Nixons college funding plan gets mixed reviews

Gov. Jay Nixon’s proposals for funding higher education, which will now be considered by the House Budget Committee, elicited enthusiasm from the local legislative delegation but some skepticism from Republicans who control the General Assembly.

Before introducing his budget at the end of January, Nixon traveled around the state, including to the Reynolds Alumni Center at the University of Missouri, to tout a plan that would make no cuts in state funding for the colleges and universities in exchange for a tuition freeze.

“The leaders of Missouri’s four-year public institutions have spent the past few weeks carefully reviewing the budget and planning for our future,” Nixon said on Jan. 21. “We know that a highly trained work force is vital if we’re going to turn this economy around.”

With state revenues down because of the recession, the University of Missouri has planned for deep cuts in funding for the budget that starts July 1. Shortly before Nixon’s visit, Forsee complied with a state government directive by asking department heads to prepare scenarios for funding cuts ranging from 15 to 25 percent.

Nixon’s proposal was enthusiastically endorsed by UM System President Gary Forsee, who attended the news conference. Also present were three members of the Columbia delegation: state Sen. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia; state Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia; and state Rep. Mary Still, D-Columbia.

“For the university’s part, we commit to being great stewards of the state’s resources,” Forsee said. “We want to be sure that we’ll be able to heighten the accountability that should be [in line with the economic times].”

Nixon used a great deal of his State of the State address to delineate the expansion or creation of several higher education programs. For instance, Nixon is calling for a boost to the state’s A+ Program, which allows high school students who tutor and earn a certain grade point average at eligible schools to go to a vocational or junior college tuition-free. Nixon wants to provide a chance for students in the program to go to a four-year college or university for free as well.

“It builds upon our current A+ Schools Program, which allows students at eligible high schools to get their two-year degrees at community colleges tuition-free,” Nixon said in his address. “The Missouri Promise allows those students who take advantage of A+ scholarships to continue at a Missouri public college or university and complete their four-year degree debt free.”

Nixon also brought back a revamped version of the “Preparing to Care” initiative. The measure, which would cost roughly $40 million, is aimed at creating space at colleges and universities to train health care professionals. This year, the plan has been re-branded as the “Caring for Missourians” plan.

“Right now, we have far too many jobs in health care that we can’t fill right here in Missouri because we can’t find people with the right skills,” Nixon said. “We need nurses, pharmacy workers and rural health care workers. Filling those positions is critical to both our economy and our health care system.”

Democrats generally were enthused with Nixon’s proposals. Kelly, for instance, let out an excited yelp when Nixon announced he was reintroducing the Preparing for Missourians initiative. Although Rep. Stephen Webber, D-Columbia, said a funding freeze was “not ideal,” he added it was the best option for the current budget situation.

Kelly said he was especially pleased with Nixon’s relationship with Forsee. After Nixon’s speech, Forsee released a long statement praising the governor for a “clear commitment to investing in public higher education, and his belief that education is vital to advancing Missouri’s economy, creating jobs and preparing students for a globally competitive workplace.”

“I’m incredibly encouraged,” Kelly said. “It’s interesting to see what a difference it makes when you have a governor who graduated from [MU].”

Some Republicans were receptive to some of Nixon’s proposals. Schaefer said he would support getting funds for the Caring for Missourians Program. He also said there were a lot of members of the General Assembly who would want to see the tuition plan implemented.

Senate Appropriations Chairman Gary Nodler, R-Joplin, also found something to like in the tuition-freeze proposal. “I’m not guaranteeing that we can and will do it,” he said. “But yes, I think it’s possible. And yes, I think it’s a good idea.”

But some Republicans were less positive about Nixon’s agenda and approach.

For instance, members of House Republican leadership-including House Speaker Ron Richard, R-Joplin, and House Higher Education Committee Chairman Gayle Kingery, R-Poplar Bluff-said they were not happy that Nixon didn’t consult with them before announcing his tuition freeze.

And some Senate Republicans said they were concerned about how Nixon was predicating nearly $800 million within his budget with funds from a pending federal stimulus package.

“It was a good speech for people who are bad at math,” said Senate Majority Leader Kevin Engler, R-Farmington. “If you don’t listen to the details, it’s really good. But when you start listening to the details and you look at the budget, it balances only if there’s $800 million coming from the federal government.”

Nodler said he was concerned about paying for programs needing funding each year, such as the A+ Program or an eligibility expansion in the state’s Medicaid program, with stimulus money.

“You don’t want (the federal stimulus plan) to be like a shot of heroin that causes a dependency and causes withdrawal,” Nodler said.

Additionally, the Caring for Missourians plan faces steep opposition from powerful lawmakers. Last year, the previous iteration of the plan was taken out of Gov. Matt Blunt’s budget. Nodler, then-House Speaker Rod Jetton, R-Marble Hill, and House Budget Chairman Allen Icet, R-Wildwood, opposed the measure.

Icet expressed doubt last week that the plan would find favor in an even tougher budgetary climate.

“I think it’s fair to say that any new decision item-unless we can find a program that could pay for (it)-I think for the most part is dead on arrival,” Icet said. “It’s just not fiscally prudent to do something like that.”