Skip to content
News and updates

News and updates

Higher Ed Agendas Under Obama or Romney

Posted on

President Obama’s campaign recently released a brochure detailing how he might approach education issues during a second term. And there are now several articles popping up, including a comprehensive one from Inside Higher Ed, that look as how either an Obama second term or a new President Romney would look like.

Based on his first term, a second Obama term seems likely to bring greater scrutiny and regulation to all aspects of higher education. But the President is equally likely to continue his strong support for federal financial aid programs and his emphasis on college access and completion for low-income students, at least within the constraints of tight federal budgets. A Romney administration would likely propose changes to federal financial aid eligibility and student loan repayment options, but could offer some relief on reporting regulations.

Though they might handle it differently, neither administration is likely to go easy on colleges in terms of accountability. The focus of either administration would certainly be on rising tuition and questions about quality and value.

Sequestration Update

Posted on

Even though Congress is in recess until after the November elections, efforts to find a solution to the so-called “fiscal cliff” continue among members of the Senate. A bipartisan effort aimed at avoiding scheduled increases in taxes and automatic, across-the-board spending cuts early next year are taking shape in Senate, with attention focused on replacing the fiscal cliff with an alternative deficit reduction package in the lame-duck session this December. The efforts are focused on establishing a framework for deficit reduction that would replace the scheduled cuts, or sequester, and tax increases before the end of this year and then require the next Congress to come up with alternative spending cuts and revenue increases to tame the deficit in 2013. This effort is led by Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Michael Bennet (D-CO).

Despite this and other discussions currently underway, Congress is far from agreement on a deal to prevent sequestration from taking place in January. President Obama reiterated his pledge last week that he would veto any legislation that would allow tax cuts to continue for the wealthiest Americans, while House Republicans have already backed extending all tax cuts through 2013 and support cuts in entitlement spending to avert the sequester. It is still too early to tell what the final outcome might be, but it does seem like everyone at least agrees that the sequester would be bad for the economy and should be avoided. I just worry that the alternative will be just as challenging for research universities.

2013 Higher Ed Agenda

Posted on

Inside Higher Ed published a good article in today’s edition that details the higher education issues facing the next Congress. Budget issues will continue to be the most pressing issue confronting lawmakers when they convene the 113th Congress in January. Additionally, Congress will need to deal with looming student loan interest rate increases (July 2013), a shortfall in the Pell Grant Program beginning in 2014, and reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA). This article sets the stage for our advocacy efforts in 2013.

GAO Review Requested of Regulations that Hinder Research Universities

Posted on

Earlier today Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL), Chair of the House Research and Science Education Subcommittee, asked the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review “regulatory actions that hinder our nation’s research universities.”

In his letter to GAO, the Chairman asked GAO to look at three general questions: What federal requirements, not limited to legislative mandates, reporting requirements, and regulations create reporting burdens for research universities; how research university requirements under OMB Circulars A-21, A-133, and Federal Acquisition Regulation 4.703 balance regulatory burden with accountability for federal funds; and what might be the potential benefits and disadvantages of modifying requirements, including those “that experts and universities have identified as most burdensome.”

Congressman Brooks wrote that it was evident, based on a recommendation in the National Research Council’s report on research universities, two hearings he convened in his subcommittee to follow up on the report, and additional conversations he held with the university research community, that “the current regulatory environment may be limiting the growth of fundamental basic scientific research.”

Sequester Could Cost Washington State Nearly $1.7 Billion by 2017

Posted on

AAAS just published some new estimates of sequestration impacts on science budgets through 2017. The report gets into individual agencies (in some instances, directorates) and states, and includes both a balanced scenario and a nondefense-only scenario. Washington state could lose nearly $1.7 billion dollars in federal R&D funding over the next five years. You can read the full report at http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/fy2013/SeqBrief.shtml.