federal policy

What Does Governor Romney’s Pledge Not to Cut Education Spending Really Mean?

/ The Old Crank / 1 Comment

During last week’s debate, Mitt Romney made what sounded like, to many, a straightforward promise not to cut federal education spending if elected: “I’m not going to cut education funding. I don’t have any plan to cut education funding and—and grants that go to people going to college… I’m not planning on making changes there.”

How seriously you take this pledge seems to depend a lot on which candidate you support. But it’s fair to argue that there’s some wiggle room in Romney’s statement. For one thing, we know that presidents can propose what are ultimately going to be de facto program cuts to some programs but call them something else. Over the last several budgets, for example, the Obama administration has proposed what are essentially cuts to certain federal education programs by proposing to “consolidate” them under broader program titles. While that doesn’t necessarily mean that overall education spending gets cut, it can lead to certain funding streams being reduced under the new consolidated programs, whatever they may be. (Thus the administration was able to say that they proposed an overall increase to education in FY11, even while creating conditions that essentially resulted in the elimination of federal funding for family literacy when it consolidated away the Even Start program.)

There are also programs outside the Department of Education budget, such as the Corporation for National and Community Service (to pick one example) that provide educational programs. This you could eliminate CNCS while still claiming you are technically not cutting education, even though elimination of this program would effectively reduce federal education resources. (By this logic, some would argue that eliminating funding for PBS, as Romney did say he would do, would also effectively be an education cut.)

And while the automatic, across-the-board sequestration cuts that are currently set to occur on January 2nd can’t by any stretch be considered Romney policy, if he is elected and those cuts go into effect, he will in fact be presiding over a significant cut to education spending, and/or be working with Congress on legislation to eliminate sequestration with another plan.  His pledge to not cut education spending would be more significant, I think, if he would make it explicit that his sequester replacement plan would leave education spending untouched.

Most importantly, as we’ve seen over the last several years, Congress and the administration often must compromise in order to get a budget passed, and in that compromise the administration may be forced to cut programs it would rather not cut in order to preserve funding for programs it believes are more important. If Romney is elected, we can assume that Republicans will retain control of the House, and possibly gain control of the Senate (where Paul Ryan would have the tiebreaker vote). Doesn’t it seem likely that Congressional Republicans would craft a budget with significant education cuts whether Romney likes it or not? And then what would he do? Would Romney actually pick a fight with his own party over these cuts?

I think it’s safe to assume that the Obama administration did not intend to reduce education spending when it took office in 2009. But that hasn’t prevented federal education spending from declining significantly. Is it reasonable to expect that a Romney administration would make the same effort—and with better success—at fighting off Congressional spending cuts to education than the Obama administration has?

A good followup question to Romney about his debate statement would be: Does your pledge not to cut education spending include a promise to veto any legislation passed by Congress that includes education cuts? I hope this comes up again in a future debate.

P.S. For adult education advocates, it’s also worth thinking about what other areas of the budget Romney might propose going after in order to preserve K-12 and higher education funding. Is adult education part of the education funding Romney is pledging to protect? (Doubtful.) If not, would adult education be even more vulnerable to cuts as Romney struggles to find other areas of discretionary spending to eliminate in order to offset the K-12/higher education spending holds?

International Literacy Day: An Opportunity to Think About How Literacy Is Viewed Around the World

/ The Old Crank

September 8th was International Literacy Day (ILD). Reading the ILD coverage over the weekend was an interesting reminder of how literacy is viewed around the world as we head into Adult Education and Family Literacy week in the U.S., which begins today.

The theme of this year’s International Literacy Day 2012, for example, was “Literacy and Peace.” From UNESCO’s ILD page:

Literacy contributes to peace as it brings people closer to attaining individual freedoms and better understanding the world, as well as preventing or resolving conflict. The connection between literacy and peace can be seen by the fact that in unstable democracies or in conflict-affected countries it is harder to establish or sustain a literate environment. (my emphasis)

Irina Bokova, UNESCO Director General:

Education brings sustainability to all the development goals, and literacy is the foundation of all learning. It provides individuals with the skills to understand the world and shape it, to participate in democratic processes and have a voice, and also to strengthen their cultural identity. (my emphasis)

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s message for International Literacy Day 2012:

Literacy provides tools for men and women to better understand the world and shape it to meet their aspirations.  It is a source of individual dignity and a motor for the healthy development of society.  International Literacy Day is an opportunity to celebrate this transformative force and mobilize to make the most of it. (my emphasis)

On Friday, South Sudan officially launched a nationwide campaign as part of the “education for all programme”, seeking a 50 percent reduction in adult illiteracy among its population by 2015. A UNESCO official recently claimed that South Sudan had the worst literacy rate in the world, at 27%:

Telar Riing Deng, South Sudan’s presidential advisor on legal affairs described lack of education as an enemy, which keeps a nation in the past.

“Illiteracy is the enemy within. We have to promote literacy that ensures the culture of peace in our societies,” he said, while speaking on behalf of South Sudan President, Salva Kiir.

South Sudan should focus on building a nation of peace and tolerance, while focusing on education systems that provide opportunities for self-actualization of citizens, he said.

Zarina Patel, in an article published in recognition of ILD by Pakistan’s financial daily Business Recorder:

There is a strong relationship between literacy and peace. Literacy ensures development, peace and democracy. It is vital to amalgamate literacy with peace-building processes in order to promote harmony among different sects of a society. Literacy provides youth and adults basic skills they need to live with harmony in a society. (my emphasis)

The relationship between literacy and culture, democratic participation, civil rights, individual freedom, and peace are important to many people who participate in adult education in the U.S., but those themes are largely absent from adult literacy policy discussions in the U.S. Most of the traction we get on this issue from a policy perspective comes from focusing the discussion on adult literacy’s relationship to workforce development, often framed by the perspective of employers (AEFL week statements this week from around the country will likely talk about how adult education programs help people get the skills and credentials required by employers, for example). As a policy tool, AEFL week serves to amplify that connection, but, alternatively, it might be interesting one day to promote AEFL week as an opportunity to emphasize how adult literacy can strengthen communities in over ways, like improving health, promoting conflict resolution, enhancing cultural pride, and encouraging civic involvement.

NSC Estimates that 66,000 Fewer Adult Learners Would Be Served Under Sequestration

/ The Old Crank

A couple of weeks ago the National Skills Coalition released a report, “Disinvesting in the Skills of America’s Workforce,” which examined the potential impact of sequestration on key federal employment and training programs. The report estimates that Adult Basic Education (ABE) programs would serve 66,000 fewer learners if sequestration cuts go forward, as now required by law. Unlike the NEA numbers published earlier this year, NSC included not just the loss of federal dollars but also a proportional cut from required state matching funds. It includes a table that shows the impact on a state-by-state basis (click on the table to read the entire report):

NSC Sequester Analysis - Adult Education

NSC used a different methodology to calculate their estimates than the one used by the NEA for the tables they published a few months ago. The NSC’s estimate of 66,185 adult learners losing services is considerably lower than the NEA’s worst-case estimate, which was north of 200,000.

Either estimate likely understates the actual impact of sequestration on adult education because they do not include the impact of cuts to other non-defense discretionary programs that support adult education other than WIA Title II, such as Community Development Block Grants, community service programs, USCIS, and other programs. (Understandably—it would be challenging to come up with impact estimates across all of those other programs since they do not exclusively fund adult education programs.)

Interesting Look at How Federal Investments Drove Job Growth in Charlotte

/ The Old Crank

(Updated Below)

For anyone interested in job creation and job training—and the debate over the federal role in both—this story on a new Siemens turbine plant in Charlotte in yesterday’s Washington Post is probably going to be more interesting than anything you’ll read coming out of either of the political conventions:

Ask Siemens executives why they placed their bet on Charlotte and they talk about public investments such as the state-funded rail spur that runs through their facility and the city’s international airport, which recently added a fourth runway using $132 million in federal funds.

They talk about the Export-Import Bank, an independent federal agency that in January approved a $638 million loan to finance the sale of turbines to Saudi Arabia, helping Siemens beat bids from companies in Germany, South Korea and Japan.And they talk about the quality of the workforce in Charlotte, where local leaders are retooling the public education system to churn out the engineers and skilled technicians needed to operate one of the most efficient gas-turbine plants in the world.

My only quibble with this piece: I don’t understand why the austerity budgets “favored by the GOP” are set aside as if they are somehow separate from Romney’s position.

Romney’s plan for growth centers on slashing government spending while cutting tax rates sharply for everyone. Romney claims his approach would create 12 million jobs over the next four years, a conclusion that relies heavily on research by Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley.

Auerbach, who has studied the economic effects of tax cuts, said lower taxes on savings and investment do cause people to plow more money into new investments, which “should lead to faster economic growth.” But “how much, how fast” is harder to say, Auerbach said. And that approach is, in any case, less likely to be effective in a sluggish economy, he said, when businesses are holding back on new investments not because they do not have the cash but because they are “looking first at whether they can sell stuff.”

“If the question is what would [Obama and Romney] do right now to spur economic activity,” Auerbach said, “I’m not sure either platform is particularly well designed for that.”

Meanwhile, the austerity budgets favored by the GOP would cut government spending in the very areas that do seem to matter. (my emphasis) In his most recent budget, Romney’s vice-presidential running mate, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), proposed spending 25 percent less on transportation over the next decade than Obama and 31 percent less on education and training.

As part of their campaign to shrink the size of government, House Republicans also tried to kill the Export-Import Bank, which encourages exports by financing the foreign purchase of U.S. goods and services, turning a profit for taxpayers. Spiegel said the bank was a critical factor in Siemens’s decision to build turbines for export in the United States. 

Romney has endorsed the Ryan budget cited here. It’s not as if Romney has one approach and House Republicans have another one that is on some kind of separate track (“meanwhile”). Whatever the merits are of Romney’s proposal to cut tax rates in order to spur growth, by endorsing that budget, he has completely embraced the federal infrastructure and education spending cuts proposed by Ryan and his party. Those spending cuts are just as much a part of his approach as his tax rate cut proposal. And if those cuts “do seem to matter,” then the differences between the two candidate’s approaches are perhaps more significant than this article suggests.

UPDATE 9/5/12 7:22pm: Added the last sentence and edited the whole piece slightly for clarity and emphasis.