The Times - Serving Waitsburg, Dayton and the Touchet Valley

here's what i think E arlier this week, The

Times received an editorial column from the office of Congresswom- an Cathy McMorris Rodg- ers. As we sometimes do with contributions from politicians who represent us, we included it on our opin- ion page. It's right up there; above this one.

As I read her column I could immediately re- late. Like Hayley - and like Cathy - I too worked my way through college. I didn't work at McDonalds, but among several jobs, I worked for awhile at the University of Washington Driving Range. I drove one of those ball-picker-upper tractors with steel mesh around the cab so I wouldn't get beaned by customers with particularly accurate swings.

And like Hayley and our Congresswoman, I too received considerable finan- cial help from government subsidized student loans. And yes, it was a couple of decades before they were paid off.

So I was heartened by McMorris Rodgers' claim that she and her fellow House Republicans are coming to the rescue of struggling students by passing a bill - H.R. 1911 (or, as they call it, The Smarter Solu- tions for Students Act") - that would keep student loan rates from doubling starting next month. Darn those mean Democrats for not act- ing to help the poor students!

As I read her column though, I was curious about what H.R. 1911 would actu- ally do. And since she made no attempt to explain its details, I put Mr. Google to work to find out. So here's the deal:

A few years ago, Con- gress passed a bill to help students out by dropping interest rates on most student loans in half: from a fixed rate of 6.8% to a fixed rate of 3.4%. Fair enough. That lower rate was extended a couple of times, but if nothing was done, it was to expire at the end of June (i.e., last Sunday). Student loans originated on or after Monday reverted to the higher fixed rate of 6.8%.

Here's what H.R. 1911 would have done: Instead of Congress establishing a fixed rate for student loans, those rates would be pegged at the ten-year Treasury bill rate, plus 2.5%. Based on current rates, student loans made today would start out with a rate of 4.4%, which, as McMorris Rodgers would be quick to tell us, is less than 6.8%. Hooray for the Republicans!

But here's what McMor- ris Rodgers doesn't ever mention in her column: that 4.4% rate isn't fixed. When treasury rates go up, up go existing student loan rates with 'em. That's a pretty important detail to leave out.

H.R. 1911 puts an upper cap on student loan rates at 8.5%, which McMorris Rodgers would certainly have to agree, is a bunch higher than the 6.8% fixed rate students currently face.

And what about those heartless Democrats? Here's what Rep. George Miller of California, who is the ranking Democrat on the House Education Committee, said about H.R. 1911 in explain- ing his opposition: It would "create a huge amount of uncertainty for students and families thinking about financing their education." Hardly the words of hard- hearted student-hater.

Here's what I think

So you want to know what I think? I like the Republicans' bill. Why shouldn't student loan rates adjust when market rates rise? Those rates only ap- ply to borrowers after they leave school - no interest is charged on subsidized stu- dent loans while students are enrolled.

If the government's cost of borrowing goes up, why shouldn't former students who now (presumably) have jobs, help cover that in- creased cost? It reduces the cost to taxpayers of the student loan program, and I think that's a good thing.

But you want to know what really cooks my goose? McMorris Rodgers never makes that argument. It's a fiscally responsible position that would undoubtedly ap- peal to many of our readers. But instead, she completely glosses over the details of H.R. 1911 and simply makes a disingenuous, and quite frankly dishonest, claim that Republicans care about college students and Democrats don't.

I know that in this day and age, making the opposition look bad is far more impor- tant to politicians from both parties, McMorris Rodgers included, than making a coherent case for their own position. But to me it feels like she's talking to us like we're children when she ought to be talking to us like we're adults.