Republicans move to overhaul student loans, including capping how much can be borrowed
The House Education and Workforce Committee advanced the Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan on Tuesday, one of 11 components of Republicans' massive reconciliation package aimed toward extending certain tax cuts before they expire at the end of this year. The bill passed along party lines and proposes massive changes to cut more than $330 billion in government spending.
'The fact that we are having this conversation is so well needed and long overdue,' Rep. Burgess Owens, R-Utah, who sits on the committee, told the Deseret News. 'This has been a process in which we've lost sight of the mission of why you get a degree. It's become about getting a piece of paper to say that because of the college I came from, I now deserve or am entitled to certain things. We want to make sure we focus on competency. Let's focus on skill sets. And that's the conversation we're finally having.'
The bulk of the spending cuts comes from changes to federal loan repayment programs as well as new limits on how much borrowers can receive.
The bill would eliminate income-contingent repayment plans, which allow borrowers to craft a monthly payment plan based on their income and family size. Instead, it would consolidate all existing repayment plans into only two options: the Standard Fixed Repayment Plan or the Repayment Assistance Plan.
The first option would establish fixed monthly payments over a set amount of time, typically between 10 and 25 years, depending on the outstanding loan balance.
The second would implement monthly payments based on income that would extend current forgiveness terms to 30 years, up from the current 20 or 25 years. That means borrowers would need to pay off their loans for at least five years longer before they are eligible for relief.
The proposal would establish borrowing caps for students in an attempt to prevent over-borrowing and shield taxpayers from covering the extra costs. The limits would set a maximum cap of $50,000 for undergraduate students, $100,000 for graduate students and $150,000 for professional students.
The limits would also eliminate the GradPLUS loan program for graduate students on or after July 1, 2026, with exceptions for some students depending on time of enrollment and loan amount.
It also establishes a $50,000 cap on Parent PLUS loans, which allows parents to take out loans to help pay for their child's undergraduate college education. However, it would require the student to borrow the maximum amount they can before the parent is entitled to those funds.
'Our current student loan system is broken and has left students holding over $1.6 trillion in federal student loan debt, with taxpayers estimated to lose hundreds of billions of dollars on loans disbursed over the next decade,' committee Chairman Tim Walberg, R-Mich., said in a statement.
As part of the proposal, Republicans are targeting colleges and universities to take more accountability when students over-borrow and are unable to pay off their loans.
The bill carves out language to make schools responsible for reimbursing taxpayers for part of their financial losses if students 'don't see financial value' from their degrees and can't repay their loans. The legislation would require colleges to pay off a portion of those unpaid loans based on 'how much of a return on investment the degree provided.'
'We're going to first of all make sure (schools have) some skin in the game, so that the degrees that are being sold by these colleges have some value,' Owens said. 'If they don't have some skin in the game, they have to take part in repaying it.'
The amount that schools would owe to the Treasury would be calculated based on the total price the institution charges students for a specific program as well as the earnings received by the student after they graduate — or, if they do not graduate, the completion rate of the school or program.
It's not entirely clear if there will be monetary requirements for those 'value-added earnings' for students or how federal officials will force reimbursements by colleges. Owens told the Deseret News those details have not yet been finalized but will likely be hashed out in future legislation.
One of the main components of the proposal would overturn a Biden-era 'SAVE' repayment plan, a federal-income based program intended to make student loans more affordable and prevent growing debt over time.
It's under this plan that loans are forgiven after 20 or 25 years. It also defines discretionary income as anything 225% above the poverty line, which is far more generous than the previous 150%. Republicans have long sought to repeal that program, arguing it lowers costs at the expense of taxpayers.
'We have a new sheriff in town,' Owens said. 'We now have an administration that cares about those who took out loans and is not trying to put federal programs on the back of the taxpayer.'
Democrats have decried the proposal, arguing it would raise costs for colleges while limiting students' options for loan repayment. Some have argued that the loan repayment plans would also make it more expensive for those who have already enrolled in current programs that are set to be restructured if the package passes.
'This current reconciliation plan would increase costs for colleges and students, limit students' access to quality programs … and then take the so-called 'savings' to pay for more tax cuts for the wealthy and the well-connected,' committee ranking member Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., said.
The proposal is set to be combined with other committees' reconciliation proposals, which will then be packaged as one massive bill to be passed by the House later this year. GOP leaders are hoping to get the full package through the House by the end of May, an ambitious timeline that could hit some snags due to lingering policy disagreements.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
a minute ago
- CNN
Analysis: No, both sides don't gerrymander the same
Texas Republicans are apparently going big with their brazen attempt to redraw the state's congressional maps in the middle of the decade, outside of the normal redistricting process. A draft map released Wednesday would add three new districts that would have voted for President Donald Trump in 2024. That would mean 79% of the state's districts (30 out of 38) would have backed the president compared to his 56% share of the vote in the state. It would also put two House Democrats who won Trump districts in significantly more danger in 2026. The proposed map is intended to help the GOP hold on to the House — where they have a historically narrow majority and history suggests Democrats are very likely to pick up seats — in the midterm elections. The map could help Republicans flip five seats, significantly raising the bar for a Democratic takeover of the chamber. All of which has set off a predictable round of whataboutism on the right. Yes, Texas Republicans are going for the bare knuckles on this one. But what about all those egregious Democratic gerrymanders? Both sides play this game, right? Yes, both sides gerrymander. But that doesn't mean they are equal-opportunity offenders. Republicans pretty clearly benefit more from gerrymandering, and there's an increasingly strong case to be made that they go further in using the tools available to them. Gambits like what Texas is doing are rare, and it's been Republicans who have led the charge. But this is the subject of plenty of debate, and there's a school of thought that gerrymandering has become effectively a wash. Some analysts point to recent election results that show the percentage of House seats each side wins these days more or less matches their share of the nationwide popular vote for the House. Republicans, for example, won about 51.3% of the two-party vote in 2024. And 51.3% of House districts is about 223 seats. They won 220 seats. In fact, these numbers have tracked closely over the last four elections. While there was just a three-seat gap in 2024, it was only two seats in each of the previous three elections. Neither side is winning a significantly disproportionate number of seats. But just because the seat totals so closely mirror the overall vote shares doesn't necessarily mean gerrymandering didn't have an impact – or that one side or the other didn't go to more extremes to try and secure the seats they won. The ways in which populations are distributed matters greatly, for instance – particularly if one side's voters are a lot more concentrated. Just because a state is competitive doesn't mean that a 'fair' map would be a 50-50 one. Generally speaking, 'fair' districts are thought to group people with similar interests or backgrounds, and respect existing geographic boundaries. Sometimes in order to get that 50-50 split or even a narrow advantage for your side, you have to get pretty creative. In addition, gerrymandering can be a risky game. A really extreme gerrymander could backfire if your effort to create as many favorable districts as possible spreads your voters too thin and you wind up losing seats. (Some have wagered this could happen to Republicans in Texas, particularly if the GOP can't replicate Trump's big 2024 gains with Hispanic voters.) If the results of that gerrymander weren't as lopsided as envisioned, does it really mean it wasn't an extreme gerrymander? This reinforces why you can't just look at seat totals and vote shares. You really need to look at individual maps and how aggressively they're drawn. This is, of course, a somewhat subjective exercise that depends on what factors you look at. But some experts have attempted to do that. The Gerrymandering Project at Princeton University, which evaluates the maps holistically, gives a 'D' or an 'F' rating to slight majorities of maps drawn by Republicans and those drawn by Democrats. PlanScore, spearheaded by well-known academics, finds that more maps have a bias toward Republicans than Democrats across a number of metrics. These PlanScore numbers, too, come with caveats. One is that, in about half of states, the map-drawing process wasn't fully controlled by one party or another – either because the state has split legislative control, or because courts or redistricting commissions do it. So even if more maps favor Republicans, it's not just because they drew them that way. The second is that a big reason more maps appear to have a GOP bias is that Republicans simply get more opportunities to gerrymander. They have full control of more states because they hold the 'trifecta' of the governor's mansion and both chambers of the state legislature. In the most recent round of post-Census redistricting, Republicans controlled the drawing of 177 districts (estimates on this vary slightly), compared to just 49 for Democrats, according to a 2022 report from the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's law school. (Part of the reason Republicans have more control is their superior standing in state governments and the fact that blue states have been more likely to outsource this process to redistricting commissions.) The Brennan Center has also noted that Republicans appear to benefit from state courts having a more laissez-faire approach to partisan gerrymandering. All told, the center found 11 Republican-drawn maps that had extreme partisan bias, compared to four drawn by Democrats, ahead of the 2024 elections. Which brings us to the latest developments. They certainly reinforce the idea that Republicans are more ruthless about using this power. The reason Texas is so controversial isn't just that Republicans are drawing such a slanted map; it's mostly when they have chosen to do it – in the middle of the decade, outside the normal post-Census redistricting process. Maps are sometimes redrawn after that post-Census period, but usually it's because courts force states to do so. When state legislatures have done this of their own volition, it's been Republicans in charge. Depending on how you slice it, we've seen three or four modern attempts like this at mid-decade redistricting. The GOP did this in Texas and Colorado in 2003 (though the Colorado map was struck down) and in Georgia in 2005. They also redrew the maps in North Carolina in 2023 after a newly conservative-leaning state Supreme Court reversed an earlier decision and opened the door to partisan gerrymandering. State legislative expert Tim Storey told the Washington Post back in 2003 that the strategy appeared unprecedented at the time. And while Democrats are talking about a tit-for-tat in which they would do the same thing in states like California and New York, that would be a response to the GOP's own gambit. Not to mention, Democrats would also face major legal and political hurdles in these states to make that a reality. Indeed, Republicans seem to be leaning in on a mid-decade redistricting arms race, knowing they have superior capabilities and can take things further — just like they have before.
UPI
a minute ago
- UPI
Trump to sign order bringing Presidential Fitness Test back to schools
July 31 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump will sign an executive order Thursday alongside his professional athlete friends to bring back the Presidential Fitness Test in schools. The executive order signing event will host golfer Bryson DeChambeau, Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker, former New York Giants linebacker Lawrence Taylor, retired champion golfer Annika Sorenstam and Paul "Triple H" Levesque of World Wrestling Entertainment. In Trump's second term, the United States will host the 2025 Ryder Cup, 2026 FIFA World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics. DeChambeau will chair the President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition, the White House confirmed. He is a friend of Trump and has been seen on the campaign trail with him. The order advises the council to create school-based programs that reward achievements in physical education. It will also reestablish the Presidential Fitness Test, first created in 1966 and was administered in public middle and high schools. The test was replaced in 2013 with the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, which touted living an active and healthy lifestyle. Other sports issues in the president's second term have been to demand the NFL's Washington Commanders to change their name back to the Redskins and to issue an executive order banning transgender women in women's sports. Former President Barack Obama killed the test in 2012 and replaced it with an assessment called the FitnessGram focused on improving individual health. "President Trump wants every young American to have the opportunity to emphasize healthy, active lifestyles - creating a culture of strength and excellence for years to come," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNN in a statement.
Epoch Times
a minute ago
- Epoch Times
Appeals Court Hears Arguments Over Whether to Block Trump's Tariffs
An appeals court seemed skeptical of President Donald Trump's tariffs after oral argument on July 31, as multiple judges questioned whether a decades-old law Trump invoked had provided him the authority he said it did. Oral arguments came months after the U.S. Court of International Trade held in May that Trump's tariffs were inconsistent with the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, which allows presidents to regulate imports in times of emergency. Whether that regulation of imports includes tariffs was the subject of considerable debate.
