Replies

Yes, it passed the house already:

According to the Department of Education, 14.3 million of the 17.5 million student loans were federally subsidized for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Under Obama?s plan, the government would consume the entirety of this industry - a total of $103 billion in 2009-2010.
Under the current system, the federal government subsidizes private financial institutions in order to entice those institutions to provide low-interest loans to students. Under this arrangement the government sets the interest rates lenders may charge students. In return, the government reimburses lenders if market interest rates rise above the interest rates on the loans - in essence, the government reimburses private lenders if they begin losing money on the loans. In return, the lenders agree to return any windfall profits made from the loans to the government. In other words, if market interest rates fall below the interest rates of the loans, the lenders pay the government the difference. The government also agrees to reimburse the lenders should a student default.
Under the system proposed by Obama, the government would cut private lenders out of the picture entirely, setting the interest rates and collecting payments directly for all student lending.
Whether or not the government saw a profit or a loss from the new, federal loans would depend on the rate at which the government borrows money. For instance, the law currently sets the interest rate for direct loans at a maximum of 6.8 percent. Under Obama?s proposal, if the government can borrow money at a rate lower than 6.8 percent, it would realize the difference as profit.(Snip)
The plan has met Republican opposition, passing the House on a party-line vote in September - 253-171 - and has stalled in the Senate, where HELP Chairman Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has said he plans to pass the measure using budget reconciliation. "We've already been instructed by the Budget Committee to do this, so we're going to do it," Harkin told The Hill Oct. 19 when asked about using the controversial budget maneuver.