Bloggers's Note 2: I'm running a survey: If you could meet face-to-face the Congress persons who are now saying things like "Given the size of the current federal deficit, I have reservations about the federal government taking on greater responsibility for education funding," what words would you use to tell them what you think of them? Please give your answer by clicking "comments" at the bottom of this post and expressing yourself freely...
A Democratic plan to send $23 billion to the states to save the jobs of 100,000 to 300,000 public school teachers, librarians, counselors and other employees slated for layoffs looks dead for the time being.
Blame it on election-year politics. The anti-Washington, anti-spending mood has become so potent that even Democrats are antsy about helping teachers, one of their most long-standing and generous allies.
The layoffs already have begun. Advocates for teachers are calling them catastrophic. Critics of the emergency aid say states need to clean up their fiscal acts and make changes.
In the meantime, large, populous states such as California and Texas, for example, are each expected to absorb the loss of more than 30,000 teachers and other personnel, according to White House estimates.
Schools are cutting staff and programs because the recession has depleted state tax revenues, which pay for public education.
Democrats in the House of Representatives had hoped to pass the $23 billion emergency bailout this week as part of a spending bill for the war in Afghanistan that was slated for passage, but fiscally conservative members from tough districts weren't happy about having to defend another vote that would increase the deficit.
The school aid measure never came to a vote. Nor did it have any more luck in the Senate, where some Democrats were equally jumpy about spending, and the majority couldn't secure the necessary 60 votes for passage.
"Given the size of the current federal deficit, I have reservations about the federal government taking on greater responsibility for education funding," said Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri.
Kim Anderson, the director of government relations for the National Education Association, the largest teachers union, said that given what schools and students were likely to face in the fall because of the layoffs and cutbacks, "We are struggling to see why people view this as a tough vote. We view this as a pretty common-sense vote. We really think (the layoffs) will have the most catastrophic impact on education that we have seen since the Great Depression."
Critics say the Education Department already received $100 billion in economic stimulus money and hasn't spent it all of it, so why should Congress approve more?
"Congress should not add to the nation's burgeoning public debt while states are still sitting on funds that were provided 15 months ago," said Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas.
Education Department officials said that most of the unspent stimulus money couldn't be used to prevent layoffs because it was obligated to other programs.
Education Department spokeswoman Sandra Abrevaya said the administration expected Congress to approve the emergency money after the weeklong Memorial Day recess.
A powerful force over the outcome could be the sour political mood, however, across the country and on Capitol Hill. A USA Today/Gallup Poll this week said that even as the public was growing optimistic about the economy, anger at the country's direction and incumbents was extremely high.
With a pivotal election in five months, lawmakers in both parties are operating on high alert. A range of issues could be affected, and there will be few hands across the aisle.
"We now cannot compromise because each party will react negatively to someone who wants to work with the other side," Cleaver said.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.