Nouacer news

RELEASE: Early Guarantee of Financial Aid Would Improve College Cost Transparency, Incentivize College Enrollment, Says New CAP Report

Press Room »May 2015RELEASE: Early Guarantee of Financial Aid Would Improve College Cost Transparency, Incentivize College Enrollment, Says New CAP ReportMay 6, 2015PRINT: SHARE: <img alt="Facebook icon" height="24" src="https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/themes/c3/images/facebook24.png" width="24"><img alt="Twitter icon" height="24" src="https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/themes/c3/images/twitter24.png" width="24"><img alt="Share on Google+" src="https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/themes/c3/images/googleplus24.png"/><img alt="Email icon" src="https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/themes/c3/images/email24.png">Contact: Allison Preiss Phone: 202.478.6331 Email: apreiss@americanprogress.orgDespite changes, the Free Application for Federal Student Assistance, or FAFSA, serves as a barrier to college access. An early guarantee of financial aid is a key part of CAP’s College for All proposal, which builds on ideas proposed in the CAP-convened Inclusive Prosperity Commission report.Washington, D.C. — Providing a guarantee of college financial aid to families when their children are in the eighth grade would help incentivize college enrollment and improve transparency of college costs, says a new report from the Center for American Progress. CAP proposes improving the federal financial aid system by providing an early guarantee of financial aid eligibility through the federal tax system and eliminating the need for students to fill out additional forms in order to receive federal aid.“Despite recent changes made to the FAFSA, the document itself and the application process remain complex—and serve as a barrier to college access,” said David A. Bergeron, CAP’s Vice President of Postsecondary Education. “Families should be aware of financial aid availability long before a student’s senior year of high school.”“Due to high costs and a lack of transparency on financial aid eligibility, a quality college education isn’t in the picture for many families. Providing an early guarantee of federal financial aid would help families make more informed decisions about college,” said Antoinette Flores, a Policy Analyst at CAP.Today’s report is CAP’s third regarding its overarching College for All proposal, under which the federal government would provide every high school graduate financial support at a level equivalent to the tuition and fees of a public four-year college or university, ensuring that all high school graduates and their families know that they can afford college.CAP’s proposal for an early guarantee of financial aid includes the following provisions:Providing a guarantee of federal financial aid to families when their children are in the eighth grade because federal financial aid should not require students to fill out forms providing income data when this information is already collected and reported through the tax systemBuilding a financial aid calculator that works within the IRS income tax system to determine aidPermitting states and institutions to use income data for families to make a more accurate assessment of financial need, allowing students and families to share income information with colleges and universities in order to help institutions make better and more informed decisions regarding what types and amounts of aid to provide studentsTargeting and communicating tuition support and grant aidPiloting an early guarantee of aid already granted under the current iteration of the Higher Education ActCollege for All expands on a provision included in a recent report from the Commission on Inclusive Prosperity, or IPC, a transatlantic board convened by CAP, composed of high-level American and international policymakers, economists, business leaders, and labor representatives, and focused on finding ways to expand the middle class through inclusive economic growth. The IPC’s report calls for aggressive action to expand postsecondary education opportunities for all Americans.An overly complex system of financial aid, among other barriers, bars many low- and middle-income students from two- or four-year postsecondary education programs. Under College for All, students would repay a portion of the aid provided by the federal government, but the plan would use the IRS wage-withholding system to automatically repay student loans; provide simple, affordable repayment terms for all borrowers; share savings earned by the U.S. Department of Education with borrowers; and build a smarter system that proactively helps borrowers manage their debt. The overall goal of CAP’s College for All plan is to ensure that the United States has the skilled workforce and educated citizenry needed to achieve inclusive prosperity and to create a postsecondary education system that encourages economic growth.Click here to read “Improving College Access and Degree Attainment Through an Early Guarantee of Federal Financial Aid” by David A. Bergeron and Antoinette Flores.For more information or to speak with an expert, contact Allison Preiss at apreiss@americanprogress.org or 202.478.6331.###

RELEASE: Early Guarantee of Financial Aid Would Improve College Cost Transparency, Incentivize College Enrollment, Says New CAP Report

Press Room »May 2015 RELEASE: Early Guarantee of Financial Aid Would Improve College Cost Transparency, Incentivize College Enrollment, Say...

RELEASE: CAP Issue Brief: Turkey’s Energy Strategy Points to a Drift from the West

Press Room »May 2015RELEASE: CAP Issue Brief: Turkey’s Energy Strategy Points to a Drift from the WestMay 6, 2015PRINT: SHARE: <img alt="Facebook icon" height="24" src="https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/themes/c3/images/facebook24.png" width="24"><img alt="Twitter icon" height="24" src="https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/themes/c3/images/twitter24.png" width="24"><img alt="Share on Google+" src="https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/themes/c3/images/googleplus24.png"/><img alt="Email icon" src="https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/themes/c3/images/email24.png">Contact: Tom Caiazza Phone: 202.481.7141 Email: tcaiazza@americanprogress.orgWashington, D.C. — With ties to the West under strain, Turkey is exploring closer economic and, to some extent, political cooperation with Russia, according to a new issue brief released today by the Center for American Progress. Most recently, this has focused on a proposed new natural gas pipeline that could change the balance of the energy trade for Turkey and the European Union. The new pipeline proposal, if realized, could serve Turkish interests by positioning the country as a key energy corridor between European markets and Russian and Caspian energy resources, while cutting Ukraine out of the Russian energy trade.For the United States and the European Union, these actions should raise serious concerns, as the new project seems designed to increase European and Turkish reliance on Russian energy. The brief argues that Turkey’s interest in this proposal is the most recent signal of Turkish intent to pursue a more independent foreign policy course, even from within the confines of NATO membership.“Perhaps Turkey’s interest in a Russian natural gas pipeline could be viewed simply as a pragmatic approach toward energy security,” said Alan Makovsky, CAP Senior Fellow and author of the brief. “However, when one looks at the drift of Turkish-Russian relations overall under the Erdoğan government, it is hard not to see Ankara’s interest in the Russian proposal as a symptom of further Turkish drift from the United States, the European Union, and the West. This presents economic and security concerns for the West, given Turkey’s strategic importance, NATO membership, and the Erdoğan government’s growing scorn for Western values, such as freedom of expression.” Makovsky noted that Turkey is the only NATO state that did not join the sanctions regime against Russia in response to Moscow’s Ukraine policies.According to the brief, Turkey’s actions would also impact Europe’s ongoing effort to decrease its own dependence on Russia by developing a southern corridor for Caspian Sea energy through Turkey. The proposal currently of interest to Turkey is to import Russian natural gas through a new pipeline, with Turkey as the hub for dissemination to other parts of Europe. The proposed new pipeline could undercut the viability of a pipeline currently under construction that is intended to bring natural gas through Turkey to Europe, not from Russia but from the Caspian Sea.Click here to read the brief.For more information on this topic or to speak with an expert, contact Tom Caiazza at tcaiazza@americanprogress.org or 202.481.7141.

RELEASE: CAP Issue Brief: Turkey’s Energy Strategy Points to a Drift from the West

Press Room »May 2015 RELEASE: CAP Issue Brief: Turkey’s Energy Strategy Points to a Drift from the WestMay 6, 2015 PRINT: SHARE: Contact: T...

RELEASE: The Time Is Now to Fix the Way We Pay and Care for Active and Retired Military Service Members and Veterans

Press Room »May 2015RELEASE: The Time Is Now to Fix the Way We Pay and Care for Active and Retired Military Service Members and VeteransMay 7, 2015PRINT: SHARE: <img alt="Facebook icon" height="24" src="https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/themes/c3/images/facebook24.png" width="24"><img alt="Twitter icon" height="24" src="https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/themes/c3/images/twitter24.png" width="24"><img alt="Share on Google+" src="https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/themes/c3/images/googleplus24.png"/><img alt="Email icon" src="https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/themes/c3/images/email24.png">Contact: Tom Caiazza Phone: 202.481.7141 Email: tcaiazza@americanprogress.orgWashington, D.C. — The current military compensation system is an outdated, rigid, and costly behemoth that is woefully inadequate to meet the current needs of armed forces personnel or those of the future force, according to a Center for American Progress analysis released today. The compensation system—the main pillars of which are basic pay, health care, and retirement benefits—was designed in the post-World War II era and remains largely the same as it was nearly 70 years ago. Lawmakers have begun to look at improvements, but a great deal is still required for the system to meet the needs of a 21st century military.The column and infographics released today, in conjunction with a panel discussion featuring military personnel experts, calls for reforms to the military compensation system to make it one that better suits the needs of today’s all-volunteer military.“When you look at the numbers, the military compensation system does not serve our fighting men and women well at all,” said Katherine Blakeley, author of the column. “Base pay levels greatly advantage officers over enlisted members; the retirement system only works only for the small percentage of the force that reaches 20 years of service, with no benefits at all for the rest of our servicemen and women; and the health care system is consistently rated significantly worse than comparable civilian programs. The House Armed Services Committee is beginning to look at improvements, but a serious rethinking of the way we pay and care for members of our fighting force from the day they enlist through their retirement is long overdue.”According to the column, officers make nearly twice as much in base pay as enlisted service members do. This made sense when the military consisted of volunteer officers and conscripted enlisted members. However, with the all-volunteer military that exists today, such a stark discrepancy is unnecessary and often contributes to well-qualified and well-trained enlisted members separating from the military after only a few years.The retirement system is even more lopsided, with service members who reach 20 years of service immediately receiving full benefits and those who fail to reach the 20-year milestone receiving no retirement benefits at all. This means that while the retirement system costs the government more than $100 billion per year, roughly 83 percent of service members exit the service without retirement benefits of any kind.The U.S. Department of Defense’s health care system, known as TRICARE, covers military members and their families through their tenure and retirement. However, the quality of the health care plans and services are both rated well below comparable civilian health plans and facilities. Several recent issues have arisen to expose systemic problems across facilities, including serious medical errors.Click here to read the column.Related Resources:Infographic: Fixing the Force: The Path of a Military Career by Katherine Blakeley, Mo Smolskis, and Charles SchellpeperInfographic: Fixing the Force: Understanding Military Pay by Katherine Blakeley, Mo Smolskis, and Charles SchellpeperFor more information on this topic or to speak with an expert, contact Tom Caiazza at tcaiazza@americanprogress.org or 202.481.7141.

RELEASE: The Time Is Now to Fix the Way We Pay and Care for Active and Retired Military Service Members and Veterans

Press Room »May 2015 RELEASE: The Time Is Now to Fix the Way We Pay and Care for Active and Retired Military Service Members and VeteransMa...

RELEASE: As Federal Spending Projections Fall Precipitously, Insufficient Revenue Poses a Growing Threat to the Long-Term Budget

Press Room »May 2015RELEASE: As Federal Spending Projections Fall Precipitously, Insufficient Revenue Poses a Growing Threat to the Long-Term BudgetMay 7, 2015PRINT: SHARE: <img alt="Facebook icon" height="24" src="https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/themes/c3/images/facebook24.png" width="24"><img alt="Twitter icon" height="24" src="https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/themes/c3/images/twitter24.png" width="24"><img alt="Share on Google+" src="https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/themes/c3/images/googleplus24.png"/><img alt="Email icon" src="https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/themes/c3/images/email24.png">Contact: Allison Preiss Phone: 202.478.6331 Email: apreiss@americanprogress.orgCAP Analysis: Lawmakers Could Completely Repeal Sequestration Starting in Fiscal Year 2016, and Spending Would Still Fall by $2.6 Trillion Below Levels Proposed by Bowles-Simpson for FY 2011 to FY 2020Washington, D.C. — With Senate passage of the FY 2016 budget resolution, long-term deficit reduction continues to be a hot topic of discussion in Washington. But are policymakers ignoring the real issue at hand? A new column from the Center for American Progress finds that federal spending has fallen far below the levels proposed by the Bowles-Simpson plan, and based on how the budget outlook has changed relative to the Bowles-Simpson proposal, spending growth has become a smaller problem, while insufficient revenue has become a larger one.While the Bowles-Simpson plan proposed $3 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years, spending has actually fallen $5.6 trillion over that same period, primarily due to discretionary spending cuts, lower-than-expected health care costs, and lower-than-expected interest rates on the national debt, CAP’s analysis finds. At the same time, revenue from FY 2011 to FY 2020 is now more than $4 trillion less than the Bowles-Simpson plan recommended. While about half of this revenue loss is due to downward revisions to the economic forecast, the other half of revenue loss has resulted from Congress’ action to set tax policy well below the levels recommended by Bowles-Simpson.“Washington has been making excessive and unnecessary cuts to economic investments while ignoring the growing revenue problem our country faces,” said Harry Stein, Director for Fiscal Policy at CAP. “With spending currently well below the levels proposed by the Bowles-Simpson commission, Congress should consider reasonable approaches to raise revenue and invest in higher education, quality child care, and scientific research—middle-class investments that are sorely in need of new resources.”As a result of these dramatically lower spending levels, lawmakers could completely repeal sequestration starting in FY 2016 and still cut discretionary spending by more than Bowles-Simpson recommended from FY 2011 to FY 2020. Bowles-Simpson recommended $1.7 trillion in discretionary spending cuts over 10 years, and Congress has already cut $1.8 trillion from discretionary spending over that same period, not counting future sequestration.On top of these spending cuts, Congress also cut taxes below the Bowles-Simpson baseline. The Bowles-Simpson baseline assumed that the Bush tax cuts would expire for income above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for joint filers and then recommended more than $1 trillion of tax increases beyond that. Instead, Congress only allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire for income above $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for joint filers.CAP’s column finds that spending has already fallen more than enough to avoid any looming fiscal crisis and concludes that a balanced approach to reduce the long-term debt requires placing greater emphasis on reasonable policies to increase revenue, rather than continuing economically damaging and fiscally unnecessary sequestration cuts.Click here to read “Does Washington Have a Spending Problem or a Revenue Problem?” by Harry Stein and Lauren ShapiroFor more information on this topic or to speak with an expert, contact Allison Preiss at apreiss@americanprogress.org or 202.478.6331.

RELEASE: As Federal Spending Projections Fall Precipitously, Insufficient Revenue Poses a Growing Threat to the Long-Term Budget

Press Room »May 2015 RELEASE: As Federal Spending Projections Fall Precipitously, Insufficient Revenue Poses a Growing Threat to the Long-T...