The other day the President vetoed a bill that would have taken back money for education appropriated by last year's Congress. It was his first veto and it was a good move. This rescissions bill would have made big cuts in important programs. But some people have defended the cuts
with an argument you often hear now, especially in connection with the budget deficit: "Unless we cut spending, we will be leaving our children an intolerable burden of debt."
This argument appeals to our sense of justice and responsibility. Most Americans agree that we need to cut spending in order to bring the budget deficit under control. The idea that we must do it in order to leave things better for our children, instead of worse, gives deficit reduction a special punch. What is not clear is where the cuts are coming from. What programs will get the ax? Will some programs be so underfunded that they will wither and die? Which Americans are going to be the losers? And if we are so worried about reducing the deficit that we have to cut programs, why are we also talking about tax cuts?
Here are some answers we can be fairly certain about. Current deficit reduction proposals will eventually mean a 30 percent cut in most government programs if we factor in inflation. If an income tax cut is added on top of the budget reduction cuts, the cuts to most existing government programs could go to 50 percent. These cuts will not be made across the board. With Social Security off limits, there will be intense pressure to shield Medicare. There is also enormous pressure to protect funds for defense. A Senate budget proposal suggests "building a wall" between defense money and other appropriations. This means that money appropriated for defense could not be used for anything else even if it was not needed for defense spending. So we are not looking at distributing the cuts equally among government programs. When the scramble comes to save some programs and let others fall by the wayside, which is going to get the shaft?
One thing we know is that education programs are already badly squeezed under current budget schemes. The House budget proposed for next year would make big cuts in K-12 education: New York City schools alone would lose $135 million in funding. That would mean 3,200 teachers cut and loss of services for 200,000 children, including 118,000 fewer meals served every day. Comparable cuts would affect school districts across the country.
The reductions in federal grants and loans to college students are, if anything, even more devastating. Tuition costs have risen out of sight in recent years, and a large number of students could not afford to go to college without the help of federal programs. In fact, half of all college students currently receive federal financial aid. Pell grants, which help pay college expenses for low and middle income students, have already been eroded by inflation and increases in college costs. The budget resolution assumes a freeze in Pell funds. This could easily drop over one million students a year from the program--and eliminate the possibility of college for many of them. Federal student loans would continue, but students would now have to start paying interest while they were still in school instead of being allowed to wait until they left. What would this mean? Take the case of an engineering student who borrows the maximum amount for each of four college years and then goes on to graduate school for a six-year Ph.D. program. By the time that student received the doctorate, he or she would owe $68,000 in loans and another $33,000 in interest. How's that as an incentive for a poor or middle class kid to enter a profession!
It sounds good to talk about not leaving our children a country that is in debt, but how about leaving them able to pay their own debts? Well- educated people have better jobs, earn more money and are better able to help the U.S. compete in a global economy than people with less education. They are also more active and knowledgeable citizens. Americans have always understood that education is an investment that a country makes in its future. Are we so eager to take care of the budget deficit that we are willing to create an enormous human talent deficit? I am not proposing that we choose. The financial deficit we are now looking at is intolerable. So is a deficit in the talent our country needs to compete in a global economy or make good citizens. We must insist that our elected representatives, who are now planning the financial future of the country, find a way to solve the budget deficit without creating a human talent deficit that would be even more damaging.