Adam Goodman | A post-campaign reality check

'We will make the economy fairer and we will do so by increasing the minimum wage!"

"We will make health care more accessible and more affordable!"

"We will promote stem cell research!"

"We will broaden opportunity by making college affordable!"

Just your standard empty campaign promises, I thought to myself, as then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi rattled off the Democrats' so-called "6 for '06" in a room packed with adoring Penn Dems in early October.

And then came the kicker.

"We will do all this within the first 100 hours of Congress going into session."

Amid the wild applause, I turned knowingly to my friend. "What a joke," I snickered. "Even if they do win, there's no way in hell they're going to be able to get that done."

But after the last two weeks' legislation blitz, and only 87 (legislative) hours into the 110th Congress, the new Democratic majority seems to have proven me wrong.

Well, sort of.

Give Pelosi and company credit for making good on most of their promises. In politics today, that's unfortunately refreshing. But while Democrats are preoccupied with slapping each other's backs in celebration, the reality leaves much to be desired.

The celebrated College Student Relief Act - passed last Wednesday by the substantial margin of 356-71 - is badly flawed and not even close to what was promised in the campaign.

Initially, the Democrats had claimed that they were going to increase Pell grants (no-strings-attached grants awarded to the neediest of students) by 25 percent, make a portion of college tuition tax-deductible, and cut interest rates on student loans for all students. The College Student Relief Act does no such thing.

In fact, this bill doesn't even do a good job of achieving its narrow purpose. If the bill is signed into law, it would cut the interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans (loans guaranteed by the federal government and offered to students at low, fixed rates) in half from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, but only for undergraduates. In other words, it's not "all students" for whom interest rates are cut, as Pelosi promised; graduate students and unsubsidized students get thrown under the bus.

Worse, the plan is phased over five years so that interest rates are reduced gradually. It would only actually be in July 2011 that the final phase kicks in and interest rates fall to 3.4 percent. Which would be fine if the rates weren't scheduled to climb back up a mere six months later.

Don't get me wrong. Any attempt on the part of Congress to alleivate the skyrocketing cost of attending college is a positive development. What's frustrating is that the Democrats chose to short-change voters on this issue.

"What we expected Congress to do wasn't what they did," said Frank Claus, associate director of finance at Penn's Student Financial Services. "We certainly favor the reductions in interest, but we're still primarily interested in increasing the Pell grants."

Meanwhile, Republicans are charging that by ignoring Pell grants, the Act only affects college graduates and does little to help low-income students. While this may smack of hypocrisy (considering the GOP did virtually nothing to stem the rising costs of college while in power), it's also a sound criticism.

"Access for lower-income students is the most pressing problem when it comes to college affordability," explained Bill Andresen, the University's associate vice president of federal affairs. "Lowering the interest rates on Stafford loans are basically subsidies for the middle class - which is still a good thing - but I would definitely like to see Pell grants increased."

Add that to the bill's phasing over five years, the ominous sunset clause which hikes rates back up in 2011 and the bill's relatively narrow scope and this bill can be summed up in one word: disappointing.

To be fair, Representative George Miller (D-Calif.) has said that this bill is "only the beginning," and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) is sponsoring the far more comprehensive Student Debt Relief Act as a companion bill in the Senate.

Still, with the torrent of adulatory media coverage in the wake of the 100 hours, the self-satisfied Democratic leadership could easily become complacent with regard to college affordability. They're already being heralded as the selfless saviors who have come to clean up the Republicans' mess; why stress over finding new revenue sources to fund the unfulfilled measures of the campaign plan?

With 67 percent of Penn students on some form of financial aid, this issue could hardly hit closer to home. Penn and the rest of the higher education community must maintain pressure on the Democrats to deliver what they promised.

If that happens, I may owe Nancy Pelosi an apology.

Adam Goodman is a College sophomore from La Jolla, Calif. His e-mail address is goodman@dailypennsylvanian.com. A Damn Good Man appears on Fridays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.