Just curious - why does this need to be funded? Only in Government is a non-gain looked at as a loss. If it stays at the current rate everything stays the same. No funding needed

I notice that the Globe article refers to GOP attempts to pay for the loss in goverment revenue as "Siphoning" money from the ObamaCare funds, as if somehow any removal of funds from that program is immoral, by definition. Of course, the Globe fails to mention that the federal student loan program is "Siphoning" money from TAXPAYERS, who will be forced to pay for the expected loan defaults. But on the other hand, "stripping some tax breaks from oil and gas companies" is perfectly acceptable, even though this will just result in higher gasoline prices or gasoline shortages. Again, the loser is the TAXPAYER. And ALL taxpayers will lose, not just the "1 percenters". And what will the colleges do when they see that students are given free money, like scholarships? They will RAISE TUITION. And in answer to another blogger, who thinks that the loan program does not lose money, of course it loses money. Taxpayers, who are given no say in the matter, will be asked to pay for loan defaults, and even worse, probable loan principal forgiveness by Obama. The loan interest is supposed to defray these losses, just like any other money loans. And what is also interesting, is that all of a suddden, taxpayers are being to fund not only undergraduate education, but GRADUATE SCHOOL education! E.g. is there some kind of national emergency that requires all American taxpayers to pay for Law School education? (OK, I know the answer to that one. There are obviously thousands of Americans who deserve to be SUED, but there just aren't sufficient lawyers to sue them).