There is a lingering stench of hypocrisy in the White House these days.

No matter how many promises for education reform the president gave when he entered office, his actions continue to contradict his declarations. Among the political commotion of the last six years, education remains one issue that deserves more than just the 15 minutes of fame it got when the president first came into power.

Since the Democrats recently regained control of Congress, they have already managed to make progress on one of Bush’s biggest failures. Ironically, though, when the donkeys – with enormous bipartisan support – swiftly passed a bill in the House last week to halve interest rates on student loans by 2012, the White House surprisingly jumped ship.

But why? After all those years of pushing their baby, the “”No Child Left Behind”” Act, it seemed incredulous that the same people would nix such a promising proposition for education reform. After all, it significantly diminishes the benefits of improving elementary education if students will mature only to find skyrocketing tuition fees coupled with a drought in reasonable loan opportunities. Instead of putting their so-called “”improved”” education to use, they would find disappointment in an unfriendly system.

Confusing as it is, there was some motivation behind the idiocy – not that it will make us feel much better about the president’s disregard for American youth. Sadly, they were looking out for the big guys – specifically the lenders who will finance the $6 billion operation, according to a January article in the New York Times. They also reported that the bill plans to reduce “”the 30 or so largest lenders’ government-guaranteed profits on student loans”” – much to their dismay.

Of course, this was not the bias the White House gave as reason for its opposition. Rather, the statement released spoke of a need to provide low-income students with grant money and decreased higher education costs, thereby shifting blame to colleges for not making college affordable enough for the average citizen.

But, on this stage of political drama, the truth behind the curtain suggests a starkly contradictory image of the president than the do-good facade presented by the White House.

The president’s 2006 budget advertised none of his formerly mentioned solutions and severely cut education funding, making things like an increase in grant aid almost impossible. Commenting on the 2006 budget, the Washington Post noted in February 2005 that of the 150 programs that faced budget cuts, “”one out of every three of the targeted programs [concerned] education.”” It cut the education budget by a half billion dollars, and ended 48 education programs, including the Perkins loan program set up to offer middle- and low-income students low-interest loans. Instead, the budget misguidedly directed useless funding to “”No Child Left Behind”” testing.

The 2007 budget, however, was even uglier, with education funding taking a $3.5 billion hit. Still, the president managed to once again increase funding for the ever-unsuccessful “”No Child Left Behind”” Act.

With snowballing hits like these, how the White House expects colleges to lower tuition rates is a wonder to anyone.

Considering the White House’s spotty history, its opposition is insulting and the president’s empty promises are useless to students seeking an education. Neither can buy them one.

What students need is an abandonment of hypocritical chatter and a sincere welcoming of bills that support pragmatic education reform.

And so, congratulations to the Democrats are in order. Despite a uncooperative executive branch, they have managed to offer some hope of relief to students, an issue that has received too little attention from the current administration. Much kudos is also due to the 124 Republicans who supported the House bill and in effect proved that bipartisan politics are not always impossible.

As for the White House, hypocrisy stinks. And we can smell it.