• SAFRA will not lead to significant job losses. While this legislation will trim the profits of CEOs and big banks, it will not lead to significant job losses. By maintaining a servicing role for both large and smaller lenders, this bill will preserve jobs and, unlike in the FFELP program, keep them from being shipped overseas.
  

• The current lending system is broken. The Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) now depends on taxpayer dollars not just for subsidies that reimburse lenders when borrowers default on loans, but also for the capital to finance their lending activity altogether. Taxpayers now fund 6 of every 10 dollars in federal student lending activity. They absorb all the risk. There’s simply no reason to keep pumping taxpayer dollars into a broken system when the federal government can provide the same low-cost federal loans more reliably for students and at a lower cost for taxpayers. Under this bill, this federal program will continue to be a federal program, as it always has been, and private industry will continue to have a role, but one that is more effective and cost-efficient for families and taxpayers.
  

• There would actually be fewer student loan defaults under SAFRA. Recent preliminary data released by the U.S. Department of Education shows that in 2007, default rates were lower in the Direct Loan program than in FFELP. By allowing private lenders to service these loans through a competitive process, which will include default prevention strategies, this bill will ensure that more borrowers can receive service from lenders that have been effective in keeping default rates low.

• Sallie Mae's alternative saves less and puts more money in lenders' pockets, instead of helping students.  Sallie Mae's modified student loan proposal would slash more than $8 billion off of student aid to give lenders a bonus. “You can dress this up 100 different ways and put a Santa Hat on it, but this is still the same budget gimmick lenders have been pushing for months to line their own pockets with billions of dollars that should be used to help students,” said Chairman Miller. “The House saw this proposal for what it was and soundly rejected it, instead choosing to pass the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which invests all of its savings in students, families and taxpayers. Americans are sick and tired of CEOs and banks taking them for a ride and are ready for policies that will reduce waste and excess and do what’s best for Main Street – not Wall Street.”
  

• Students themselves are clamoring for SAFRA.  Most recently, Baylor University's college newspaper The Lariat published a story supportive of SAFRA. 
  

• Colleges are finding it easier than anticipated to switch to the Direct Loan program.  A survey conducted by the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators shows that colleges that switched from the federally-guaranteed student loan program to the Direct Loan program in the past year generally found it much easier than they expected.

Sallie Mae, a publicly traded company that is the nation’s biggest student lender with $22 billion in loans originated last year, led the field in spending $8 million on lobbying in 2009, more than double the year before, and other lenders spent millions of dollars more, according to an analysis prepared for The New York Times by the Center for Responsive Politics.

...

“We anticipated this,” Arne Duncan, the education secretary, said of the lending industry’s lobbying efforts. “They’ve had a sweet deal. They’ve had this phenomenal deal that taxpayers have subsidized, and that’s a hard thing to give up.”

Private lenders get a cut of the federally backed loans that they originate and service, with little risk of their own.

...

“If people want to lose $80 billion on the taxpayer’s dime for the very narrow interests of Sallie Mae, I guess they can decide that, but it makes no economic sense to me,” [Chairman George Miller] said. “They had a great ride for years.”