You're digging a little too hard for dirt, aren't you, if you're worried about gummie bears/brains, peppermint candies and jackets?  Why don't you give back all the [junk] you've received over the years from promos, giveaways, etc.?   This agency funds itself and gives back a ton to students and borrowers!  Why don't you report on that too - both sides mean anything to you journalists?

The proposal to eliminate the federal guaranteed student loan program to save money is truly baffling.  The alternative program would have to cost the government less to operate and that's not the case.  But the debate over the accuracy of government cost estimates won't be settled here.

The massive cuts in lender subsidies may do that for us. Government cost estimates (that understate the Direct Loan program's costs) could very well show a FFEL program cost advantage, according to the President’s FY 2008 Budget.  The administration had estimated that its original proposal to cut lender payments by $16 billion would close the cost differential to 0.40 percent.  The cut signed by the president totals $22 billion. 

So even if direct loans retain a cost advantage, which seems unlikely, it will be ever so slight.  And if the cuts leave direct loans more expensive, than it will cost taxpayers money to shift any federal student loans to the Direct Loan program.

In return for meager if any savings, the proposal would eliminate a program that 8 in 10 schools prefer nationally and that millions of families rely on.  Take away the choice of lenders that these families now enjoy and force them to borrow directly from the government.  Create a government monopoly in student loans, in other words. A monopoly by the way that would be the equivalent of the 4th or 5th largest bank in the world.  It would be about three times the size of the largest FFEL program lender operating today. 

And it would require Congress to increase the national debt by another $680 billion over the next 5 years. Then over trillion by 2017.

Then there is the issue of consumer choice.  The FFEL program is the only federal student loan program that has consumer choice.  Families are as entitled to choice in student loans as they are in health care.  Indeed consumer choice is central to the health reform proposals of the most of the candidates. 

To paraphrase one candidates's plan, choice puts borrowers, not bureaucrats, in the driver's seat. 

. 

It should be noted Mr. Kevin Bruns is executive director of America’s Student Loan Providers.  He is paid to have the views provided. Listen carefully to Mr. Bruns views, you'll hear them parroted at a later date by some of the more corrupt elements within NASFAA. What Mr. Bruns misses is the fact that not all of us are for elimination of private lenders in the FFELP. But what is to be done?  The Student loan industry is so arrogant and greedy that there might be no other choice. Mr. Bruns, your membership is a bunch of despicable scoundrels.

If Mr. Bruns is truly interested in keeping the private lenders in the FFELP program viable, he should be pushing his membership to stop their anti-competitive behavior. Opportunity Loans, School as Lender, Advisory Boards - they are all meant to pay off institutions for preferred status and diminish competition. Diminished competition brings higher cost and inferior service.

Public Opinion won't flow your way until the arrogance and greed is curtailed. Many of Mr. Brun's largest members simply don't have what it takes to compete in an open market. Protecting inefficient bureaucracies such as Sallie Mae and Nelnet is a distraction your organization can no longer afford. There are 3000 FFELP lenders and the loan volume is concentrated in only a few - NOT as a result of better service or price - but as a result of anti-competitive behavior and payoffs to universities and as we've seen in some cases, payoffs to individual financial aid directors.

I fear, Mr. Bruns, the politicians who seek to eliminate yours and other jobs in the FFELP private lender sector will be successful simply because the arrogance and greed of your industry will not accept reform or open markets.

You may have contempt for our representatives in Congress and Senate - but your industry doesn't exist without a taxpayer handout. We as taxpayers and holders of student debt are pushing our representatives to reform this industry.  If your membership and NASFAA has a problem with that . . . too bad.

Competition and Open Markets Mr. Bruns - that is you only potential savior.

This article is absolutely absurd!  You've stooped to a new low here NAF perpetuating this idiocy-"Gummy Brains"?  A company (private or state-funded) can't spend money to keep its employees happy and productive?  You've captured everything that is wrong with this country in this single article.  Well done PA legislators!  Keep up the good work!  Way to get in the headlines like Citizen C.!  Clearly, you have nothing better to do with your time.  Glad to see PA is well on its way to becoming another Nanny State.

Government run amok!     

Frankling Furter is grossly misinformed, besides having very bad manners. 

Do the lenders oppose sunshine laws?  No, lenders support passing a sunshine law.

Do lenders support outlawing advisory boards or preferred lender lists?  No, but neither do Donald Heller of Penn State nor Bob Shireman, as well as other critics of the FFEL program.

Loan volume is concentrated in a few -- NOT as a result of better service or price, but payoffs?   I don't know what Furter's talking about.  About 40-50 schools and about 20-30 lenders got caught -- out of 5,000 schools and 3,500 lenders. You can't tell me that 5,000 schools were paid-off. 

Moreover, the recent budget cuts, which lenders opposed, is already leading to greater concentration in the market place as smaller lenders and consolidators get out of the business. Auctions will create oligopolies. 

The federal student loans business is relatively tame compared to the sales cultures and practices in other sectors. I'm sorry--pizza parties, tickets to a ball game, advisory meetings at the O'Hare Hilton, etc. are no big whoop. Compared to buying a home or even a car, there's much less exposure for the borrower with federal student loans.  Borrowers will never do worse than 6.8 percent.  There's no redlining.  You can take 30 years to pay it back.  You don't even have to start paying until you're out of school.  Customer service is free -- you won't be charged a fee on a per-call basis after 90 days or 12 months.