Yes, you may consolidate a Parent Plus Loan, but there a few things you should know.
The parent who took out the Plus loan owns the Plus loan for the life of the loan. What I mean by that is you can not have your student, who the loan was taken out for, roll your Plus loan in with their federal Stafford or Perkins loans. The loan is in your name and tied to your social security number.
If you have your own federal loans you are allowed to consolidate your Plus loan with them.
Your fixed consolidated interest rate will depend on the loans you are rolling into your federal consolidation. A weighted average will be taken based on the interest rates attached to said loans.
So what are the Parent Plus loan interest rates that exist today? They vary widely, which is why your friend could have a really low fixed rate while you are stuck in the eight percent rate. Again, your consolidated rate is a reflection of the interest rates attached to your current loans. It is not strictly a market gage, as is the case with a home refinance.
Parent Plus Loan Rates
Any FFEL Parent Plus loan taken out after 7/1/06 holds an 8.5% fixed rate, however, if you consolidate that loan there is an immediate interest rate deduction of .25% as the consolidation rate is capped at 8.25%.
Within the Direct Loan program Plus loan are fixed at 7.9% for those disbursed after 7/1/06.
For all other Parent Plus loans that have not been previously consolidated and which were disbursed prior to 7/1/06 the interest rate is at a historically low level, 3.28%. The previous low was during the 2004-05 academic year when Plus loans were are 4.17%.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Austin dwi
Proving that the Wichita Falls Times Record News Online is just a little behind what most people would consider news, a few days ago they ran a story titled “First Offense May Require DWI Device”:
Repeat drinking and driving offenders in Texas know the hassle that comes with the advanced charges, but soon, first-time offenders, too, could face a tougher crack down.
Texas state legislation mandates that repeat offenders be ordered to have an ignition interlock installed on their vehicle as a condition of their bond.
However, that could change soon, as legislators are looking at amending the law, making the interlock a requirement on the first offense.
Actually, the legislative session is over, and I’m pretty sure House Bill 1110, which would have done just that, was left pending in committee, which is fancy legi-speak for “went nowhere”. I say “pretty sure” because Texas has some funky procedures regarding the Governor’s ability to call special sessions for certain issues, but I haven’t heard of one for this… yet. Not saying it couldn’t happen.
At any rate, I found this tidbit from the article amusing. Sometimes journalists like to rile their readers up, let ‘em know what sorts of outrageous consequences there could be if a bill doesn’t pass:
For some, the device is only a temporary inconvenience.
Being a condition of bond, the suspect could be allowed to have the device removed if the case is dismissed, or the terms of the conviction or probation don’t mandate its use.
That’s right folks! You get arrested, not convicted but just accused of DWI second in Texas, and you’re going to be required to put an interlock on your car. But as the law stands now… if the state dismisses your case (or, and the article doesn’t mention this, but hey, this is bad law too) if you are acquitted…
Under current law, you are no longer required to have the IID on your car. Imagine that. The horror. Better call your legislator and, well, tell them what? Rewind time and get this bill out of committee?
Repeat drinking and driving offenders in Texas know the hassle that comes with the advanced charges, but soon, first-time offenders, too, could face a tougher crack down.
Texas state legislation mandates that repeat offenders be ordered to have an ignition interlock installed on their vehicle as a condition of their bond.
However, that could change soon, as legislators are looking at amending the law, making the interlock a requirement on the first offense.
Actually, the legislative session is over, and I’m pretty sure House Bill 1110, which would have done just that, was left pending in committee, which is fancy legi-speak for “went nowhere”. I say “pretty sure” because Texas has some funky procedures regarding the Governor’s ability to call special sessions for certain issues, but I haven’t heard of one for this… yet. Not saying it couldn’t happen.
At any rate, I found this tidbit from the article amusing. Sometimes journalists like to rile their readers up, let ‘em know what sorts of outrageous consequences there could be if a bill doesn’t pass:
For some, the device is only a temporary inconvenience.
Being a condition of bond, the suspect could be allowed to have the device removed if the case is dismissed, or the terms of the conviction or probation don’t mandate its use.
That’s right folks! You get arrested, not convicted but just accused of DWI second in Texas, and you’re going to be required to put an interlock on your car. But as the law stands now… if the state dismisses your case (or, and the article doesn’t mention this, but hey, this is bad law too) if you are acquitted…
Under current law, you are no longer required to have the IID on your car. Imagine that. The horror. Better call your legislator and, well, tell them what? Rewind time and get this bill out of committee?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
