GOP, schools wrangle over education cuts

GOP, schools wrangle over education cuts

By Alisa Ulferts

Special to The Bruin

Recent Republican hits on financial aid have critics wondering
if the Contract with America is really a contract on education, as
federal student loan programs ­ including President Clinton’s
favorites ­ are lined up and shot.

While Clinton has yet to be fitted in concrete shoes, critics of
Republican efforts to slash education spending suggest the actions
are politically motivated and that they hurt poor students ­ a
charge Republicans deny.

"(Once again) the Democrats have launched their all-too-familiar
‘misinformation campaign’ against Republicans with regard to higher
education loans programs," said Rep. William Goodling, R-Penn.,
chair of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee in a
statement.

"Democrats’ ‘say anything’ response to popular Republican
efforts to restore America for future generations by balancing the
budget, dealing effectively with the deficit and instituting
fairness, has resulted in a strategic attempt to mislead and
frighten the American people," Goodling continued.

Ever since coming to power last November, Republican leadership
has made no secret of its intent to balance the budget, stressing
it would make difficult and unpopular cuts, if necessary. Among the
the most disputed of cuts is ending the in-school interest subsidy
­ a program for needy students that subsidizes interest
payments on loans while the student is in school.

Under the current program, qualifying students have the interest
on their government loans paid for by the taxpayers while they are
in school, and for up to six months after they graduate from
college. Eliminating this subsidy would save American taxpayers
$12.4 billion over five years, Goodling said.

Democrats are not convinced.

"We’re not sure there are any real savings here," said Eric
Altschule, chief of staff for Rep. Bart Gordon, a Tennessee
Democrat who has actively opposed cuts in education. Altschule said
when students are saddled with that much more debt, they are more
likely to default on their loans.

"Any savings in the short term disappear in the long term when
the loans are defaulted."

Altschule disagreed with Republican claims that requiring
non-college graduate taxpayers to pay interest on college loans was
unfair.

"The point of these programs is to have as educated a work force
as possible … this is an investment in the whole economy," he
said.

"Our economy of the 21st century is completely dependent on
having the most highly educated, trained and experienced work force
… There was a time when college was an intellectual luxury ­
now it’s a necessity," Altschule said.

That necessity will cost needy students ­ those who qualify
for the subsidized loan in the first place ­ between $21 and
$45 a month in interest payments while they are in school. This
additional burden on those who already struggle has fueled the
charge that Republicans are taking from the poor to fund a middle
class tax cut.

"These cuts hurt the most needy students," said Gail Neil,
associate director of student financial aid at UCLA. Neil said
about 18,000 UCLA students receive some kind of federal financial
assistance, and if that assistance is reduced ­ by ending
subsidies or capping Pell Grants ­ educational institutions
will have to look hard at their own resources.

"If it were just the in-school subsidy (that is eliminated) we
could still survive," she said. "But if the actual amounts of
programs are reduced, the university will have to find its own
resources (to help students)."

Neil added that higher education institutions will have to
reprioritize when determining where those sources of alternative
funds come from and whom they will benefit.

Students standing in line at the financial aid office opposed
the cuts, saying it placed additional burdens on students. Most
disagreed with Republican claims that the monthly interest payments
were minor, "barely the price of a Super Big Gulp at the local
7-11" every day, say Republicans.

"You can trivialize it if you have millions,"said Reginald
Mason, a fourth-year political theory student. "That’s two weeks of
gas driving back and forth from school.

"It’s another form of pressure on students who will have to work
more while still studying, or take out another loan," Mason
added.

UCLA officials agreed the interest payments should not be
trivialized, and said the effects of cutting back federal aid would
affect the university as well as the students.

"$45 a month to a student is a big expense," said Jason Reed,
executive director of the Associated Students. "Anything that
affects students’ incomes affects ASUCLA."

At this point, Reed said it was impossible to say whether the
cuts would have a severe impact on the student association, but
said anything that takes money out of students’ pockets would have
an effect.

"It puts additional pressure on ASUCLA to keep prices low and
wages high," Reed added.

Other institutions, including the state of California, may feel
the pinch of reduced federal aid ­ especially as reduced state
funding drives up tuition costs. Although California has no state
loan program, reductions in federal loans could send the state
scrambling to adjust its grant program, said Andy Shaw, a senior
consultant for the California Assembly Committee on Higher
Education.

Critics have accused Republicans of balancing the federal budget
at the expense of the states which must make up for cuts in
education and welfare.

Shaw added that the state will continue to try and maintain its
own grant program, Cal grant, at the full level of tuition, despite
the difficulty as fees increase.

Rising tuition costs across the nation have forced more students
to take out college loans, and while Republican cuts are not
responsible for those increases, decreases in state funding often
are. The University of California has raised its fees 250 percent
over the past five years, with more increases likely, university
officials said.

Despite the fee hikes, Republicans defend education cuts, saying
a balanced budget and reduced deficit are worth making college
students ­ who can expect to earn more than non-college
graduates ­ pay the interest on their loans.

"Republicans intend to have those that benefit from the college
loans pay the interest on those loans," Goodling said in a
statement.

Democrats said they believe the targeted programs, including
Clinton’s Americorps and direct lending program, are the casualties
of a political game of Republican roulette.

"So far, House leadership hasn’t designated any money to deficit
reform," Altschule said. He said Republicans lost credibility when
they applied $66 billion in welfare reform savings to a middle
class tax cut instead of to the deficit. Democrats are worried that
education programs, including direct lending, may be sacrificed for
tax cuts, and say they are determined to fight for them.

"This program is working," President Clinton told college
journalists at the White House last month. "The direct lending
program will save the taxpayers $12 billion over six years, the
same amount they propose to save by eliminating the interest
subsidy on student loans.

Although UCLA does not participate in the direct lending
program, the university opposes proposed cuts in federal aid.

"We’re certainly opposed to cutting any financial aid," UCLA
Chancellor Charles Young said. "We are working very hard with other
members of higher education institutions to oppose cuts in federal
aid."