Sallie Mae is the country’s largest provider of private student loans — and despite their innocuous name, they’re guilty of some pretty awful practices.Sallie Mae has a dual role of a lender and collector. As Elizabeth Warren said, “Sallie Mae gets to play every hand at the poker table.” And, “Student-loan debt collectors have power that would make a mobster envious.”When customers call seeking assistance, Sallie Mae representatives say pretty terrible stuff — a story from one of our members: “I encouraged my grandson to pursue a college degree, because I thought as a Black male, his chances of landing a decent paying job would be much improved. Since he graduated, he has been unable to find a job with a living wage. His paycheck barely covers the gas he needs to go to a low paying job, much less repay his student loans. Because I co-signed, I now use a great portion of my Social Security check to pay the loans. When I called Sallie Mae to work out a payment plan, the representative told me to tell my grandson to sell his plasma [i.e., his blood plasma] to pay the loan.”As a debt collector, Sallie Mae is highly abusive, using the Freedom of Information Law to collect personal information about students from their schools, and contacting borrowers’ employers, families, and neighbors, to the point of violating the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. One Rebuild the Dream member shared this story with us: “My son not been able to find a decent job, is barely making ends meet so has not been able to start paying his loans. He’s talked to Sallie Mae regarding this but they continue to call him daily, including Saturday and Sunday. Then they started calling me daily since I was listed as a secondary contact. When I complained to their representative that this was harassment, I was informed that they can call each contact number up to eight times per day.”Charges unnecessary and exploitative forbearance fees — $50 per loan, per 3-month block — essentially an “unemployment penalty”Successfully lobbied Congress to strip away basic consumer protections from student loans, such as bankruptcy protection on private student loans.Successfully lobbied Congress to obtain Draconian collections practices, including garnishment of wages, tax returns and federal benefits such as ...

In February, President Obama laid out his framework for reforming corporate taxes. He proposed a substantial cut in the corporate income tax rate from 35 to 28 percent—a boon to companies, especially small businesses that lack the opportunities for tax avoidance that major companies regularly exploit.As I wrote at the time, the president proposed to make this tax cut revenue neutral so it doesn't increase the deficit. He called for reforming many of the provisions of the tax code that create significant inequities and economic distortions.Last week, big business responded.On Wednesday, CEOs of 18 of the nation's largest companies sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner objecting to the proposal to raise the 15 percent tax rate on dividends and capital gains for households making more than $200,000 ($250,000 if married). These CEOs claim that bringing the taxes of high-income households more in line with everyone else's will reduce investment "when we need capital formation here in America to create jobs and expand our economy." It's a claim that rings hollow. U.S. companies are currently sitting on a mountain of cash that they aren't investing, and many are engaged in buying back their own shares. This artificially raises share prices and serves no useful purpose, but it does increase the value of CEO stock options. The higher taxes might put a crimp in the lavish lifestyles of the wealthy, but they are unlikely to affect the investment behavior of companies. Notably, this change in the tax code would not affect anyone with household income under $200,000 a year or whose money is invested in a 401(k) or an individual retirement account.And earlier in the week, Ernst & Young put out a report conducted on behalf of the Private Equity Growth Capital Council that challenged the administration's proposal to limit the tax deductibility of corporate interest payments. This change to the corporate tax code would reduce the disparity in the tax treatment of debt and equity financing of investment. The administration did not specify what the limit might be, but Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, and Sen. Dan Coats, a Republican from Indiana, have proposed reducing the deduction from 100 percent of interest paid to 75 percent. This provision would have its greatest effect on private equity companies, which engage in leveraged buyouts that use lots of debt to acquire businesses for the portfolios of their investment funds. The ratio of debt to the enterprise value of publicly traded companies is about 14 percent, while companies acquired in leveraged buyouts have a debt-to-enterprise value of about 67 percent.The Ernst & Young report claims that as a result of the Wyden-Coats tax plan, "the corporate capital stock in the United States would be smaller. … A smaller corporate capital stock would adversely affect worker productivity and, ultimately, living standards." Sounds scary, ...