GOP Spending Cuts Follow Tax Cuts For The Rich

Just as I said.

Republicans now controlling the House promised Thursday to slash domestic agencies' budgets by almost 20 percent for the coming year, the first salvo in what's sure to be a bruising battle over their drive to cut spending to where it was before President Barack Obama took office.

"Washington's spending spree is over," declared Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman who announced the plan.

The White House says the GOP effort could cause widespread furloughs of federal employees, force vulnerable people off subsidized housing, reduce services in national parks and mean less aid to schools and police and fire departments.

Popular programs such as health research and federal aid to school districts appear likely to take a hit when lawmakers write the spending bill for the departments of Education, Labor and Health and Human Services.

Tax cuts for the rich prioritized over all else.

I note that former Labor Secretary and current Berkeley professor Robert Reich, in his Twitter feed (@RBReich) today, backs up a point I made about these proposed tax cuts being a precursor to Republican efforts to launch an assault on domestic spending and entitlements -- using the federal budget deficit made so much worse by these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires as their rationale.

I said: "I recognize that this issue isn't specifically about education, but it is inexorably linked. Given President Obama's apparent unwillingness to go to the mat for Democratic principles (and his own campaign pledge!), Republicans have succeeded in extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires -- not just for the first $250,000 or $1,000,000 of their income, but all of it up to infinity. The total cost of all the proposal's tax cuts is $900 billion. Republicans' likely next step is too take off their "tax cutter" hat and don their "deficit hawk" cap, saying that the federal government is living beyond its means, and will fire away at domestic spending. You don't think education will avoid being in their crosshairs at that time, do you? You know that this is more than simply a ploy to line the pockets of rich Americans, right? It's part of a plan to bleed government dry and then argue that government programs need to be reduced, eliminated or privatized."

Reich wrote: "$900 b tax cut w/ lion's share for rich explodes deficit and makes future domestic discretionary spending sitting duck for R cuts."

Yes, folks. This isn't just about tax cuts for the richest Americans. This is but a front in the war to reduce the size of government regardless of its collateral damage to Americans who need government the most.

Economic inequality is already at an all-time high in this country -- even higher than prior to the start of the Great Depression. Our educational system only has a finite amount of power to overcome such overwhelming inequities. If these forces are left unchecked, it may become an impossible job, especially as education programs themselves may fall victim to all-too-easily-predictable budget cuts.

At least the House Republicans can say that they kept this promise. This proposal shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

You have read this article budget / Education / federal / Republicans / taxes with the title budget. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2011/02/gop-spending-cuts-follow-tax-cuts-for.html. Thanks!

TFA 'Set Aside'

The Washington Post's Nick Anderson reports that U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan was grilled by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) yesterday about why he proposed eliminating the set aside for Teach for America in the Administration FY2011 federal budget.

"We made some tough calls. And what we did is we simply eliminated all the earmarks. We increased the chance for competition," Duncan said.

"Teach for America is an earmark?" Doggett asked.

"It was a set-aside," Duncan clarified. The organization, he said, would have "every opportunity to compete and get, frankly, significantly more money."

My question is: Why should TFA receive such a set aside while other high-quality education non-profits do not? What about KIPP, Urban Teacher Residency United, The New Teacher Project? How about the nonprofit I work for, the New Teacher Center? All of these nonprofits are national in scope. Is there something special about TFA that merits direct federal funding and forces these other organizations to exclaim, "We're not worthy!"?

Frankly, I like the Administration's competitive approach. Let the cream rise to the top. That's a very American concept.

-----------

UPDATE: Here's more on the TFA funding issue from Eduwonk.

You have read this article Arne Duncan / budget / federal / Teach for America / teacher / TFA with the title budget. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/02/tfa-aside.html. Thanks!

Winners & Losers

Eduflack offers up a first-rate post today on the winners and losers in the education portion of the President's FY2011 budget.

Claus von Zastrow issues a wise caution regarding federal funding for professional development (UPDATE: as well as a second thought).

The New York Times's Sam Dillon and the National Journal's Eliza Krigman (hat tip: Eduwonk) have the scoop on implications for Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization.

The budget is just at the first step and Congress has yet to have its say. Likewise, I wouldn't bet on reauthorization this election year (yep, congressional elections are only nine months away!). 2011? 2012? Anyone? UPDATE: Here is what the Education Experts at the National Journal's blog think.

You have read this article Barack Obama / budget / ESEA / federal / No Child Left Behind / President / professional development with the title budget. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2010/02/winners-losers.html. Thanks!

A Test of Leadership

When the history of American higher education in the 21st century is written, I suspect the end of the first decade will be known for two resounding themes: the growing importance of community colleges, and a move from college access to a focus on college success. The vocabulary of this important time centers on words like efficiency, productivity, and effectiveness. These are terms that, thanks in no small part to the work of foundations like Lumina and Gates, finally have traction among both administrators and consumers of higher ed. In a very real sense, this is nothing less than astounding progress for an institution built primarily to enroll students privileged enough to attend college-- and not necessarily to graduate them.

For the latest--and greatest-- example of this sea change we can look to Indiana. Faced with ever-common declines in resources for higher education, leaders in that state are reportedly rethinking business as usual. Typically, budget cuts are distributed across the board, doled out as necessary, and intended to simply save money but not accomplish much else. Indiana's Commission of Higher Education is hoping to shake things up this time around by assigning cuts to colleges and universities based partly on performance. Specifically, the Commission recommends spurring statewide, system, academic, and operating efficiencies by allocating the $150 million in cuts based on per-student state funding, completion rates, and availability of federal stimulus funds.

This is an audacious move, and one that Governor Mitch Daniels should embrace. He should do so not because there's a robust body of evidence suggesting that the plan will work (such evidence doesn't exist, to my knowledge) but rather because we really need to know if it could. The "winners" would seem to be the state's community colleges-- they would take the small proportion of the cuts-- but that success should be measured not in terms of dollars gained or lost, but in terms of change incurred. Governor Daniels should lead the way not only by making this policy shift, but also by ensuring that its effects are evaluated. Do those colleges most affected by a distribution shift-- from enrollment to performance--see the greatest alterations in their outcomes? Are any negative consequences observed at those schools, versus others?

Indiana's providing a fantastic opportunity-- a chance for other states to learn both from its ambitious leadership, and from its policy innovations. I hope in 2010 we see more states making similarly bold moves.

You have read this article budget / college / higher education / Indiana / performance funding with the title budget. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/12/a-test-of-leadership.html. Thanks!

UPDATE: Budget Balancing For Dummies

The Wisconsin State Journal has the update on this recent blog post ("Budget Balancing For Dummies").

Almost all state workers will have to take furloughs, regardless of whether their paychecks come from the state, federal grants, or private sources, under versions of the budget passed by both the state Assembly and Senate.

Some state workers paid with federal grants, particularly university researchers, argued they shouldn’t have to take the 16 unpaid days off as mandated by Gov. Doyle over the next two years because it wouldn’t save the state money.

An amendment proposed by Rep. Kelda Helen Roys, D-Madison, that would have shielded some of those employees from taking furloughs never made it into the Assembly's budget.

No one proposed a similar amendment in the Senate, making it unlikely that it will be inserted in conference committee, which reconciles the budgets passed by the two houses.

Seems to me that this brain-dead policy choice is completely counter to economic stimulation. By unnecessarily reducing workers' paychecks through a policy that saves the state of Wisconsin $0, how much will the state lose in income tax revenue, retail sales taxes, and the like as a result of this policy aimed solely at 'feel good' public relations?

Also, treating non-state-funded university faculty and staff in this way sorta flies in the face of the retention fund aimed at keeping high-demand faculty in Wisconsin. At best, it's going to create a run on this fund - by slapping UW faculty and staff with the furlough, plus the rescinded salary increases over the next two years. That's money out of the state's pocket.

What was it that Forrest Gump said?

You have read this article budget / college / Education / faculty / fed / university / University of Wisconsin / UW System / Wisconsin with the title budget. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/06/update-budget-balancing-for-dummies.html. Thanks!

Budget Balancing for Dummies

I hate to pick on my state of residence, but sometimes it's just too easy and too well deserved.

A proposal in Wisconsin suggests that state policymakers may be prioritizing the appearance of belt tightening over the enactment of meaningful savings. To close a $6.5 billion deficit, the governor and legislature will require that all state and university employees be furloughed regardless of whether their positions are actually funded with state dollars. It's a proposal that attends to a 'Keep It Simple, Stupid' view of budgetary public relations rather than striving for intelligent budgeting. The furlough as enacted enables politicians to blather blindly that "everyone is sacrificing, doing their part, tightening their belt, blah, blah, blah," even if it won't save Wisconsin one red cent--and could actually cost it money. In fact, the furlough could actually serve as an anti-stimulus. It would pull money out of the state economy by forcing employees funded through federal and private grants to not spend those dollars at a time the state desperately needs such an influx.

Erica Perez of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports:

Facing state-mandated furloughs, University of Wisconsin System employees are struggling with how to handle unpaid days off in an academic environment.

Professors and instructors aren't sure if they will have to cancel classes. And many argue that a break from federally funded research does nothing to help the state budget.

To help close the state budget gap, lawmakers recently approved Gov. Jim Doyle's plan to require all state employees - including those represented by unions - to take 16 unpaid furlough days over the next two years, the equivalent of a 3% pay cut.

They also rescinded a 2% pay increase that was to take effect this month. That freeze affects state employees not represented by unions, including 19,500 faculty, academic staff members and senior executives in the UW System.

Then there are the university employees whose salaries aren't paid with state money. Thousands of UW employees are paid partially or fully with non-state sources of revenue. For instance, many researchers have won federal grant money that helps pay their salaries. Other staffers, such as for a pre-college program, are federally funded.

They have to take furloughs and the corresponding pay cut even though the state has assured UW officials that the non-state funded parts of the unpaid salaries, such as federal grant money, would not be taken away, [UW System spokesman David] Giroux said.

"What the researchers are pointing out is that not only does that not help the state financially, it actually hurts the state," UW-Madison Chancellor Biddy Martin told regents last week.

Where seasoned leadership lets us down, a savvy, first-term legislator, Rep. Kilda Helen Roys, injects some common sense into the budget process. (As a Madison area legislator, she undoubtedly also represents large numbers of state and UW System employees, making her proposal good politics as well.)

Rep. Kelda Helen Roys (D-Madison) issued the following statement on her proposed amendment to the state budget, a motion that would only furlough state employees if doing so would result in a net savings to the state:

"A blanket furlough of all state workers may, in some cases, actually end up increasing the cost to state taxpayers.

Some examples of this include workers whose furlough times will need to be staffed by other workers at overtime pay rates (time and a half or more), workers whose positions are funded by federal or non-GPR dollars, and workers whose positions bring money into the state through matching funds based on the hours they work, like university researchers.

Part of this is making sure that state employee furloughs actually save taxpayer money. My amendment ensures that furloughs for state workers will be implemented strategically, at a savings to the state. "

Here's more from the Wisconsin State Journal.

My prediction: PR will triumph over common sense. But, stay tuned.

You have read this article budget / Education / University of Wisconsin / UW System / Wisconsin with the title budget. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/06/budget-balancing-for-dummies.html. Thanks!

Cal Grant on the Chopping Block

I thought we'd seen the worst of it when yesterday the California Community College system began discussing enrollment reductions of 250,000 students. Now California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed to eliminate the Cal Grant--the state's Pell--affecting 100,000 low-income students each year.

I'm not sure where my nausea stems from at this very moment-- my pregnancy, or this insane bit of short-sighted policy-making. Forgive the Terminator, for he knows not what he does....

You have read this article Arnold Schwarzenegger / budget / Cal Grant / California Community College System / financial aid / low income / Pell Grant with the title budget. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/05/cal-grant-on-chopping-block.html. Thanks!

FY 2010 Federal Education Budget

The Obama Administration released details of the President's FY 2010 federal budget today.

Here is a fact sheet from the Office of Management and Budget.
Here is full education budget proposal.

In education, there are number of notable increases with regard to teaching and learning:

• The Teacher Incentive Fund would receive a five-fold increase and would focus on more than just teacher compensation reform, but also a broader range of activities to improve teaching quality
  
• A seven-fold increase in School Improvement Grants -- which can be used for professional development -- from $606 million to $4.5 billion
  
• A $15 million appropriation for Teach For America
• $100 million more for the ARRA-authorized What Works and Innovation Fund
• $10 million increase to the School Leadership program to expand efforts to recruit, train, and retain principals and assistant principals in high-need school districts

There are also several initiatives and programs focused on college access and completion:

• The maximum Pell Grant award is increased by $200, to $5,550. It also shifts the Pell program to the mandatory side of the budget and ties future Pell increases to the Consumer Price Index-plus-1 percentage point.
  
• $500 million in 2010 for a new five-year Access and Completion Incentive Fund to support innovative state efforts to help low-income students succeed and complete their college education.
  

You have read this article Barack Obama / budget / college access / college completion / Education / federal / higher education / leadership / teacher quality with the title budget. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/05/fy-2010-federal-education-budget.html. Thanks!