Search News


Browse Archives

News

The Senate Sheds Education Aid

February 9, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Hope you haven't spent that stimulus money yet.

A compromise amendment worked out by moderate Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate late Friday slashed billions of dollars that would have flowed to colleges and universities in the Senate's original version, with the biggest cuts coming in education aid to states and funds to modernize college facilities.

To the relief of advocates for students, the compromise legislation sustained $13.9 billion to increase the maximum Pell Grant for needy students, which budget cutters had eyed. College and student lobbyists had worked aggressively late last week as various drafts of the compromise amendment emerged showing Pell funds in and out of the plan, but when Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) revealed the final plan's contents late Friday evening, Pell was in.

The one area important to higher education that seemed to benefit from the changes was biomedical research. The Senate compromise would provide $10 billion in new funds to the National Institutes of Health, almost $8 billion of which would be for scientific studies.

Senate leaders worked closely with the White House to craft the new version of the stimulus bill, which cut more than $100 billion out of a package that, when originally introduced in the Senate late last month, stood at close to $900 billion, significantly more than the $819 billion version passed by the House. With Democrats in the Senate lacking enough votes to ensure passage, and poll numbers suggesting that Republican attacks on the "spendulus" package filled with funds that wouldn't stimulate the economy were taking hold with the American public, the small group of moderates sought to cut it back.

Among the biggest changes for higher education is the outright elimination of a $3.5 billion "higher education facilities modernization fund" designed to be divided among states to finance renovations of "shovel ready" campus buildings (the House bill contains $6 billion for such a fund). College officials, anticipating the injection of funds, have been dusting off proposals for facilities that have gone wanting because their states couldn't finance them or they couldn't raise outside money for them.

The Senate version would also provide significantly less money to states that have been counting on the stimulus package to help them backfill budget gaps for education programs. The original Senate legislation, like the House version, would have created a $39 billion "stabilization" fund designed to be distributed to states to keep their higher education and K-12 budgets at their 2008 levels, as well as $25 billion in additional money for states to use to sustain crucial public services, including education.

Under the revised Senate version, the entire stabilization fund would be cut to $39 billion, with about $31.5 billion to be used by states to protect their K-12 and higher education budgets and the other $7.5 billion to go to states as "incentive grants" to reward them for meeting key education performance measures, mostly focused on high school graduation rates.

This is likely to be a major issue in states such as Missouri, where Gov. Jay Nixon's agreement with university leaders to keep higher education whole in the 2010 budget, in exchange for freezing tuition, depends on the federal stimulus funds to make it work.

While public university officials very much hope the eventual enacted legislation will hew closer to the House level, they are also concerned about how tying the federal funds to the state's 2008 spending levels could limit the ability of some states to tap into the funds for higher education. States that cut back their spending significantly earlier in the decade, but did not impose major funding cuts in 2009, for instance, "would receive little or no federal support under this formula," the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges said in a letter to its member presidents this weekend.

Several other pots of research money were also eliminated or reduced in the Senate compromise.

The cuts in education-related programs were admittedly difficult for some of those directly involved in the negotiations. "It's a painful area for all of us, as Democrats, to make these cuts in education assistance," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who is assistant majority leader in the Senate.

Whether they have gone too far in their trimming, especially in areas such as education, may depend in large part on the reaction of House Democrats, who passed their version of the legislation without any Republican support and reacted coolly to the revised Senate plan. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the stimulus bill tomorrow, and lawmakers from the House and Senate (almost certainly with the close involvement of the Obama administration) will then try to hammer out differences between the bills to come up with a version of the measure that can pass both houses and win the president's signature.

On television news shows on Sunday, Lawrence Summers, the Obama administration's point man on the stimulus package, specifically mentioned higher education as an area that is likely to be in dispute as the House and Senate craft a compromise, and hinted the administration might favor more than the Senate bill would provide. "There are crucial areas, support for higher education, that are things that are in the House bill that are very, very important to the president," Summers said.

A chart comparing the House and Senate versions, as modified, is below. The chart is based on a summary of the Senate compromise released Sunday (and available on the Appropriations Committee's Web site) that specifically notes that it does not contain all programs that would be funded by the bill; and on reports from higher education officials tracking the legislation. So what's below is subject to change as more details become available:

The Stimulus and Higher Education

  House Senate
Aid for Students    
Pell Grants $15.6 billion to increase maximum grant by $500 and eliminate shortfall $13.9 billion to increase maximum grant and close shortfall
College Work Study $490 million Not included
Perkins Loans Not included $61 million for capital contributions
Loan Limits Increase limit on unsubsidized loans by $2,000 Not included
Higher Education Tax Credit Temporarily replace Hope tax credit with $2,500 credit available for four years of college. Credit phases out for individuals with income of $80,000, $160,000 for couples. Credit is 40 percent refundable. Cost: $13.7 billion over 10 years Temporarily replace Hope tax credit with $2,500 credit
available for four years of college. Credit phases out for individuals with
income of $80,000, $160,000 for couples. Credit is 30 percent refundable. Cost: $12.9 billion over 10 years
529 savings plans Not included Allow computers to count as qualified expenses under 529 savings plans
Education Aid for States $39 billion for school districts and public colleges, distributed through existing formulas $26.7 billion for school districts and public colleges, distributed through existing formulas (reduced from $39 billion)
  $25 billion to states for “high priority” needs, “which may include education” $9.5 billion to states for “high priority” needs, “which may include education” (reduced from $25 billion)
Infrastructure    
College/School Facilities (through Education Department) $6 billion for “higher education modernization, renovation, repair"; $1.5 billion for grants and loans to colleges, schools, and local governments for energy efficiency None (eliminated $3.5 billion to improve technology infrastructure of higher education facilities)
National Institute of Standards and Technology $300 million to construct research buildings at colleges Not included
Agricultural Research Service $209 million for facilities N/A
Computer centers (at public libraries and community colleges) Not included $200 million
Energy Department Not included $330 million for laboratory infrastructure
Scientific Research    
National Science Foundation $2 billion for research grants, $900 million for equipment and facilities, and $100 million for science education $1 billion for research grants (was $1.2 billion), $150 million for infrastructure, $50 million for education
NASA $600 million for climate change and other research $450 million for science, specifically earth science missions (was $500 million)
National Institutes of Health $1.5 billion for biomedical research, $2 billion for facilities renovation and capacity building $7.85 billion for biomedical research (was originally $1.35 billion); $300 million for shared equipment
Energy Department $2 billion for energy efficiency research; $2 billion for basic physical science research $100 million for advanced computer R&D
Homeland Security Not included $14 million for cybersecurity research
National Institute of Standards and Technology Not included $168 million for external grants (was $218 million)
Agriculture Department Cooperative State Research, Education and Economic Service Not included None (was $100 million for Agriculture and Food Research Institute)
Job Training $4 billion $3.25 billion, including $1.95 billion for adult and dislocated workers (was $3.5 billion)
Other    
AmeriCorps Not included $200 million (was $160 million)
Teacher quality partnership grants $100 million $50 million (was $100 million)
Preparing health care workers $600 million for training primary care doctors, dentists and nurses Not included
Student Aid Administration $50 million to help Education Department administer student aid in changing student loan environment Not included
Help for Lenders $10 million for larger subsidies for lenders Not included
Arts $50 million for National Endowment for the Arts Not included
Rural distance learning and telemedicine (Agriculture Department) Not included $100 million (was $200 million)
See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Senate Sheds Education Aid

  • The republicans' fear
  • Posted by HSR0601 on February 9, 2009 at 4:55am EST
  • Basically the mere way to compete with the cheap labor costs can be a advanced education/science, then the one who is capable of solving its problems is most likely to resolve any of them, I suppose. A person with common sense may notice by now why the republicans struggle to discard education budget.

  • Posted by Pell is NOT Stimulus Anyway on February 9, 2009 at 8:45am EST
  • Rolling back loan rates and terms to pre-HERA 2005 would be, however. It would benefit students and an industry that has all but effectively been killed. Variable rates would be greatly beneficial, and better opps for consolidation would be, to.

  • Pork masquerading as stimulus...
  • Posted by feudi pandola on February 9, 2009 at 9:40am EST
  • It's hard to fathom how either the Senate or Congressional stimulus bills will do what Mr. Obama says they'll do. We've been scammed already by the Wall Street Bush Bailout. Do we really need to give our kids and grandkids another $800 Billion debt to pay? A much wiser move would be cancel the second traunch of $350 Bln and use that money to fund a 4% ceiling on mortgage rates and let the economy do what's it's designed to do...make good paying jobs.

    If these bills pass as is, in nine months time a loaf of bread will cost about $8.00 as the economy floods with that funny money
    they print in Washington DC.

  • Stimulative? No. Worthwhile? You betcha.
  • Posted by Robert , PhD Student on February 9, 2009 at 9:41am EST
  • As much of the money devoted to Pell Grants does not come until a few years from now, Pell Grants are generally not stimulative. Most of the proposed education aid, however, is quite worthwhile in the long run. It should be able to stand alone as a bill in the future that can be passed under regular order without a credible threat of a filibuster.

    Democrats, save the domestic nonstimulative priorities for later...the important parts of the agenda (like education) will stand on their own.

  • (Economics) Education and Economic Stimulus
  • Posted by Tom Riddell on February 9, 2009 at 10:10am EST
  • 1. Did the "spendulus" critics ever take an intro macroeconomics class? Government spending is by far the quickest way to stimulate the economy. It's spending, it creates jobs and it has a multiplier effect. (Plus, $800 or 900 billion probably isn't going to be enough anyway....)
    2. Are the critics of spending on public schools all across the country the same folks who favored No Child Left Behind and failed to support its requirements with adequate funding?

  • Macroeconomics and government spending
  • Posted by feudi pandola on February 9, 2009 at 10:50am EST
  • The multiplier effect from government spending sure worked wonders with the Wall Street Bailout didn't it? The DJIA went from 14,000 to about 8,000 AFTER the feds flooded the banks with the first $350 Bln traunch.

    What does macroecononomcs say when the only liquidity going into the market is coming from running up trillions in federal debt? The multiplier effect only works when there is liquidity within the general economy. If that doesn't exist, and it doesn't, then all federal spending does is crowd out private investors from the money markets, and create inflation because we'll have too much liquidity chasing too few goods. That's why we'll be paying $8.00 for a loaf of bread if these bills all pass as is.

  • Keeping people out of unemployment
  • Posted by Lianna , PsyD on February 9, 2009 at 2:05pm EST
  • I think that it is important to remember that keeping people in school, is often keeping them employed. Many students are using work-study aide grants (not myself) to offset the enormous burden of student loans. Others, like myself, are working full-time while completing my doctorate... in 4 years, without these education stimulus packages, where will the new doctors come from? China?

    It is essential that we keep the motivated individuals who will bear the burden of the current failing economy for the next 40-80 years supported while they become educated enough to actually contribute more than minimum wage skill sets. As well, these are the people that will be paying the highest taxes in the end... doesn't it all come full circle?

    We must keep looking futuristically, understanding that thousands of immediate infrastructure job creations will not outlive the presidency. This (just like the Wall Street Bailout) is one more necessary step to shore up our failing system. It'll take the next 3-4 years before we see a "true" picture of the outcome.

  • The Funds for Education is offensive
  • Posted by beverley evans , Associate Professor at Duquesne University on February 9, 2009 at 3:15pm EST
  • To Whomever will listen,
    Our college is a private university, and as it has been harder and harder for students to secure loans I see fewer "american dream stories" and mostly "already rich" stories. I am concerned about our college's diversity and the concept tht all students should have a fair shot at a college education. I was a strong and active advocate for Obama, and I am profoundly saddened that this is where we choose to be "bi-partisan," with children's educations, their lifes and ultimately our future! I can't believe Wall street can give billions in bonuses to people who failed at their jobs and we as a nation can't find a way to make a degree a realistic goal for all students who work hard. Shame on the republicans who can afford to send their kids to private schools and colleges without hardship who aren't touched by this, and shame on the democrats who will look the other way on this one just to get the bill through. We need to stand strong on some issues and our children's futures are one of them!
    Sincerely,
    Beverley Cush Evans, Ph.D.

  • What About the Higher Education Investment Act?
  • Posted by Frank G. Splitt , Member at The Drake Group on February 9, 2009 at 8:45pm EST
  • Doug Lederman reports in "The Senate Sheds Education Aid," that "a compromise amendment worked out by moderate Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate late Friday slashed billions of dollars that would have flowed to colleges and universities in the Senate’s original version, with the biggest cuts coming in education aid to states and funds to modernize college facilities." What about the Higher Education Investment Act?

    The Senate action certainly does not bode well for the Higher Education Investment Act proposed in the December 16, 2008, open letter to (then) President-Elect Obama as a consequence of leadership by Vartan Gregorian and the Carnegie Foundation of New York.

    The letter, signed by many college and university officials as well as associations, had a noble purpose and was well stated—urging much needed investment in public higher education to rebuild America's economy. See the Carnegie Foundation of New York Website (http://www.carnegie.org/) for access to the letter and the related press release, "Educators Urge Obama to Invest in Public Higher Education to Rebuild America's Economy."

    According to the letter: "investment initially should focus on infrastructure: building essential classroom and research buildings and equipping them with the latest technologies." Economy." A commitment of 5 percent of the economic stimulus package—in the range of $40 to $45 billion—toward higher education facilities was requested "to provide the stimulus that will propel the nation forward in resolving its current economic crisis and lay the groundwork for international economic competitiveness and the well-being of American families into the future."

    But all is not lost.

    As Lederman also reported, Lawrence Summers, the Obama administration’s point man on the stimulus package, specifically mentioned (on this past Sunday's television news shows) higher education as an area that is likely to be in dispute as the House and Senate craft a compromise, and hinted the administration might favor more than the Senate bill would provide, saying “There are crucial areas, support for higher education, that are things that are in the House bill that are very, very important to the president.”

    Still, I'm afraid the government can be caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place when it comes to investing in public colleges and universities as outlined in the proposed Higher Education Investment Act. There will be opposition and potential pitfalls besides.

    Re: opposition, the Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/) sponsored a full-page ad in today's (Feb. 9, '09) Wall Street Journal that led with a strawman-like quote from then (Jan. 9, '09) President-elect Barack Obama: "There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy." There followed the statement, "With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true."

    Some 250 university professors and 3 Nobel Laureates signed on to say they "do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve government performance." They go on to say: To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."

    Clearly then, there will be strong opposition to proposals such as the Higher Education Investment Act. In view of this likely opposition and to ensure the proposal has every chance of success, it is suggested that the text of Higher Education Investment Act be made unequivocally restrictive in the sense that the federal funds can only be used as intended.

    Re: potential pitfalls, many of America's public colleges and universities are part of the big-time college sports entertainment business—including some of the schools that signed on to the letter. These schools have opted to invest heavily in athletic facilities. In so doing, they not only have compromised their academic missions, but also now find themselves in a position where they must service very large debts during economic hard times.

    The situation is somewhat akin to economic stimulus mechanisms that provide $billions in bailouts to mismanaged banks in order for them to continue to do what they are supposed to be doing as part of their core business.

    Unless safeguards are developed, the government could very well end up investing in the college sports entertainment business rather than infrastructure: building essential classroom and research buildings and equipping them with the latest technologies.

    To mitigate against the potential subversion of the aims of the proposed Higher Education Investment Act, consideration should be given to the following:

    In the paragraph beginning with: "A federal infusion of capital avoids the unnecessary entanglement of the federal government....," expand the sentence beginning with: "Federal funds should be conditional on states’ agreement ....," to read as follows:

    Federal funds should be conditional on states’ agreement: 1) not to use these federal funds as an excuse to reduce budgetary commitments to universities, 2) not to use these funds for payment of expenses in anyway related to a school's sports entertainment business, and 3) to accept requirements for transparency, accountability, and oversight to assure that the funds are being used for their intended academic purpose.

    To appreciate the necessity of the (added) last two conditionals, one need only be aware of the fact that schools supporting big-time college football and men's basketball programs are under the stranglehold of the college sports entertainment industry as well as aware of the government's pitiful experience with the TARP bailout program for America's banking system.

    The last thing the Carnegie Foundation would want see is the taking of federal funds to enhance athletics programs already fueled by government subsidies. School officials supported by boards of governors populated by wealthy sports boosters—including corporate and banking executives—would have no problem following Mark Twain's maxim: " It is better to take what does not belong to you than to let it lie around neglected."