June 2021

New HGSE professor Susan Dynarski, formerly of the University of Michigan, testified on June 29 before the Oversight Subcommittee of the US Ways and Means Committee in a hearing titled Expanding Access to Higher Education and the Promise it Holds . Dynarski was joined as a witness by Marshall Anthony Jr., senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress; Susan Whealler Johnston, President and CEO of the National Association of College and University Business Officers; Steven Rose, president of the Passaic County Community College; and Scott Pulsipher, president of Western Governors University.

Here is the testimony of Professor Dynarski:

Chairman Pascrell, Committee Members, I am honored to testify before you today.

College is a great investment

A college education is a great investment. Over the course of their lifetime, a person with a bachelor’s degree will earn an average of $ 1 million more than a worker with less education. Even with record tuition fees, a BA pays for itself many times over.

Growing educational gaps

But as the university has gained in value, it has also become more unequal. Low-income children are very unlikely to graduate with a bachelor’s degree when they grow up: only 9% do. The odds are six times higher for children from high-income families: 54% obtain a bachelor’s degree. And this gap is not closing – rather it is widening.

Expanding access to college

I’m giving you these statistics to get us thinking about our goals for tax incentives for education. Whether they were successful, after all, depends on the goals we set for them.

Is our goal of easing the tuition fee for high-income families whose kids attend expensive colleges? If so, then the tax incentives do a passable job.

But I think that our goal is much more ambitious: that we want to open the doors of the college to all those who can benefit from it. If this is our goal, then the current tax incentives are a complete failure.

Why? Tax incentives can only increase education if they put money in the hands of those for whom price is a barrier, when and where they need it.

• Most of these potential students come from low-income families. They attend community colleges, where tuition and fees average $ 3,800, or state university, where they average $ 10,600.

This is what we need to keep in mind when designing tax incentives for college: a low income person attending a public college.

Education tax incentives are not reaching the right students

Unfortunately, education tax incentives do very little for low-income students in public colleges. Perversely, they provide the most money to high income students in private colleges.

Here are some facts to make this claim clear:

• Tax credits are only partially refundable. A low-income student gets a loan of only $ 1,000 per year, while a richer student gets $ 2,500.
• The Full Lifetime Learning Credit only goes to students who pay tuition and fees over $ 10,000. Community colleges, which form a majority of undergraduates, charge less than half that amount.
• The tuition deduction and the interest deduction on student loans pay the most to families with the highest tax rates.
• The Coverdell and 529 savings plans benefit those who can afford to save and face high tax rates – i.e. the rich. And, if a low-income family saves, they are punished: Their assets count towards eligibility for federal student aid and safety net programs like SNAP.

Education tax incentives are complex and confusing

The regressiveness of tax incentives is not the only obstacle to their effectiveness. They are simply too complicated and confusing to affect school decisions. The IRS publication devoted to their explanation fills 95 pages! Families cannot respond to a price subsidy if they do not know or understand it.

We had better fund simple programs that work rather than trying to explain complex programs that do not work.

The limits of fiscal policy as an educational policy

If the goal is to expand access to college, tax incentives for higher education are a terrible policy. We must put aside the illusion that they are increasing education. The evidence is clear on this issue.

Simplify and target tax incentives for education

Right now, education tax incentives are basically a transfer program. They receive money for the households that have sent people to university. To do this modest job well, they should impose a minimum of paperwork and go to the families who need the money the most.

Here are some recommendations:

First, create a single, fully refundable credit that covers not only tuition and fees, but also books, room, and meals.

• This comprehensive definition of education expenditure is used for the 529 and Coverdell accounts, which primarily benefit affluent families. A narrower definition is used for loans, which help at least some low-income families.

Second, issue the credit at the time of college enrollment.

Endowment tax

Finally, you asked me to talk about the endowment tax. It is proposed that this tax be waived if schools make sufficient efforts to be affordable. Here is one way to define such an effort:

Does a college meet all of the financial needs of its students, as defined by the FAFSA and Federal Methodology?

Many private colleges (and a handful of public ones) require students to complete the College Board’s PROFILE form and use its expanded data to measure need. This more than doubles the burden of paperwork for students and increases uncertainty for families.

PROFILE questions distinguish between the rich and the extremely rich. But even a student who gets an automatic EFC of zero has to fill out this complicated form. PROFILE should not be required of low income students.

Conclusion

Education tax breaks provide relief for high income earners who have gone to college. But they offer relatively little help to low-income families.

Clearly, tax incentives do nothing to expand access. They are not a substitute for federal financial aid or free college.

WASHINGTON (AP) – A new committee to investigate the January 6 insurgency on the U.S. Capitol would have 13 members and the power to subpoena witnesses, according to legislation released by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi . The House is expected to vote on the bill this week.

The effort comes after Senate Republicans blocked the formation of an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the attack, in which hundreds of supporters of former President Donald Trump violently stormed into Capitol Hill and interrupted the certification of the victory of President Joe Biden.

The new House partisan panel would have eight members appointed by Pelosi and five appointed “after consultation with” Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy. A Pelosi aide said the speaker was considering including a Republican among his nominations, which would bring the likely partisan split to 7-6. The assistant was granted anonymity to discuss her thinking.

Pelosi said in a statement Monday that January 6 was “one of the darkest days in our country’s history” and that the committee will seek the truth about it.

“The select committee will investigate and report on the facts and causes of the attack and make recommendations to prevent any future aggression,” she said.

Many Republicans were concerned about such a partisan inquiry, as majority Democrats are likely to investigate Trump’s role in the siege and the right-wing groups therein. Nearly three dozen House Republicans voted to create an independent panel, which would have had an even partisan split among members. Seven Senate Republicans backed this bill forward, but the 10 Senate Republicans who would be needed to pass it were missing.

As stated in Pelosi’s legislation, the new select committee would have subpoena power and no specific end date. The panel may issue interim reports as it conducts the investigation.

Trump is not explicitly mentioned in the legislation, which directs the select committee to investigate “the facts, circumstances and causes relating to the January 6, 2021 national terrorist attack on the United States Capitol complex and concerning interference in the peaceful transfer of power. . “The panel would also study” the influencing factors which fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while being engaged in a constitutional process. ”

The House passed the bill to form an independent commission last month, and Pelosi, D-Calif., Said she preferred an independent panel of experts to lead the investigation. But she said last week that Congress couldn’t wait to begin a more in-depth look at the insurgency so she forms the selection panel. She didn’t say who will run it.

Still, Pelosi said the select committee could be complementary to an independent panel, if ever a panel is formed, and that she “hopes there might be a commission at some point.” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, DN.Y., has said he could hold a second vote, but there is no indication that the GOP votes have changed.

Many Republicans have made it clear that they want to move on to the Jan.6 attack, brushing aside the many unanswered questions about the insurgency, including how the government and law enforcement agencies lacked intelligence leading to the riots and Trump’s role before and during the insurgency.

Other GOP members went further, with one suggesting the rioters looked like tourists and another insisting that a Trump supporter named Ashli ​​Babbitt, who was shot while trying of breaking into the chamber of the Chamber, was “executed”.

Two officers who fought off the rioters, Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone and Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, pressured Republicans to back an independent commission and met with McCarthy on Friday. They later said they asked McCarthy to speak out against GOP comments downplaying violence.

In the absence of an independent commission, Fanone said he asked McCarthy to pledge not to put “the wrong people” on the new selection panel and that McCarthy said he would take that off. serious. McCarthy’s office did not respond to requests for comment on the meeting or legislation to form the select committee.

Officers also called on McCarthy to speak out against 21 Republicans who voted earlier this month against awarding Medals of Honor to the Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police to thank them for their service on Jan.6. Dozens of these officers suffered injuries, including chemical burns, brain damage and bone fractures.

McCarthy, who voted for the measure, told them he would deal with these members in private.

Seven people died during and after the riots, including Babbitt and three other Trump supporters who died from medical emergencies. Two police officers died by suicide in the days that followed, and a third officer, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, collapsed and later died after engaging with protesters. A medical examiner later determined that he had died of natural causes.

Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

BUILD, Build, Build is great. It has a significant impact on the economic well-being of our country. This is the positive side. The downside is that almost all contracts are accompanied by corruption. It is so clear that in many infrastructure contracts the bid selection process is most likely influenced by a senator, congressman, or big government boss.

Not all presidents, past and present have succeeded in stopping corruption at the Customs Office, the Tax Office and several other agencies. Duterte “failed” in his anti-corruption campaign. “Cancer” is spreading. This is what is funny. I read last week in a nationwide daily that there was a new House of Representatives investigation into the dubious purchase of laptops for public school teachers. Maybe the upper chamber can do the same. You may scratch your head if both chambers can investigate their own colleagues who are publicly known to lower their development funds by 20-30% nationwide. It is common knowledge. It’s an open secret, you exclaim. And them?

I remember that in the early years of his administration, President Rodrigo Duterte said that there were many people involved in the abnormal tendering of government projects. He said then that bogus auctions are frequently made. He even mentioned that arrangements have been discussed on the golf courses. In the provinces, this is done in restaurants which must not be far from the government agency where the actual call for tenders will take place. Let’s explain further. Official tendering takes place in the office of the agency, for example in a district office of the Ministry of Public Affairs and Roads, the National Irrigation Agency, the Ministry of Education, etc. the winning bidder is already identified and including the price of the winning bid. The arrangement is for the prearranged winner to set aside three percent of the total cost of the package to be divided equally among the designated participants. “Pamalengke”, is their term for it.

Let’s be graphic to better understand how things were done and are still done with complete impunity despite repeated denunciations. The Public Procurement Act states that all government projects must be tendered and that project tenders must be published in mass circulation newspapers and on PHILGEPS, the website of the government. government. Once this is done, the relevant agency will start selling the tender documents, and the amount will depend on the cost of the project. Now the participants will be known and who will participate in the tender. Work begins here for the “sindikato”.

The successful bidder has their money ready for distribution to auction participants. The three percent will now be distributed evenly and everyone will be happy to come to the bank. They have had their “pamalengke”, but not yet the people from the regional and district offices whose sticky fingers have to be greased, otherwise. This is how they do people. But when confronted, they feign innocence and make themselves appear as white as lilies.

When you think about it, why most government infrastructure projects are substandard is because every project is marked by corruption. In this rigged offer, the district congressman must receive his requested share. It is another story if the person involved is a senator. It is more important if it follows up with the Department of Budget and Management. This is only the first instance. There is a long list of people who will assert their due on the basis of what is euphemistically called SOP (Standard Operating Procedure). Maybe 10 or 15 percent for the congressman, 5 or 10 percent on the head of the agency, small percentages on each office like quality control, resident auditor, cashier and a few others who will receive balato. You less the 12 percent VAT and the 10 percent of the contractor’s eligible profits, you now have ladies and gentlemen how much has been spent on this road project. Two years later you will see cracks and craters.