Student loans 101: What's at stake in D.C. feud over college loan subsidy?

Interest rates are set to double on certain federal student loans, if Congress and President Obama don't agree on a fix by July 1. Who would be affected? How did we get here in the first place? Here are answers to five key questions.

5. What's happening in Washington?

Charles Dharapak/AP
House Speaker John Boehner, accompanied by House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman Rep. John Kline (R) of Minnesota, left, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R) of Texas, speak recently about a student loans bill on Capitol Hill in Washington.

In the spring, the House passed a bill to extend the 3.4 percent rate for a year. But it would have taken money from a program covered under the health-care reform law, and President Obama threatened to veto it. In the Senate, proposals to pay for such a fix included closing some tax loopholes for the wealthy.

Since then, House and Senate Republican leaders have proposed new ways to pay for the estimated $6 billion cost of the interest-rate extension – ranging from increasing federal employee retirement contributions to revising the tax threshold for Medicaid providers, Roll Call reports.

“It is the Democrat-led Senate that has failed to act, and the president who has failed to contribute to a solution,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday. “The only reason this issue isn’t already resolved … is that the president wants to keep it alive. He thinks it benefits him politically for college students to believe we’re the problem.”

Democrats, likewise, accuse Republican lawmakers of playing politics with the issue.

“If Congress does not get this done in a week, the average student with federal student loans will rack up an additional thousand dollars in debt over the coming year,” Mr. Obama said in an event at the White House on June 20, flanked by college students. “Keep telling Congress … [that] now is not the time to double the interest rate on your student loans.”

5 of 5

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.