Bipartisanship, the supposed scarcity of which so
distresses the high-minded, actually is disastrously prevalent.
Since 2001, it has produced No Child Left Behind,
a counterproductive federal intrusion in primary and secondary education; the
McCain-Feingold speech rationing law (the Bipartisan) Campaign Reform Act); an
unfunded prescription drug entitlement; troublemaking by Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac; government-directed capitalism from the Export-Import Bank; crony
capitalism from energy subsidies; unseemly agriculture and transportation
bills; bailouts of an unreformed Postal Service; housing subsidies; subsidies
for state and local governments; and many other bipartisan deeds.
Now, with Europe's turmoil dramatizing the decadence of entitlement cultures, and with American governments — federal, state and local — buckling beneath unsustainable entitlements, Congress is absent-mindedly creating a new entitlement for the already privileged.
Concerning the "problem" of certain
federal student loans, the two parties pretend to be at daggers drawn,
skirmishing about how to "pay for" the "solution."
But a bipartisan consensus is congealing: Certain
student borrowers — and eventually all student borrowers, because, well, why
not? — should be entitled to loans at a subsidized 3.4% interest rate forever.
In 2006, Democrats, trying to gain control of
Congress by pandering to students and their parents, proposed cutting in half
the statutory 6.8% rate on some federal student loans.
Holding Congress in 2007, and with no discernible
resistance from the compassionately conservative Bush administration, Democrats
disguised the full-decade cost of this — $60 billion — by pretending the
subsidy, which now costs $6 billion a year, would expire in five years. The
five years are up July 1, and of course, the 3.4% rate will be extended.
Barack Obama supports this. So does Mitt Romney,
while campaigning against a "government-centered society." What would
we do without bipartisanship?
The low 6.8% rate — private loans for students
cost about 12% — was itself the result of a subsidy. And students have no
collateral that can be repossessed in case of default, which 23% of those
getting the loans in question do.
The maximum loan for third- and fourth-year
students is $5,500 a year. The payment difference between 3.4% and 6.8% is less
than $10 a month, so the "problem" involves less than 30 cents a day.
The 3.4% rate applies only to one category of
federal loans, but because the Obama administration has essentially socialized
the student loan business, federal loans are 90% of student borrowing and this
"temporary" rate probably will eventually be permanent.
Unsurprisingly, Obama has used this loan issue as
an occasion to talk about himself, remembering the "mountain of debt"
he and Michelle had when, armed with four Ivy League degrees (he from Columbia,
she from Princeton, both from Harvard law), they graduated into the American
elite.
The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf notes that if
Washington is feeling flush enough to spend another $60 billion on education in
a decade, it could find more deserving people to subsidize than a privileged
minority of college students who are acquiring credentials strongly correlated
with higher-than-average future earnings.
The average annual income of high school
graduates with no college is $41,288; for college graduates with just a
bachelor's degree it is $71,552.
So the one-year difference ($30,264) is more than
the average total indebtedness of the two-thirds of students who borrow
($25,250).
Taxpayers, most of whom are not college graduates
(the unemployment rate for persons with no college: 7.9%), will pay $6 billion
a year to make it slightly easier for some fortunate students to acquire
college degrees (the jobless rate for college graduates: 4%).
Between now and July, the two parties will
pretend that it is a matter of high principle how the government should pretend
to "pay for" the $6 billion while borrowing $1 trillion this year .
But bipartisanship will have been served by
putting another entitlement on a path to immortality.
Campaigning recently at Bradley University,
Romney warned students about their burden from the national debt, but the first
questioner had something else on her peculiar mind: "So you're all for
like 'yay freedom and all this stuff and yay like pursuit of happiness.' You
know what would make me happy? Free birth control."
While awaiting that eventual entitlement, perhaps
she can land a subsidized loan
No comments:
Post a Comment