Everyone knows Democrats are planning to use the budget reconciliation process to get ObamaCare through the Senate. Less well known is that Democrats are plotting add-ons to that bill to get other liberal priorities enacted—programs that could never attract 60 votes.

One of these controversial measures rewrites the Higher Education Act to ban private companies from offering federally guaranteed student loans as of this July. Congress has already passed laws in recent years discouraging private lenders from making loans without a federal guarantee. But most college financial-aid departments still want private companies to originate and service the guaranteed loans. That's because the alternative—a public option run by the Department of Education—has been distinguished by its Soviet-style customer service.

The Democratic plan is to make this public option the only option mere days before colleges send out their financial aid packages to incoming students. The House and Senate budget committees issued instructions last year to look for savings in the student-lending program, so the Democrats have prepared in advance their excuse to jam these changes through the reconciliation process.
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan portrays the changes as eliminating subsidies to private companies, but no one should misinterpret these comments to mean that taxpayers will benefit. The plan that passed the House includes $67 billion in "savings," according to a Friday estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. But the bill also has more than $77 billion in new spending.

The net loss to taxpayers isn't limited to $10 billion. After inquiries from Senator Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) and Rep. John Kline (R., Minn.) last year, CBO explained that "savings" estimates are artificially high because of government accounting rules that undercount the risks of default when the government is originating the loans, while the new spending estimates are artificially low. This could be significant. Many colleges oppose the government plan specifically because the feds don't make the same effort to prevent defaults that the private lenders do.

Taxpayers have even more reason than academics to fear the impact, in part because the public may not learn the details before this plan becomes law. Democrats aim to bring their education revolution to the floor without a committee vote or even a hearing in the Senate.

Democrats might seek to enact the bill passed by the House last summer, an even more ambitious plan sketched out in the President's 2011 budget, or some mystery meat prepared by chef Tom Harkin, who chairs the Senate education committee. So far he won't tell anyone what's on the menu, and he may not have to. The limited 20 hours of reconciliation debate will no doubt be consumed by ObamaCare, but another new entitlement could be hustled into law under cover of bloviating lawmakers.

Both the House-passed bill and the President's budget increase Pell Grants and also create automatic future increases, so individual grants will grow faster than inflation every year. Colleges will pocket the money by raising tuition, so we have yet another federal program ensuring that higher education costs continue to rise even faster than health-care spending.

Mr. Obama's budget also calls for making Pell Grants a mandatory entitlement. At least now they are subject to annual appropriation and their growth can be slowed when tax revenues fall or other priorities rate higher. Mr. Obama would prefer spending that is quite literally out of control.

"Various changes that the President proposes to the Pell Grant program would add another $0.2 trillion to the deficit between 2011 and 2020," CBO said Friday. That could turn out to be a very optimistic estimate if unemployment remains high and more people seize the educational opportunity to which they have just become entitled. Still another taxpayer trap will be sprung if the President's proposal to forgive some debt incurred by "overburdened" borrowers is included in the bill.

The federal education takeover is another example of the Democrats' willingness to use whatever tactics are necessary to advance their agenda to concentrate power in Washington—while they still can.

I'm of the opinion that the government would be making a smart move if it provided funds for higher education. More education typically results in folks paying more in taxes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing in this legislation that prevents students or universities from using a private lender if they want to, right? So what's the big deal? Why is a government guarantee fine, but a government loan is an "omg takeover!"?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing in this legislation that prevents students or universities from using a private lender if they want to, right? So what's the big deal? Why is a government guarantee fine, but a government loan is an "omg takeover!"?

I'm seriously considering just defaulting on my student loans.

3) how does an educational grant/loan program in any way relate to the budgetary negotiations of the health care bill?

It was only by chance, and without parental or institutional guidance, that my mom enrolled in East Los Angeles College. Like many other low-income and working students, community college was her entry into higher education.

It was not until her mid-30s that she enrolled in the California State University of Los Angeles while working full time. I was in elementary school and remember going to campus with her on days that my dad was working, even during an in-class exam. This was my first exposure to a university classroom.

Will they receive support or will education become a luxury available to fewer and fewer people?

By pushing everyone through into the higher education system because they are entitled to it totally denigrates her mother's sacrifices.

...It isn't a luxury but you're damn right it should be a sacrifice.

Why do you think it should be a sacrifice, Hop? And why would sparing others such sacrifice denigrate that of her mother? Civil Rights activists sacrificed a great deal for the rights and advantages we now enjoy every day, but I see that as progress. (The analogy is meant to be illustrative, not equivalent, of course.)

Why do you think it should be a sacrifice, Hop? And why would sparing others such sacrifice denigrate that of her mother? Civil Rights activists sacrificed a great deal for the rights and advantages we now enjoy every day, but I see that as progress. (The analogy is meant to be illustrative, not equivalent, of course.)

I took him to be referring to the value of anything is most often related, and protected by, the effort required to obtain it. We currently have affordable, public education, from grades K through 12. Where does the value of that education stand? What is the current direction of value in post high school education?

Apparently, Liberals in America have not learned the lessons of Open Enrollment.

Why do you think it should be a sacrifice, Hop? And why would sparing others such sacrifice denigrate that of her mother? Civil Rights activists sacrificed a great deal for the rights and advantages we now enjoy every day, but I see that as progress. (The analogy is meant to be illustrative, not equivalent, of course.)

Why do you think it should be a sacrifice, Hop? And why would sparing others such sacrifice denigrate that of her mother? Civil Rights activists sacrificed a great deal for the rights and advantages we now enjoy every day, but I see that as progress. (The analogy is meant to be illustrative, not equivalent, of course.)