Student Debt and a Push for Fairness
If
you run up big credit card bills buying a new home theater system and
can’t pay it off after a few years, bankruptcy judges can get rid of the
debt. They may even erase loans from a casino.
But
if you borrow money to get an education and can’t afford the loan
payments after a few years of underemployment, that’s another matter
entirely. It’s nearly impossible to get rid of the debt in bankruptcy
court, even if it’s a private loan from for-profit lenders like Citibank
or thestudent loan specialist Sallie Mae.
This
part of the bankruptcy law is little known outside education circles,
but ever since it went into effect in 2005, it’s inspired shock and
often rage among young adults who got in over their heads. Today, they
find themselves in the same category as people who can’t discharge child
support payments or criminal fines.
Now,
even Sallie Mae, tired of being a punching bag for consumer advocates
and hoping to avoid changes that would hurt its business too severely,
has agreed that the law needs alteration. Bills in the Senate and House of Representatives would make the rules for private loans less strict, now that Congress has finished the job of gettingbanks out of the business of originating federal student loans.
With
this latest initiative, however, lawmakers face a question that’s less
about banking than it is about social policy or political calculation.
At a time when voters are furious at their neighbors for getting
themselves intomortgage trouble, do legislators really want to change the bankruptcy laws so that even more people can walk away from their debts?
There
are two main types of student loans. Under the proposed changes,
borrowers would remain on the hook for federal loans, like Stafford and
Perkins loans, as they have been for many years. To most people, this
seems fair because the federal government (and ultimately taxpayers)
stand behind these loans. There are also many payment plans and even forgiveness programs for some borrowers.
In
2005, however, Congress made the bankruptcy rules the same for the
second kind of debt, private loans underwritten by profit-making banks.
These have no government guarantees and come with fewer repayment
options. Undergraduates can also borrow much more than they can with
federal loans, making trouble more likely.
Destitute borrowers can still discharge student loan debt if they experience “undue hardship.” But that condition is nearly impossible to prove, absent a severe disability.
Meanwhile,
the volume of private loans, which are most popular among students
attending profit-making schools, has grown rapidly in the last two
decades as students have tried to close the gap between the rising price
of tuition and what they can afford. In the 2007-8 school year, the
latest period for which good data is available, about one third of all
recipients of bachelor’s degrees had used a private loan at some point
before they graduated, according to College Board research.
Tightening credit caused total private loan volume to fall by about half to roughly $11 billion in the 2008-9 school year, according to the College Board. Tim Ranzetta, founder of Student Lending Analytics, figures it fell an additional 24 percent this last academic year, though his estimate doesn’t include some state-based nonprofit lenders.
There
is no strong evidence that young adults would line up at bankruptcy
court in the event of a change. That gives Democrats and university
groups hope that Congress could succeed in making the laws less strict.
In
Congressional hearings on the efforts to change the rule, last year and
then in April, no lender was present to make the case for the status
quo. Instead, it fell to lawyers and financiers who work for them. They
made the following points.
BANKRUPTCIES WOULD RISE At
the April hearing, John Hupalo, managing director for student loans at
Samuel A. Ramirez and Company, made the most obvious case against any
change. “With no assets to lose, an education in hand, why not discharge
the loan without ever making a payment to the lender?” he said.
Once
you set aside this questionable presumption of mendacity among the
young, there are actually plenty of practical reasons why not. “People
don’t like to go through bankruptcy,” said Representative Steve Cohen,
Democrat of Tennessee, who introduced the House bill that would change
the rules. “It’s not like going to get a milkshake.”
Andy Winchell, a bankruptcy lawyer in Summit, N.J., likens student loan debt to tattoos: They’re easy to get, people tend to get them when they’re young, and they’re awfully hard to get rid of.
And
he would remind clients of a couple of things. First, you generally
can’t make another bankruptcy filing and discharge more debt for many
years. So if you, in essence, cry wolf with a filing to erase your
student loans, you’ll be in a real bind if you then face crushing
medical debt two years later.
Finally,
you’re going to have to persuade a lawyer to take your case. And if it
seems that you’re simply shirking your obligations, many lawyers will
kick you out of their offices. “It’s not easy to find a dishonest
bankruptcy attorney who is going to risk their license to practice law
on a case they don’t believe in,” Mr. Winchell said.
Sallie
Mae can live with a change, so long as there’s a waiting period before
anyone can try to discharge the debts. “Sallie Mae continues to support
reform that would allow federal and private student loans to be
dischargeable in bankruptcy for those who have made a good-faith effort
to repay their student loans over a five-to-seven-year period and still
experience financial difficulty,” the company said in a prepared
statement.
While
there is no waiting period in either of the current bills, Mr. Cohen
said he could live with one if that’s what it took to get a bill through
Congress. “Philosophy and policy can get you on the Rachel Maddow show,
but what you want to do is pass legislation and affect people’s lives,”
he said, referring to the host of an MSNBC news program.
BANKS WOULDN’T LEND ANYMORE Private
student loans are an unusual line of business, given that lenders hand
over money to students who might not finish their studies and have
uncertain earning prospects even if they do get a degree. “Borrowers are
not creditworthy to begin with, almost by definition,” Mr. Hupalo said
in an interview this week.
But banks that have stayed in the business (and others, like credit unions, that have entered recently) have
made adjustments that will probably protect them far more than any
alteration in the bankruptcy laws will hurt. For instance, it’s become
much harder to get many private loans without a co-signer. That means
lenders have two adults on the hook for repayment instead of just one.
BORROWING COSTS WOULD RISE They
probably would rise a bit, at least at first as lenders assume the
worst (especially if Congress applies any change to outstanding loans
instead of limiting it to future ones). But this might not be such a bad
thing.
Private
loans exist because the cost of college is often so much higher than
what undergraduates can borrow through federal loans, which have annual
limits. Some lenders may be predatory and many borrowers are
irresponsible, but this debate would be much less loud if tuition were
not rising so quickly.
So
if loans cost more and lenders underwrite fewer of them, people will
have less money to spend on their education. Some fly-by-night
profit-making schools might cease to exist, and all but the most popular
private nonprofit universities might finally be forced to reckon with their costs and course offerings.
Prices
might come down. And young adults just getting started in life might be
less likely to face a nasty choice between decades of oppressive debt
payments and visiting a bankruptcy judge before starting an entry-level
job.
0 komentar:
Post a Comment