Clinton budget could be good or bad for U.

President Clinton's plan to balance the federal budget may have both positive and negative implications for the University, according to several administrators and campus officials. The plan -- which outlines the government's spending for the next five years -- projects a $17 billion surplus by 2002. Clinton announced the plan February 6. The proposal offered many potential benefits to University students and their families, said David Morse, an associate vice president who monitors government activities for the University. Morse cited increased funding for Pell Grants and the federal work study program, in addition to tax-free deferred savings for families trying to meet the rising costs of a college education. "Certainly if one takes a look at the budget? as a resource to help students meet the cost of higher education, it's a pretty good budget," he said. Clinton proposed $98 billion in tax cuts, including a $500 per child tax credit, $1,500 per year college scholarships and $10,000 per year tax deductions for college-related expenses. In addition to the tax breaks, he suggested increasing federal funding for education by 20 percent -- which would provide the increases in the Pell and work-study programs. The proposed budget also calls for $76 billion in tax hikes, $34 billion from a new 10 percent tax on airline tickets and the remaining $42 billion coming from closing corporate loopholes and increased business taxes. But many congressional Republicans said Clinton's plan provides too little tax relief to the American people. "We just really do not have the kind of bold document that we would like to see that would be a message to people that there really is change in Washington," House Budget Committee Chairperson John Kasich (R-Ohio) said at a press conference February 6. The GOP seeks to double the White House's proposed $98 billion in tax cuts and make the spending reductions faster than under the Clinton budget, which would still run a federal budget deficit in 1998. But Morse said that Clinton's plan could use more funding, not less. He explained that university-based research -- in such fields as physics, mathematics, social sciences and health-related fields -- could suffer under the Clinton budget. Morse also noted that funding for the National Institute of Health -- the University's largest research sponsor -- has increased at between 5.5 to 6 percent per year. Under the Clinton plan, however, the NIH's funds would only increase by 2.9 percent next year. But Morse added that Congress "typically" increases funding for the NIH through negotiation with the administration. He added that "it is a very long dance between the administration and Congress" until Oct. 1, when the final budget is due. And Nursing School Dean Norma Lang said Clinton's budget "certainly could" have negative effects on her school. "We have a large problem with the severity of the cuts," she said, explaining that educational programs for advanced practice nurses would be particularly affected by the cuts. On a "very positive" note, Lang said the plan includes a provision to provide "direct Medicare reimbursals" to some nurses. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania Director of Government Relations Michael Nardone cited both pros and cons to the budget. He said hospitals like HUP could be slighted by the Clinton plan because the costs of running an academic health center are higher than those of operating a regular hospital. But Nardone added that HUP could also benefit from the plan, explaining that current health insurance payments go straight to health maintenance organizations, while Clinton's plan would allow hospitals to keep a percentage of the insurance payments.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.