Washington
The chairman of the U.S. Senate's education committee introduced a bill on Wednesday that would pump $23-billion into state budgets for school districts and colleges just as money from the federal stimulus law begins to run out.
The bill, introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin, a Democrat of Iowa, would give states money to fill budget gaps and avoid layoffs once money from the stimulus measure's State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, which gave states $39.6-billion for education, is spent.
The new bill would match the amount allocated for education jobs in HR 2847, jobs legislation that was enacted into law last month.
"We have a real cliff problem right now," Mr. Harkin said on Wednesday at a hearing of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on education, referring to the plight states will face when stimulus money for education is gone, after 2012. "This is a real crisis that we have."
The education-jobs bill is classified as an "emergency bill," meaning that pay-as-you-go rules, which typically require federal spending to be offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget, do not apply. Providing money for education is worth incurring extra debt, Mr. Harkin argued.
"How can you argue, on the one hand, that it's all right for a kid to borrow to go to college, but it's not all right to borrow to make sure there is a college to go to?" he said.
If the bill is enacted, the funds would be made available to states immediately and distributed by governors based on the anticipated size of state cuts to both elementary and secondary education and higher education.
At the hearing, Marc S. Herzog, chancellor of Connecticut's community-college system, praised the bill, saying that now is a "precarious time for community colleges" as enrollments increase and state budgets shrink.
"There is no alternative to some form of federal assistance," Mr. Herzog said.
Comments
1. 22221103 - April 14, 2010 at 04:16 pm
I love how we throw more money at something without waiting to see that all cuts that can be made are accomplished.
I really feel sorry for my kids and future grandkids that will be saddled with this ever increasing debt. Talk about drunkin sailors. The great education industrial complex strikes again!
2. lsuagecon - April 14, 2010 at 04:36 pm
We don't throw money around. We just run deficits or surpluses when the circumstances require it. Also, remember your kids and grandkids will get the debt, but they will get all the income as well as the baby boomers move on. In addition, the younger generation will get future surpluses as the economy improves. The important thing is to keep the economy growing at 3-4%per year and we will pay down the debt over the next ten or so years. The current economic group in DC is doing a great job!
3. tridaddy - April 15, 2010 at 09:10 am
So, let's just say that my children are directly responsible for covering my debt when I'm cold and in the grave. I have left no money to cover my remaining debts and the law of the land says my direct descendents (children) must cover my debts. How is was it fair to them that I live a high life and left them holding the bag? On a personal scale we look at this example and say "poor children, what an irresponsible parent". But think of it from a national / gov't point of view and somehow folks begin to think it is okay. I disagree that our children and grandchildren will reap our incomes. Our expectation of continued grow is unsubstainable. Why do we all expect to live like the 1 - 2% of the wealthiest people in the world?
4. 22221103 - April 15, 2010 at 11:28 am
lsuagecon - "our children will get all the income as well as the baby boomers move on." Are you kidding. Our children will not only have to pay down the huge debt, but they'll have to support the huge population of baby boomers on retirement that want all their perks funded the rest of their lives. That means higher taxes for a long time. Do you run deficits in your home to keep up your standard of living?
5. johnfarley - April 15, 2010 at 01:27 pm
Hey, No. 1/4, where were you when Bush spent $1 trillion to invade Iraq? Or when he added Medicare drug benefits without paying for it? Or when he cut taxes for the rich without cutting the budget? And all that when the economy was expanding and we should have been building on the surplus Bush inherited from Clinton. I am sick of all the newfound fiscal conservatism among people who said nothing when Bush and the Republicans ran amock.
As to Harkin's proposal, have you looked at what a disaster state budgets are right now? If we don't do something, it will be exactly as Harkin says - Higher education will go off a cliff when the stimulus money runs out.
6. middleamerican - April 15, 2010 at 01:50 pm
lsuagecon, you're highly uninformed to put it mildly. A 3-4% annual growth rate in real GDP will not come close to doing the job with the deficit spending that has occurred. Keynsian economics have nver proven to be successful and our current keynsian economics on steroids is doomed to fail.
back on topic, federal funding of operational costs for state schools? That should be of concern to all of us in academe.
7. dannyboy57 - April 15, 2010 at 08:20 pm
I travel around the world to visit overseas universities and there is public and private investment in higher education. Then I come home to more budget cuts. This is a very wise bill. It's essential. How about building less useless equipment for the military!
8. movasima - April 21, 2010 at 11:04 am
<Comment removed by moderator>