This year, March will not only bring with it the tidings of spring; it may also bring a less welcome “s”—sequestration. In and of itself, sequestration is not a sinister villain; it’s a means to deficit reduction. However, the process does employ simple across the board cuts (rather than more difficult, carefully considered ones) in order to reduce the federal budget, and as might be expected, such cuts impact programs indiscriminately, including higher education. So, as you hear more and more about sequestration as the clock ticks ever closer to March 1, here is a quick overview of how it is likely to affect MCC.
The Albany Times-Union today offered a look at how New York state colleges and universities will be impacted by sequestration. Collectively, they will lose $110 million in the current budget year, a timeline that does not allow for institutional planning to absorb such reductions. The paper estimates that over 4,000 work-study positions would be lost across state colleges and universities, and while Pell grants are exempted from sequestration cuts this year, about 4,500 students would lose aid in other federal programs.
In addition to those financial aid-related cuts (that impact students directly), the American Association of Community Colleges’ assessment is that community colleges will be impacted chiefly through cuts to grant programs, including TRIO, GEAR UP, Title III-A, TAACCCT, and Perkins. Depending on the funding source of the program (current-year or prior-year allocation), it could be reduced midstream or see reductions next cycle.
A less obvious impact of sequestration is in level and timeliness of services delivered by the federal government, which will see a 5% across-the-board reduction in personnel dollars. Another underreported result is long term: sequestration puts in place lower appropriation caps for spending each year from 2014 through 2021. In other words, Congress must pass a smaller budget each year or face automatic, across the board cuts, and after this year, Pell will be subject to sequestration.
There do not seem to be many reasonable people arguing against deficit reduction, so that’s not really the issue. Rather, the argument is for a balanced approach to deficit reduction that considers the value added of higher education and job training programs. Farmers always warn against eating the seed corn. I would hope that Congress heeds the wisdom in that simple admonition: now is not the time to cut the very programs that will help us move from economic recession to economic growth. Let’s hope that the only madness this March is on the basketball court, not in the Congress.
What are your thoughts about sequestration? About federal funding for higher education? Share them on the blog.
Anne M. Kress
President's Office
02/27/2013 |