««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
School Services of California, Inc.
Community College Update
September 18, 1996
««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»

Lines Drawn on Federal Education Budget

With the fall Congressional recess only weeks away, federal education funding faces a flat appropriation in the budgets proposed for next year by both the House of Representatives and the Senate subcommittee. And as of September 12, both versions are nearly $3 billion below the funding level proposed by President Clinton. The President's proposal allows for growth and cost-of-living adjustments for federally funded programs, provisions missing from the Congressional versions. (The major difference between the House and Senate versions is Goals 2000 funding, which is cut out altogether by the House, and funded to the tune of $340 million by the Senate.)

The struggle over federal funding is reminiscent of last year's protracted fight, but the stakes are somewhat lower and the balance of power appears somewhat different. It is interesting to note that the severe cuts proposed by the House a year ago are replaced by plans for flat funding in this election year, evidence of increasing support for education &emdash; or at least acknowledgment of the education issue's political clout. Moreover, there is money available for a compromise &emdash; the House budget proposes about $10 billion more than the President proposed for defense.

The President's hand is also strengthened because of the looming November general election. Legislators facing re-election are hesitant to slash education funding. They are more eager to return home and start campaigning, so are willing to compromise, or even abandon, their positions in return for a quick Presidential signature and an early recess, which might occur as soon as September 25.

&emdash; Bob Blattner
[Posted 9/18/96]