Monday update from CEF, mostly related to the FY 2016 CR/budget deal… Jeff > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Joel Packer <jpacker@cef.org> > Subject: Monday Update > Date: August 31, 2015 at 6:51:04 PM EDT > To: Joel Packer <jpacker@cef.org> > > > > > REGISTER: CEF GALA 2015 <http://www.cvent.com/d/4rq3yc> > Thanks to AFT, NEA, Apple, Inc., DeVry, Education Post, National Student Clearinghouse, News Corp, AJCU, AASCU/APLU, ACE, ACT, AEE, AERA, AFSCME, AIR, ASCD/NAFME, CCSSO, Knowledge Alliance, NAFIS, NAICU, NASFAA, NASSP/NAESP/AFSA, NCCEP, NPTA/NACAC, SEIU, SSWAA, Taylor Strategies, The Raben Group, Washington Partners/COHEAO and Women in Government Relations for purchasing tables/sponsorships! > > CEF UPDATES > > CEF Gala: > We have now sold 380 seats – 3/4th of the way to our goal of 500 seats. If you have not yet purchased a seat or table, I’d appreciate it if you can do so as soon as possible. If you are thinking of purchasing an ad in the program book or purchasing a table host which includes an ad, please do so ASAP – the deadline for submitting ad copy is the end of this week! REGISTER: CEF GALA 2015 <http://www.cvent.com/d/4rq3yc>. > Please share the flyer <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B19p6j32JwToejFZOUNWQV9rX3c/view?usp=sharing> with other coalitions and groups you work with. Please retweet our Tweet <https://twitter.com/edfunding/status/632174200334209025> about the Gala. > CEF Research Committee Briefing: The last of the briefings will be this Wednesday, September 2 from 10-11:15 AM at the College Board, 1919 M Street NW, Suite 300. It will be “HEA reauthorization 101”. Again, no RSVP needed! > We want to be clear that although the topic is higher ed, the discussion will be geared more toward those with little to no background on HEA issues. Here are the panelists: > · Carrie Warick, Director of Partnerships and Policy for the National College Access Network (NCAN), moderator > · Jon Fansmith, Director, Office of Government Relations, ACE > · Robyn Hiestand, Director of Higher Education Policy, The Education Trust > · Jamey Rorison, senior research analyst, Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) > > Back to School Reception: Also on Wednesday, September 2, CEF and Magnet Schools of America will co-host our third annual Back to School reception. This is a great event on the Millennium Building Rooftop, at 1909 K Street, NW with CEF members, local educators, and Congressional staff. If you plan to attend and have not yet responded, please RSVP to communications@magnet.edu <mailto:communications@magnet.edu>. > > > > 4. Tune In to Education Talk Radio Tomorrow! I’ll be doing a live radio interview on Education Talk Radio <https://educationtalkradio.wordpress.com/> tomorrow, September 1 at 9 am. Listen live at:http://bit.ly/hm5x5S.  <http://bit.ly/hm5x5S.%C2%A0> > > > CONGRESSIONAL/ADMINISTRATION UPDATES > > 1. FY 2016 CR/Budget Deal: CQ this morning reported that “One Republican source with ties to senior GOP lawmakers and aides says congressional leaders will not entertain talk of any deal that would raise defense and domestic spending caps for just one year. “They will only do a two-year deal,” said the Republican source, who spoke anonymously to be candid. The source outlined what amounts to a potential Republican opening offer for coming talks with the White House and congressional Democrats: A fiscal package that would raise the defense budget caps by around $38 billion and domestic caps by a lesser, to-be-negotiated amount. This possible framework would “cut defense later to raise the caps now,” the source said, meaning it would extend the 2011 Budget Control Act’s (PL 112-25) spending caps by two additional years in the 2020s and use the future projected savings to pay for two years (fiscal 2016 and 2017) of higher defense spending. Under this concept, whatever level of additional domestic spending the negotiations might spawn most likely would be paid for via debt financing, the source said.” > > We want a two-year deal, so that part of the above is good news. However, it is critical that any deal raises the caps equally for defense and NDD. That parity principle was part of the original Budget Control Act, which divided the sequester cuts in equal halves between defense and NDD. The Ryan-Murray deal provided equal dollar increases in the caps for FY 14 and FY 15 for both defense and NDD. Without parity, it is unclear how small an increase NDD might get. > > 2. Dangers of a Year-Long CR: This is from our friends at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: > · CBO recently estimated that such a CR would breach the post-sequestration NDD cap by $7.2 billion. If nothing is done, that would trigger an “enforcement sequestration” after Congress adjourns for the year of about 1½ percent, meaning that programs we all care about would be cut about 1½ percent below the 2015 level. > · And this doesn’t even account for inflation, which would require a NDD funding increase over last year of roughly $10 billion. Nor does it account for population growth, even though funding needs for many programs respond to population growth. Accounting for inflation, population, and the 1½% cut implicit in the “freeze CR” means that programs will generally be in worse shape than last year by about 4% or a bit more. > · This is not true of all programs, of course; Pell still seems to have sufficient resources to serve all eligible applicants. But other programs will be in even worse shape, e.g. the costs of administering Social Security benefits. > · Why does a simple freeze CR breach the NDD post-sequestration cap, especially since that cap rises by about $1 billion from 2015 to 2016? The biggest single reason is that VA medical care, which is already funded through an advance appropriation for 2016, has been increased by $3 billion over the 2015 level. That puts every other program in the hole. > · In addition, some appropriations scoring of the last year’s provisions produce worse results this year: examples are some rescission of unneeded funding that do not save as much this year; some obligation limits or other mandatory savings that do not save as much this year; and some fee income that won’t be as large this year. Perhaps the Appropriations Committee can adjust the language in the CR to reduce (though not eliminate) these problems — but then the language is no longer completely “clean,” which could easily prompt calls to insert other language, such as bad riders > · Defense, unlike NDD, does not suffer from the scoring problems; so CBO estimates that a clean defense “freeze CR” will not breach the 2016 defense cap. > · And there are other defense issues. To begin with, a “freeze CR” will also freeze war funding at levels about $15 billion above what President Obama has requested. In reality, this is would be a $15 billion increase in regular defense funding (assuming the president’s request accurately represent the amounts needed for military engagements). So a defense freeze is not really a freeze; it is an increase. True, it is not as much as the $38 billion defense increase Congress is aiming for, but still it means that regular defense funding gets an increase more than sufficient to cover inflation, while most NDD programs will be cut below a freeze. > · In short: a “freeze CR” is really a defense increase and an NDD cut. This result defies the notion of parity and weakens all present and future attempts to negotiate parity-based increases for both defense and NDD. > > And I would add that if we end up with a year-long CR in FY 2016, then we will almost certainly end up with a year-long CR in FY 2017, meaning no investments for a second consecutive year. > > 3. New Polling: A Quinnipiac University National poll released today <http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2275> found strong public support for a big increase in federal funding for college affordability. > “American voters support 61 - 34 percent "major new spending by the federal government" to help students pay tuition at public colleges. Support is 85 - 12 percent among Democrats and 57 - 37 percent among independent voters, with Republicans opposed 59 - 36 percent. All age groups support the measure, especially voters 18 to 34 years old, who back the idea 76 - 21 percent. Support is the same among voters with or without a college degree.” > > The poll also found that voters disapprove by 51-41% shutting down the government over Planned Parenthood funding, and that if the government were shot down, voter would place more of the blame of Republicans: > > Who would you blame more for a government shutdown; the Republicans in Congress or Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress? > COLLEGE DEG > Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Yes No > Reps in Congress 41% 9% 77% 37% 40% 42% 50% 37% > Obama/Dems in Congrs 33 65 6 32 33 33 29 35 > BOTH EQUALLY(VOL) 17 18 10 21 18 16 15 18 > DK/NA 9 8 8 10 9 9 5 11 > > Also see: Poll: More voters would blame GOP for shutdown <http://thehill.com/policy/finance/252306-poll-plurality-would-blame-the-gop-for-a-government-shutdown> (The Hill) > > 4. NDD Raise the Caps Activities: > · If you have not already, PLEASE volunteer yourself and/or someone else to help hand out hats by clicking here:https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1fOKkLfxw5POLaJP5-xf4Xdioo5KvFNaE6eA4mYdCgB8/viewform?usp=send_form <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1fOKkLfxw5POLaJP5-xf4Xdioo5KvFNaE6eA4mYdCgB8/viewform?usp=send_form>. We need more people to lighten the load for everyone!!! > > · Our communications toolkit with sample TPs, tweets, etc. will be available Wednesday, and we have scheduled a webinar Sept 2 at 3:30 to review the materials. It will be recorded for those who can’t join live. Register for the webinar here: https://cc.callinfo.com/cc/s/registrations/new?cid=16dc0n32s10ja <https://cc.callinfo.com/cc/s/registrations/new?cid=16dc0n32s10ja> > > > > > Joel Packer > CEF Executive Director > JPacker@cef.org <mailto:JPacker@cef.org> > 202-383-0083 > 202-255-0915 (cell) > www.cef.org <http://www.cef.org/> > www.Twitter.com/edfunding <http://www.twitter.com/edfunding> > NOTE OUR NEW ADDRESS > 1341 G Street, NW > Fifth Floor > Washington, DC 20005 >