Federal Policy

It’s Possible America Doesn’t Actually Know What It Wants

/ The Old Crank

By now I’ve seen a dozen or more polls like this one that show popular support for federal education spending exceeding support for other popular and well-known federal programs, including Social Security and Medicare. Often, as in this case, it’s number one, ahead of everything else.

But I wonder if the poll questions lead to results that overstate the actual popular support for federal education programs.

For example, how often are those who are polled told that federal education spending typically accounts for only about 10% of education funding in their school district, (and possibly less). Would they feel as strongly about protecting this funding knowing that it represents a relatively small amount of their school’s overall budget?

If they were given the names/purposes of specific federal education programs, would those poll as well, especially if people had no direct experience with those programs?

And obviously, it would be interesting to see the responses to these questions broken out by age group. I probably felt a lot less strongly about Medicare than I did about education when I was in my twenties. (In fact, I’m pretty sure I couldn’t have told you what Medicare was when I was in my twenties.)

Also discouraging: this same Pew Research Center poll that shows broad support for education also has “aid to needy” coming in dead last, by a pretty significant margin. Low-income children receive 70% of federal education money.

In other words, I wonder whether the positive poll numbers in support of education generally might mislead advocates into thinking there is greater support for specific federal education programs than there actually is—particularly those programs that low-income families depend on. (Of course, there may be some polling out there that I haven’t seen that does attempt to drill down a bit more on this issue.)

It Doesn’t Matter What the Huffington Post Thinks

/ The Old Crank

That’s the first thing I thought when I read this long list of sequestration effects. Yes, they’re terrible, and most are just really nonsensical from a public policy point of view. (And if you don’t have time for the whole list, just read this one.)

But what’s more significant, I think, is this: Congress has been on a two-week recess. Have they heard about any of these effects when they were back home? It’s oversimplifying to suggest that that an outcry back home would have been enough to pressure Congress into immediately doing something about this upon their return—but if they’re not hearing about the negative effects from constituents back home, that would seem to significantly diminish any chance that it will be repealed or replaced anytime soon.

Do Nonprofit Advocates Put Too Much Emphasis on the Charitable Deduction?

/ The Old Crank

I was planning to return to the charitable tax deduction issue again at some point—specifically, I wanted to delve again into the the tendency of several high-profile, Washington-based nonprofit umbrella groups to focus more on protecting the charitable deduction than advocating against budget cuts or for new revenue. But Patrick Lester, writing for the Nonprofit Quarterly, has already done a better job with this topic than I would have:

This narrow focus on the charitable deduction drew criticism from some in the nonprofit community, including Aaron Dorfman at NCRP. “Policies that incentivize charitable giving are important,” he wrote, “but nonprofits should be far more concerned about several other elements of the fiscal cliff negotiations. Our number one priority should be to raise tax rates on the wealthy by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year. We should also seek to prevent cuts to vital programs that serve poor and elderly Americans and to secure strategic investments that stimulate the economy and create jobs.”

Dorfman is right. According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, public charities that filed annual 990 forms with the IRS in 2010 derived about a third (32.2 percent) of their revenue from government sources, including grants and fees for service from government sources, such as Medicare and Medicaid. By comparison, these same charities drew 13.3 percent of their funding from private contributions. (my emphasis)

Lester also cites a 2010 Urban Institute study of human service nonprofits that found an even higher level of dependence on public funding among these groups—about 65% of total revenues.

Lester writes: “It is clear from these numbers that large swaths of the nonprofit sector are substantially dependent upon government funding.” He goes on to ask why so many mainstream nonprofit organizations have not been advocating on the broader set of federal budget issues, particularly cuts to services for the poor, and offers some interesting explanations. If you are at all interested in this issue, be sure to read the whole piece.

No Harm, No Foul

/ The Old Crank

(Updated Below)

Republicans in the House would like you to know that they haven’t really been hearing much about the sequester from their constituents.

From Roll Call this morning:

[W]hile the impacts are starting to appear in local media across the country, particularly near military bases, rank-and-file Republicans generally say they aren’t feeling much pressure yet, and they expect the sequester will simply stay in place.

“I think, generally speaking, people haven’t noticed,” said Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa, noting that the flap about canceled White House tours is one exception.

“I’m not hearing anything at home, really,” said Rep. John Campbell. The California Republican said he’s been asked about the sequester more by the press than constituents. He said he heard from one contractor who said, “You know, we may lose a contract over this, but we’ll survive.”

Campbell said Republicans going home for the Easter break are going to be focused instead on touting the GOP plan to balance the budget.

I’m not surprised that many House Republicans haven’t heard much from their constituents about the sequester. Republican members of the House (and only Republicans were interview for this story) often represent wealthier districts where, in fact, the sequester probably won’t have much of an impact.

But this does raise the question: During the upcoming House and Senate Easter recess (March 25th – April 5th), what will members (on either side of the aisle) hear about it? Do grassroots organizations have their folks prepared to meet with lawmakers during the break? Have folks back home just resigned themselves to the idea that the cuts are here to stay? Will stories that are “starting to appear” in the local media become more frequent?

There could be a lack of urgency about the sequester because many programs have not been affected yet. WIA Title II Adult education funding, for example, will not be cut until July 1st, because like many (but not all) education programs, it’s forward funded. So adult education programs aren’t going to see the effects until new grant awards are made over the summer. Plus, depending on how states decide to distribute the cut, I suppose some programs may not even see much of a decrease.

But it’s still important, I think, to speak up about the importance of federal support for adult education in our communities now, even if the sequester effects haven’t settled in yet. Remember also that sequestration is a multi-year process, and will work very differently next year. Instead of across-the-board cuts to every program, in 2014-2021 the cut will be in the form of overall budget caps. Congress and the administration will then have to figure out how to live within those reduced caps. In other words, after 2013, there are no automatic, proportional cuts to discretionary programs like adult education. It will be up to the President and Congress to decide how much to cut from each program. They could even eliminate funding altogether for some. (For those interested in the gory details, I recommend the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities latest paper on how this all works.)

I also continue to fear that over time, pressure on states to find money to shore up other places where the sequester is affecting their budgets is going to result in reduced state support for adult education, much in the way that California school districts have been snatching funds from adult education to support K-12. Which means that this is also an important time to let state lawmakers know how important adult education is in your community.

The media pays a lot of attention to the political wrangling between the administration and Congress over making some kind of deal to roll back the sequester, but without strong constituent pressure—and soon—I can’t figure out why we should expect that anything will actually be done.

Update: More on the same theme, from Brian Beutler at TPM:

It’s been nearly three weeks since President Obama issued the sequestration order. Across the country, newspapers carry reports of furloughs, airport closings, children kicked out of Head Start. The consequences are beginning to snowball. But lawmakers have reacted to the bad news with a collective shrug.

In the same week Congress is expected to pass government funding legislation that effectively locks in sequestration until the end of September, an unexpected reality is dawning on Washington: as bad as sequestration is, and was intended to be, it’s not bad enough to do what it was designed to do.

That’s left Democrats resigned to malfunctioning and underfunded government in perpetuity, and Republicans confident they can weather the coming months and turn sequestration spending levels into a new normal. (my emphasis)