NATIONAL NEWS ‘mdash; On Wednesday, the differences between the Senate and House of Representatives versions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act were were resolved and ready to be signed into law. Many measures in the Senate bill were adopted, reducing total expenditures from $900 billion to $789 billion, and prescribing problems for higher education’s future.
Significant cutbacks for higher-education spending in the Senate version of the bill came from a compromise between a coalition of centrists led by Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). The largest reductions were $40 billion to a state stabilization fund intended to help maintain school budgets, as well as the complete removal of $20 billion for the direct financing of modernization and infrastructure projects.
Many higher-education advocates were relieved that the $13.9 billion provision to increase the maximum Pell Grant award for needy students was maintained. The National Institutes of Health also benefitted under the Senate plan with an $8 billion increase. Nearly all other scientific funding or student aid initiatives provided by the House were cut or reduced significantly.
The Senate bill is the ironic victim of the same ‘politics as usual’ for which President Barack Obama chastised Congress during Friday’s negotiations between Senate leaders. The decided spending cuts and increases reveal the Senate’s lack of understanding of how the money allocated would increase jobs and foster growth in the economy.
Much of this poor judgment can be traced to the compromise’s brokers, which led to the Senate’s passage of the bill. The chief criticism in funding higher education is whether certain spending decisions would effectively provide jobs and growth.
By Nelson’s logic, the stimulus bill should only include funding for projects that spur immediate job growth. This makes the removal of $20 billion of funding for immediate shovel-ready renovation projects confusing. Colleges faced with shrinking state budgets and endowments have shelved plans to improve and expand facilities in need. The construction sector was the first to succumb to the sub-prime fiasco and has yet to recover. The numbers of homes that began construction fell by 15 percent in December and is down 33 percent from this time last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. With fe
wer homes being built and inventories still at record highs, supplying the funds for these critical infrastructure improvements would provide the construction sector with work that would stimulate the economy on a short-term basis. Removing this funding conveys a concerning misunderstanding of the situation.
Congress seems unable to decide how far it wishes to project into the future of education. At the moment, the stimulus bill is a combination of short- and long-term spending decisions, but the haphazard manner in which spending was reduced or increased for higher education is unacceptable. Education is a long-term investment in human capital and is necessary to provide a labor force that can engage in jobs that create growth. Naive statements such as those made by Nelson regarding Pell Grants lead to decisions that make the difference between pursuing a degree or having to drop out of college. In the Senate bill, Pell Grants are maintained; they would increase by $681 over the next two years for a maximum of $4,860. These grants defer the cost of books and tuition, but also allow students to remain out of the job market and in school.
The goal of the stimulus package is to foster growth. But cutting aid that helps students get good jobs, while removing funding for short-term construction projects shows little rationale.’
In an interview with MSNBC, Nelson responded to criticism of the centrists’ compromise.
‘In Nebraska, $60 billion for education on top of $40 billion [the Department of Education’s existing budget] ‘hellip; that’s a pretty big commitment to education nationwide,’ Nelson said.
He added that governors have discretionary funds to use for construction projects in school. This would make sense if in the same compromise, the state stabilization fund had not been slashed by nearly $40 billion. States do not have matching resources to provide for infrastructure while the Senate attempts to cut the pork from the stimulus package. For Nebraska and Nelson, $60 billion may seem like a large amount ‘mdash; but Nebraska alone cannot serve as the benchmark for the entire U.S. education system. Last-minute talks on Wednesday evening still left billions cut, leaving the next choice for higher education on a separate bill that would have to go through Congress. Though it would be difficult to pass, a separate education bill could mandate expanded funding for infrastructure improvements and implement the financial-aid policies that the House proposed.
Adding to the unemployed labor pool with uneducated young people will prove disastrous in the long run, despite any short-term problems the stimulus bill may fix. Pell Grants, in particular, must be funded after the two years the stimulus bill will mandate. The grants are calculated on expected family contributions, and with troubled times, many families will reduce their contribution and expect increased grant sizes. Congress must anticipate this and provide the necessary funding to ensure that educated workers can take advantage of a revitalized economy.
Readers can contact Omair Qazi at [email protected].