asking to get all of their loans forgiven. “Borrowers need to be able to count on consumer protections: Loans should be discharged if schools are closed or if they’re defrauded,” says Asher.

Hiltonsmith agrees: “Bankruptcy protection — to me that’s just common sense.”

Hold colleges accountable. Asher points out that the department’s new “gainful employment” rule, which sanctions colleges where too many students can’t repay loans, applies to public vocational, technical and training programs as well as for-profits. It goes into effect July 1.

But, she says, there’s more that the states and the federal government could do to publicize and sanction colleges of all kinds for practices that contribute to debt. Sanctions could apply, for example, “when students can’t get all the courses they need to graduate in four years,” which is common at large four-year public institutions, or “when they are lied to about job placements at career education programs, then we’re harming them and we’re harming taxpayers.”

These types of accountability restrictions are particularly popular with conservative groups. The American Enterprise Institute, for example, has called for colleges to be financially on the hook for students who default on their loans.

Beth Akers, however, says that the “purest form of accountability” is transparency: providing information to prospective students to make better decisions. The Department of Education has just said it’s releasing a new tool this summer that will do exactly that.

Reduce the profits. Loans are a source of revenue for the federal government, thanks to interest rates and fees. “The federal loan program makes profit. We think that it shouldn’t,” Asher says. Cutting interest rates on federal loans, which currently range from 4.29 percent to 6.84 percent depending on the type of loan, would clearly save students money. Here, too, Hiltonsmith agrees. “This is a moral issue.”

One way to do that would be to allow borrowers unhappy with their terms to refinance and seek a lower interest rate, as with a mortgage refinancing. This idea has had traction recently, but it seems to be fading, Hiltonsmith says. And, says Akers, that might be a good thing, because refinancing is in some sense a regressive policy. It offers the biggest benefits to borrowers with the largest balances.

“Some of my work has shown that people with the largest debt balances tend to be doing really well,” Akers says. Think law or medical school graduates with six-figure balances. “The crisis is driven by people who have a little bit of debt and no degree, or who have invested in degrees that don’t pay off in the long run.”

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.

Beck’s, which used to call itself “America’s favorite German beer” is going to have to be a little more clear about its provenance.

Since 2012 the beer, now a part of the same company that brings you Budweiser and Bud Light, has been brewed in Missouri.

But its packages still say things like “German Quality” and “Originated in Bremen, Germany.”

A class action lawsuit charged the giant brewer, Anheuser-Busch InBev tricked American beer drinkers into believing Beck’s was still brewed abroad.

Now a federal magistrate in Miami has given preliminary approval to a settlement, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, that requires the company to provide refunds of up to $50 to Beck’s drinkers, providing they kept their receipts.

Even if you weren’t so farsighted, or lost track of your receipts after quaffing a few of the green bottles, Beck’s drinkers can still qualify for a $12 payment.

The brewer will also have to more clearly state its origin on its packaging, according to the Journal:

“A statement on the bottle saying the beer is made in the U.S.A. will become more visible. The green boxes in which the bottles are packaged also will specify that the beer is made in America.

AB InBev faced a similar class action involving the marketing of its Kirin beer. In that case, which settled late last year in a Florida circuit court, the claim was that consumers were led to believe the beer was from Japan.”

Beck’s is hardly the only brew with a foreign pedigree that is no longer imported. Red Stripe, a staple of beach side shacks in Jamaica is now brewed in Latrobe, Pa. Foster’s, which used to tout itself as “Australian for beer, mate,” might more properly sport a Texas twang, as it’s now made in Ft. Worth.

The nation’s top-selling import, Corona, is still brewed in Mexico, the number two import, Heineken, still hails from the Netherlands.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.

The U.S. House voted 236-138 today to tie a bow on President Obama’s package of trade-related legislation — giving him final approval on everything he wanted.

The Senate already had signed off on all of it, granting: 1) enhanced trade negotiation powers to the president, 2) aid for displaced workers and 3) trade incentives for sub-Saharan Africa.

Today’s vote marked a stunning victory for Obama by clearing his path to completing the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal involving the United States, Japan and 10 other Pacific Rim nations.

Earlier this month, some rebellious Democrats had tried to derail White House plans for this possible massive expansion of trade. But those Democrats got outmaneuvered by the White House and GOP leaders who wanted to advance trade.

Here’s what you need to know:

What exactly happened today?

• The House reauthorized the Trade Adjustment Assistance program — that’s a program to help workers who have lost jobs to foreign competition.
• Obama insisted on getting this help for workers, saying it had to be part of any larger trade agenda.
• Many Republicans oppose this program, saying it amounts to government waste, but they went along with it as part of a compromise.
• And the House took another step as part of this grand compromise — it renewed the African Growth and Opportunity Act to help spur trade with Africa. That was another Obama request.
• The GOP leadership allowed passage of these Obama-backed bills because they agreed with the president’s larger goal: to complete this sprawling Pacific trade deal.
• The Senate already has passed these bills, so the legislation is done now.

So the Africa bill and worker assistance were both part of a compromise. What’s the rest of the deal?

• The White House wanted Congress to renew Trade Promotion Authority. Presidents have had this authority for decades, but it had expired and Obama wanted it back.
• This power authorizes a president to sit down with foreign counterparts and hammer out trade deals.
• When they reach an agreement, the president can bring the deal to Congress and put it on a so-called fast track — that is, Congress can only vote yes or no, with no filibusters or amendments.
• Presidents always want — and get — this power because realistically, no other country will negotiate unless they know that once they have shaken hands with the president, the deal is final.
• On Wednesday, the Senate signed off on that. The House already had done so.

That means President Obama is now empowered to finish up with the Trans-Pacific deal, right?

• U.S. negotiators can now complete the trade talks with the other 11 countries.
• Probably before the year is over, the White House will ask Congress for a simple majority vote to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
• And if it passes, that will be a huge addition to his economic legacy.
• He has been saying for years that the United States needs to pivot to Asia.
• By tying the U.S. economy more closely to Japan, Australia, Singapore and so on, he says Americans will be able to boost exports and counterbalance the growing strength of China.

But unions hate these developments. Why such strong opposition?

• Labor groups say trade deals help big businesses but hurt workers by increasing competition.
• They did everything to block Trade Promotion Authority. Now they vow to continue to fight the Trans-Pacific deal when it comes to Congress.
• But the White House now seems in a much better position to win this ultimate goal.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.