With the prospect of President Obama’s student-loan bill passing through the budget reconciliation bill fast approaching, Sen. Lamar Alexander (Republican of Tennessee) took to the Washington Post op-ed page to tell some lies about the bill. Alexander, who used to be the Secretary of Education and knows better, said:
Starting in July, all 19 million students who want government-backed loans will line up at offices designated by the U.S. Education Department … the government should disclose that getting your student loan will become about as enjoyable as going to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
That sounds pretty terrible, spending hour upon hour sitting in uncomfortable plastic chairs beneath soul-deadening fluorescent lights, waiting for your number to pop up on a screen so you can shuffle up to a window and listen to a surly civil service worker tell you that you won’t be able to take out a student loan because you still haven’t paid a speeding ticket issued on the Tappan Zee Bridge in November 1993. Why, President Obama, why? Can’t humble college students be spared in your diabolical collectivization plan?
In reality, getting a student loan through the Federal Direct Loan Program isn’t going be any different than it is for the millions of students who are already getting loans through the Federal Direct Loan Program, which involves filling out the same forms you use to get loans under the “give-banks-billions-of-free-taxpayer-dollars” program that Alexander is defending. Alexander also alleges that the administration has been less than forthcoming about what’s really going on here:
Here is what they haven’t told us: The Education Department will borrow money at 2.8 percent from the Treasury, lend it to you at 6.8 percent and spend the difference on new programs. So you’ll work longer to pay off your student loan to help pay for someone else’s education — and to help your U.S. representative’s reelection.
It’s not a secret that the government will be lending money for more than that money costs. All lending programs work this way. The difference is that currently the money left over after paying people to administer the program is used to line the pockets of bank shareholders and executives whereas under Obama’s plan it will be used for Pell Grants that benefit low-income students. Alexander’s contention that “you’ll work longer to pay off your student loan to help pay for someone else’s education” ignores the fact that many borrowers also receive Pell Grants. Or attend the colleges that will receive grants to improve graduation rates, or have small children who will benefit from new investments in early childhood education. Alexander concedes that most people think such programs are a good idea. Otherwise, they wouldn’t help U.S. representatives get re-elected! He suggests that instead of subsidizing Pell Grants, the federal government should use its unique ability to borrow cheaply to lend at extremely low rates, thus undercutting the private market for loans from companies that can’t raise money by issuing Treasury bonds. This, of course, would immediately be denounced as “socialism.”
Op-eds like this are best understood not as actual attempts to influence legislation but rather as strategic contributions to a larger narrative alleging that President Obama is engaged in grand conspiracy to drag unsuspecting Americans down the road to serfdom. It’s not true, but standards of truth are very lax when U.S. senators write for The Washington Post.
20 Responses to Sen. Lamar Alexander Is Making Things Up
cbr79 - March 7, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Now that’s something I haven’t read in the Chronicle before: a policy wonk (who graduated with, as he described, a phony-baloney bachelor’s degree) accusing a sitting senator of “lying.” That’s pretty strong stuff. Not exaggerating. Not puffing up. Not distorting. But lying. Kevin Carey doesn’t have the slightest idea what he’s talking about. He says it’s OK to overcharge borrowers because they get fatter Pell Grants. That’s essentially asking Pell Grant recipients to finance their own grant increases, through higher interest rates. All Carey has done is proven that the Chronicle’s standards of truth are pitiful low, even lower than the Post’s. One more thing he’s proven: when the Obama Administration wants someone to carry its water for them, Carey is its guy. Ironic, isn’t it, that Education Sector believes in school choice. I guess if it means more dollars for charter schools, it’s OK to take choice away from borrowers.
collegeloanconsultan - March 7, 2010 at 7:35 pm
It is true that many Pell grant recipients are also borrowers of student loans, but many of these low-income students are borrowers in the federal Perkins student loan program.And whatever the merits are of eliminating the FFELP, this bill would also transform Perkins loans into unsubsidized loans. Any increases these students will see in their Pell grants, will be offset by the interest accrued on their Perkins loans while they are in school.
bdbailey - March 8, 2010 at 7:08 am
Whatever the government plan is, it is preferable to bank profiteering.
suomynona - March 8, 2010 at 7:12 am
“…accusing a sitting senator of ‘lying.’That’s pretty strong stuff. Not exaggerating. Not puffing up. Not distorting. But lying.” Whether sitting or standing up, senators lie all the time. Carey brings a bias just like the rest of us, but he still does a fine job here of elucidating some blatant lies (no new thing for L. Alexander). I’m just baffled by your bewilderment at the idea of a senator telling a blatant, boldfaced lie. That’s what senators do. They lie. That’s how they become senators, and that’s how they stay senators. Come off it, please.
eelalien - March 8, 2010 at 7:39 am
RNC strategies must be at the core of this attack by former Secretary of Education Alexander. During his tenure as Secretary of Education, he was instrumental in legislation that weakened Sallie Mae as a private lender. While this eventually paved the way for multiple players in the student loan game, the immediate effect at the time was to increase the government’s role in student lending. I suppose the constant attack-dog stance embraced by the GOP is required to hit the current administration even when it contradicts their own past actions. All such editorials should now be viewed as pre-campaign ads for the RNC, nothing more, and nothin less.
lexalexander - March 8, 2010 at 9:09 am
cbr79: As the system is currently structured, private banks are leeching off the student-loan system. Yes, Lamar Alexander is lying, if, by “lying,” you mean he either knows what he’s saying is untrue or is saying it with reckless disregard for whether or not it is true. And, believe me, a U.S. Senator has the wherewithal to determine whether or not this particular statement is true.So YOU “come off it” — and start asking yourself who benefits from this lie.(Disclosure: I am not, that I know of, related to Lamar Alexander.)
11132507 - March 8, 2010 at 9:12 am
“So you’ll work longer to pay off your student loan…to help your U.S. representative’s reelection.” I can’t help but wonder how much money Senator/Former Secretary Alexander, like virtually all Republicans who support FFELP corporate welfare, has gladly accepted from lenders to help in his reelection. And how, in addition to taxpayer handouts, do lenders make the money they use for pay-to-play? Simple, “you work longer to pay off your student loan.” Kettle, you are black. Best regards, Pot.
yasulh - March 8, 2010 at 11:06 am
As someone who has had loans managed by both systems over the years, I much prefer dealing directly with the Department of Education. Despite plummeting interest rates in recent years, my loans managed by private banks were MUCH higher than those managed by the federal government directly. When I graduated I made a point to consolidate my loans directly through the Direct Loan program just to get out of the crazy interest rate system the bank was using!
finaidpro - March 8, 2010 at 11:17 am
Let’s get all of this straight. The Senator used some facts that are only partially true to make his point. And Mr. Carey used some hyperbole to make his point. First, there are two almost identical student loan programs: Federal Direct and FFELP. Both are all electronic and there is no sitting in offices anywhere. Schools decide which program it participates in, not students. FFELP has been around longer and currently has about 2/3 to 3/4 of the volume. The student applies using the FAFSA (same as applying for the FFELP loan) and all the other federal financial aid programs. But within each program there are two types of loans: subsidized and unsubsidized. The subsidized (for either program) has an interest rate of 5.6% now (2009-10), dropping to 4.5% next year and to 3.4% for 2011-12. The unsubsidized is and remains 6.8% for both programs. So the Senator’s statement, while not an actual lie, is totally misleading. There are good reasons to eliminate the FFELP — most important that it is “probably” cheaper for taxpayers than paying for middlemen. But there are also some good things that the banks have done over the years, especially the not-for-profit lenders although even the for-profit banks have done some good things. Yes, they’ve made a lot of money, but some have provided extraordinary customer service and assistance with financial aid office processes. Bottom line is that before any of you start calling commenters names, you should learn a bit more about the financial aid system.
oaachron - March 8, 2010 at 11:47 am
More straight talk like this, please, from Kevin Carey or anyone else. Of course Alexander hates consolidation into Federal Direct: the big banks who finance his campaigns will get much less or nothing under the new proposal. Less money for them = Less money for Lamar.
suomynona - March 8, 2010 at 11:49 am
From finaidpro above, my emphasis added at the end:”The Senator used some facts that are only partially true to make his point. And Mr. Carey used some hyperbole to make his point. First, there are two almost identical student loan programs: Federal Direct and FFELP. BOTH ARE ELECTRONIC AND THERE IS NO SITTING IN OFFICES ANYWHERE.’From Sen. Alexander’s op-ed piece, as noted by Carey:”Starting in July, all 19 million students who want government-backed loans will line up at offices designated by the U.S. Education Department…”I hate to say this (actually I love to say it): this is Senator Alexander telling a blatant, undisputable, boldfaced lie. You can euphemize this as ‘deception’ or ‘exaggeration’ or ‘puffing up’ or ‘distorting’ (all of which are just different ways of lying), but I call this a ‘lie.’ And Kevin Carey is right to call it a lie, too. There’s no sense in splitting hairs with this kind of deliberate misinformation and scaremongering. This kind of stuff is possibly the biggest threat to a well functioning democracy. No senator should be able to get away with this, and more people should be calling them out, like Carey does, instead of apologizing for them and euphemizing their misbehavior.
johntoradze - March 8, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Republicans lying! Oh,my! What next?! (Yes, dems lie too.)
swish - March 8, 2010 at 12:35 pm
cbr79: “Kevin Carey …. says it’s OK to overcharge borrowers because they get fatter Pell Grants.” So 6.8% is overcharging? Actually, 6.8% is about average for current student loans; private loan rates are often higher. Would *anything* over 2.8% be considered “overcharging”? But if the Education Department were that generous with their loans, Alexander would probably accuse them of being socialist, or at least fiscally irresponsible.cbr79: “Ironic, isn’t it, that Education Sector believes in school choice.” Is the government forcing anyone to take the loan?
cbr79 - March 8, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Swish, are 6.8% and 7.8% overcharging? I don’t think they’re great. In 2006 Democrats accused Republicans of a “raid on student aid” when Republican let the current 6.8 percent rate go into effect. I think most students borrowing money would think they were being overcharged if they knew how much the government was making off of their loans. The current rates are more than enough to cover the costs of the loan programs, so I don’t know why anyone would think lower rates would be fiscally irresponsible. If Alexander’s column was off the mark, it pales in comparison to the distortions and exaggerations repeated in this column, in White House statements, in Duncan op-eds. But I don’t hear anyone accusing them of lying.
riheaa1 - March 8, 2010 at 2:55 pm
“In reality, getting a student loan through the Federal Direct Loan Program isn’t going be any different than it is for the millions of students who are already getting loans through the Federal Direct Loan Program…”That’s true…if you completely ignore the fact that DL is suddenly going to go from handling 25% of the nation’s loan volume to 100%. Remember the problems the feds had in handling the requests for financial assistance that came in when the expanded GI Bill kicked in last year? That’s going to look like a walk in the park compared to this transition.
finaidpro - March 8, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Once again it’s important to know the facts and the system when making statements about the effects of changes. The Direct Loan program is not at all like the GI Bill. The GI bill required a totally new method of delivering assistance. Ramping up to 100% of the student loan volume should not be a significant problem from the delivery system perspective. All of the colleges already have the ability to draw down the funds and do so for their Pell Grant funds. Any delays that occur will be at the individual college level where school system changes could cause delays. But most colleges are already in the process or are about to be. That’s not to say there won’t be problems. But on a pretty small scale relative to the GI Bill changes.
marka - March 8, 2010 at 7:34 pm
“That’s true…if you completely ignore the fact that DL is suddenly going to go from handling 25% of the nation’s loan volume to 100%. Remember the problems the feds had in handling the requests for financial assistance that came in when the expanded GI Bill kicked in last year? That’s going to look like a walk in the park compared to this transition.” Same basic problem with ‘health care reform’ proponents thinking they can wave a legislative wand, and ‘voila’ everyone is covered.Yes, all Senators, and all politicians – including those in the Obama administration, lie. But perhaps Sen. Alexander was using analogy/metaphor/simile to make his point: ‘waiting in line’ similar to ‘waiting for the bureaucracy to get around to you’ – whether electronically, or in person. God forbid a Senator, or anyone else – say, an academic – use flowery language, or – gasp – analogy/metaphor/simile.
suomynona - March 9, 2010 at 8:23 am
marka,Your statement:”Yes, all Senators, and all politicians – including those in the Obama administration, lie. But perhaps Sen. Alexander was using analogy/metaphor/simile to make his point: ‘waiting in line’ similar to ‘waiting for the bureaucracy to get around to you’ – whether electronically, or in person. God forbid a Senator, or anyone else – say, an academic – use flowery language, or – gasp – analogy/metaphor/simile.”Sen. Alexander’s statement:”Starting in July, all 19 million students who want government-backed loans will line up at offices designated by the U.S. Education Department…”First, we can be sure that this is not a similie. Alexander doesn’t say “Starting in July, all 19 million students who want government-backed loans will be *like* people lining up at offices…” So as to your similie theory: wrong.Second, we can be sure this is not an analogy. Alexander doesn’t compare one situation to another. He says quite directly that students who want government-backed loans “will line up at offices *designated by the US Education Department.” The US Education Department is precisely the body that handles the loans, rather than an analogue to the body that handles the loans. Had Alexander said they would line up “like Soviets in a bread line” then he’d have both a nice similie; or “like they did for the GI Bill” for a nice (if flawed) analogy. So as to your analogy theory: wrong.This leaves us with the possibility that Alexander was being metaphorical, versus the possibility that he was lying. Do you want to pause here and think for yourself, again, whether you honestly think that Alexander is speaking in metaphor, or whether he’s being deliberately misleading? I think your assertion that this is just simply metaphorical or flowery language is possibly the most disgusting and unfounded bit of apologia I’ve read in these comment sections in a while. And I think that most people would literally laugh at the notion that what we have here is Sen. Alexander waxing poetic about student loan collection. And further, if people could actually get away with the kind of ridiculous statement you make re. Alexander’s commments as ‘flowery language’ (as opposed to blatant lies), then we’d have to treat any and every declarative statement could just be ‘flowery’ or ‘metaphor.’But of course when, for example, literary scholars make conjectures or determinations about irony or metaphor or metonymy or other such readings of statements or texts, they do so with acute attention to context. In context, the chances of Alexander being metaphorical are about as good as the chances of Alexander pulling his face off to reveal Scooby Doo underneath. You’ll note, if you actually read Alexadner’s opinion piece, that his statement about 19 million loan-seekers waiting in line immediately follows this statement:”Here is what the administration and congressional Democrats have told us about this latest attempt: “So, wait. Alexander is speaking metaphorically for the Democrats and the Obama administration? Doubtful. There isn’t a hint of metaphor here, nor a contextually justifiable reason for the use of metaphor. Alexander is lying, telling a lie, saying, as Swift would say, “the thing which is not.” There are no two ways about it, no matter how hard apologist will try.
finaidpro - March 9, 2010 at 10:26 am
Or, suomynona, like most of the commenters — indeed, like most folks — he just doesn’t know how the system works. As a result he draws conclusions based on the outdated concept of paper applications and lines at offices.
suomynona - March 9, 2010 at 10:48 am
You could be right, finaidpro. He could just be ignorant. Now I’m not sure which is worse: that he’s a US senator given a very plum platoform (The Washington Post) to write as though he knows what he’s writing about, or that he’s a lying dirtbag. On the one hand you have a senator who doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about, but doesn’t see that as a barrier to spouting off in one of the most prestigious and widely-circulated papers in the United States; on the other, you have a totally worthless lying dirtbag. Now I’m truly torn.