ATLANTA -- After a week of back-and-forth about the prospect of massive new funding cuts for the state's colleges and universities, it remains unclear the direction Georgia leaders will go -- not just with university funding, but with the state budget in general.

But Thursday, Gov. Sonny Perdue lit into legislators pushing for those cuts, chastising them for "fear-mongering" and "scare tactics." He promised that the state "will not dismantle" its "world-class" university system.

"It's not going to happen on my watch," Perdue said.

Later in the afternoon, the two legislators who've been front-and-center on these cuts stood before a microphone and responded, saying they're simply trying to deal with budget realities. They said repeatedly that the $300 million in cuts outlined this week are a worst-case scenario. They called for a moderated solution that likely would include a tuition increase and, if state Sen. Seth Harp, R-Midland, has his way, big salary cuts for top university brass.

Everyone seemed to agree that a tuition increase would be part of the answer, but it remains to be seen how much. The state Board of Regents, which oversees the university system, meets next week and could weigh in on the issue then.

Meanwhile, things are about to gear back up at the Capitol in a big way. Rank-and-file legislators return Monday to Atlanta to resume a legislative session put on hold the past two weeks while budget subcommittees looked closer at the state budget, mostly searching for cuts.

The university system quickly became a target in that process, and the prospect of losing another $300 million in state funding has ramped up the fight.

Harp and state Rep. Earl Ehrhart chair the House and Senate subcommittees working on the state's university system budget. They said Thursday that initial proposals for the elimination of 4,000 university system jobs and other massive cuts probably won't come to pass, but they couldn't be sure. They continued to call Thursday for "structural changes" that could mean mergers for some campuses or programs. And Ehrhart, R-Powder Springs, said legislators will work with the Board of Regents to "come up with something significantly better" than the proposed cuts that stirred debate this week.

These conversations will continue within the larger context of the full state budget and could easily linger well into spring. The General Assembly hasn't set a deadline to finish the budget and end its 2010 legislative session, but Speaker of the House David Ralston has told members to expect to be at the Capitol in mid-April.

The bottom line, though, hasn't changed much since January. That's when Perdue rolled out a budget proposal that includes a new 1.6 percent tax on hospital revenues and a plan to raise cash by selling some of the infrastructure loans the state has made to local governments on the private debt market.

Those measures would contribute hundreds of millions to the budget, making them crucial to the governor's plan. But neither idea was popular when Perdue proposed them, and legislators have been looking for cuts to offset them.

Hospitals, doctors and insurance companies have worked hard against the hospital tax, wielding their considerable influence at the Capitol. Local government leaders and environmental groups have pushed back against the debt sale, since it would reduce the state loans available for local water and sewer projects. The university system became a target, at least in part, because some legislators don't think the system has given enough as across-the-board cuts have sliced into budgets at every state department.

At $1.9 billion, the system also gets a large slice of the $18 billion or so the state is slated to spend in total next year.

But that spending total is built on the Perdue administration's prediction that the state's economy will rebound far enough in the next 16 months to increase state revenues by about 4 percent. So far the trend line has been in the opposite direction, and many expect the governor to roll back his revenue estimate early next week, after February collections numbers are released.

Perdue himself said Thursday that's "very likely."

That would unbalance the budget, likely by hundreds of millions. That's another big reason legislators have been looking for new large cuts. The Republican leadership at the Capitol has been wary of any tax increases to balance the budget, but that position seems to have softened. In particular, a proposal to tack another $1 state tax onto a pack of cigarettes seems to have gained steam.

But it's unclear where the top House and Senate leadership are on the details of all these issues. As budget subcommittees from both bodies have worked together the past two weeks to root out new areas for budget cuts, the top leaders on both sides -- including Ralston and Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle -- have largely stayed quiet, letting committee members sift and prod their ways through budget proposals.

In the end, an agreement must be struck. The state Constitution requires the General Assembly to pass a balanced budget.

The Governor announced yesterday a long term grant for Education:

Georgia Continues Racing to the Top

State selected as finalist for unprecedented federal grant competition

ATLANTA - Governor Sonny Perdue today announced that Georgia has been selected as a finalist by the U.S. Department of Education for the first round of federal "Race to the Top" grants. Georgia stands to receive up to $462 million over four years to implement its plan if selected.

"Georgia's designation as a finalist in the Race to the Top competition is further proof that we are moving in the right direction to advance student achievement in our state," said Governor Sonny Perdue. "Our work to transform education in Georgia is being recognized nationally, but it is only a beginning. We must continue to align our funding and policies with our desired outcome of improved student achievement."

The Race to the Top fund is a $4 billion grant opportunity provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) to support new approaches to improve schools. The fund is available in the form of competitive grants to encourage and reward states that are creating conditions for education innovation and reform, specifically implementing ambitious plans in four education reform areas:

· Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy;

· Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction;

· Recruiting, preparing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and

· Turning around our lowest-achieving schools.

Forty states and the District of Columbia submitted applications for Phase I of the Race to the Top grant competition. From those applications, the U.S. Department of Education invited 16 to send a five-member team to interview in Washington D.C. in mid-March. The U.S. Department of Education estimates final winners will be announced in April 2010.

"I look forward to sharing more information with Secretary Duncan about our state's education playbook and why Georgia is the best investment for these funds," said Governor Sonny Perdue.

Georgia's application was prepared through strong partnership between the Governor's Office, the Georgia Department of Education, the Governor's Office of Student Achievement, and education stakeholders. Four working groups and a fifth critical feedback team consisting of teachers, principals, superintendents, higher education faculty, non-profit and informal education organizations, state policy makers, and members of the business and philanthropic communities developed the ideas for inclusion in the state's application.

"I am very pleased, but not surprised, that Georgia has been named a finalist for Race to the Top funds," said State Superintendent of Schools Kathy Cox. "For seven years, Georgia has been focused on the very issues called for in the Race to the Top application. We are implementing a world-class curriculum, raising expectations and using quality data to make decisions so our students will be globally competitive. Race to the Top funds will give us more resources needed to continue this vital and important work."

Recommendations focus on strengthening traditional and alternative preparation programs for teachers and leaders, supporting teachers more effectively in the classroom, evaluating teachers and leaders with consistent and objective criteria that inform instruction, and rewarding great teachers and leaders with performance-based monetary bonuses.

The application also calls for Georgia to adopt and implement common curricular standards and internationally-benchmarked assessments that indicate Georgia's ability to compete within a globally-connected economy. Governor Perdue is co-chairing a state-led initiative for common-core state standards through the National Governors Association.

Twenty-three local school districts have signed on to partner with the state in implementing Georgia's Race to the Top plan. These districts, which make up 41 percent of public school students in Georgia, include: Atlanta, Ben Hill, Bibb, Burke, Carrollton, Chatham, Cherokee, Clayton, DeKalb, Dougherty, Gainesville, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Jones, Meriwether, Muscogee, Rabun, Richmond, Rockdale, Spalding, Valdosta and White.

The state will work closely with these systems to implement the ideas contained in the application. Fifty percent of the funds awarded to Georgia will be distributed to the local partners to meaningfully enact the Race to the Top reforms. The state will study the effectiveness of these practices to identify and scale up those that prove to be effective.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation selected 15 states, including Georgia, to benefit from technical assistance for RT3 application development. The states were selected based on how well poised they are to win Race to the Top based on progress in education policy and reform. Georgia partnered with The Parthenon Group, a consulting firm based in Boston, which specializes in part in education reform.

Georgia's entire application can be viewed at http://gov.georgia.gov/00/press/detail/0,2668,78006749_154885747_155733684,00.html.

Update on Horse Racing legislation. I've been told this won't pass, but here's the argument from the Horse Racing Lobby:

To: Friends of Horseracing

From: Ed Gadrix

Subject: Status of Legislation

Before we get to the status of the horseracing legislation, you should know GEEP employed one of the more respected political consulting firms in Georgia to conduct a statewide poll to determine the interest of folks in passing horseracing legislation. When asked questions in different ways, it's clear that if a constitutional amendment is worded whereby it states that the monies realized by the State of Georgia will be used for the HOPE scholarship account or "any other educational purposes", the amendment WILL pass. The key is to educate the public between now and November that horseracing does equal JOBS,JOBS, JOBS, and addressing the State's budget problems in education.

I'll ask you to do certain tasks below, but if you can or will do nothing else, please forward this e mail to every teacher or educator you know, as well as your own e mail list.

HR 1177 is the house resolution that amends the Georgia Constitution to allow for horseracing and pari-mutuel gaming. The Speaker of the House placed the legislation in the Judiciary Non-Civil Committee when it was originally introduced. I said before this was not good news. The legislation should be either in the Regulated Industries or Agriculture Committees. These are the functions of horseracing, not having to do with courts or judges, etc.

We also know the committee originally assigned was an attempt to "kill" the legislation. Having said that, there has been some movement on the part of the Speaker, but we're far from getting it out of committee as we speak.

We're approaching a deadline: We have just under two weeks to get the legislation out of committee in the House of Representatives and carried over to the Senate. Both houses have to pass the legislation. Now your part:

The Speaker has said he will consider taking the legislation out of the Judiciary committee and putting it in the Regulated Industries or Agriculture Committee on Monday, March 8^th. But that will only happen if he feels there are people out there who want it so moved and passed---that's you!

If you're tired of unemployment and want to start the process of creating the 10,000 to 20,000 jobs in Georgia experts say will be created through horseracing;

If you're upset that teachers are having to take furloughs;

If you're concerned with the AJC article this morning that says fewer college students will be admitted in our public colleges and universities;

It you care about the educational programs that are being cut from the same colleges and universities;

If you want to address the budget concerns that our legislators claim they are having to deal with because of lack of revenue;

If your unemployment is running out

If you want something positive for a change in government;

If you want to see a $100,000,000 to $200,000,000 race track built that will create some 5,000 construction, financial, legal and other good paying jobs over some two years of construction;

It you want to see all of this done WITH NO GOVERNMENT MONIES AND ALL PRIVIATE FUNDS

THEN IT'S YOUR TIME AND YOUR INDIVIDUAL EFFORT IS IMPORTANT

WRITE AND CALL THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, DAVID RALSTON. HERE'S HIS ADDRESS: Speaker, David Ralston:

dianne.hardin@house.ga.gov <dianne.hardin@house.ga.gov>

leishea.johnson@house.ga.gov <leishea.johnson@house.ga.gov>

ginny.mckinney@house.ga.gov <ginny.mckinney@house.ga.gov>

Tell him your story as to why he should see that this horseracing legislation is important to Georgians. He keeps saying he doesn't hear from anyone.

Then contact your own State Representative and State Senator and get a commitment from them that they will personally ask Speaker Ralston to move the horseracing legislation form the current committee to either the Regulated Industries or Agriculture Committees where they should be. Here's how you find your State Representative and Senator: To Find your State Legislators:

Go to the site below; type in your address and click on "GO"; your STATE Representative and STATE Senator will be on the right. Federal office holders appear on the left. WE WANT STATE OFFICE HOLDERS ON THE RIGHT. Click on their name and how to contact them will come-up.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/state/main/?state=GA&view=myofficials#0

All contacts should referenced HR 1177 (Horseracing)

Folks it's not only time; it's past time. If you don't take the time to put forth the effort now and before next Monday, it may be too late. Simply look around you and you'll see some sad stories of folks who need those jobs and income. Your legislators have a job so they are really not affected by the economy one way or the other. If you want to do something important at this point in your life and the life of this State, take the time, do the tasks today !

Ed Gadrix

Georgia Equine Education Project GEEP

Obama wants to pass health care by the Easter recess and the town hall meetings that will happen. this is a huge mistake. They need to start over. This bill won't pass the House. Take that to the bank. And if it does, because it might be a closed bank, it will die in the Senate.

Democratic leaders working to win over abortion opponents for health-care reform

By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 5, 2010; A01

As President Obama makes his final plea for a health-care overhaul, Democratic leaders in Congress are embarking on a delicate strategy to win over abortion opponents, a gambit that could determine whether the legislation becomes law.

The effort depends on convincing as many as a dozen antiabortion Democrats in the House that abortion language in the Senate bill is more stringent than initially portrayed. But Democratic leaders must be careful that they don't drive away abortion rights supporters who are increasingly concerned that the measure would prove severely restrictive.

"It's going to be a heavy lift, because people on both sides don't like" the language, said Kristen Day, director of Democrats for Life of America, an antiabortion group that otherwise supports health-care reform. "It's a difficult situation right now."

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), the head of the antiabortion contingent, has repeatedly reaffirmed his opposition to the Senate terms, saying that House leaders have all but given up on his vote. "Some people are saying we have to vote for the Senate bill. That ain't going to happen," he said in an interview this week.

But congressional leaders are still working behind the scenes to try to persuade some in the Stupak group. If the leadership loses antiabortion members, most of them Midwestern Roman Catholics who otherwise support the legislation, the only way to compensate would be to add votes from conservative Democrats who previously opposed the measure.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) expressed confidence Thursday that resistance from antiabortion members could be overcome. "When people think there isn't going to be a bill, they can take whatever position they want," she said. "But now they know there is going to be a bill, and these members are saying, 'Let's talk.' "

The leadership has two choices: It can try to revise the Senate language, which would be all but impossible under the process Democrats are using to pass a final bill, or it can try to convince some abortion opponents that the provisions are acceptable.

Underlying the controversy is the question of whether the Senate language -- agreed to in a last-minute deal with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) -- maintains the 33-year-old ban on federal funding for abortion. The bill would allow the procedure to be covered in plans offered on new "exchanges" in which people without employer-based coverage would buy insurance with the help of federal subsidies.

But it would require buyers to make two premium payments -- one for most of their coverage and a second, far smaller one for abortion coverage. Everyone with such a plan -- even men or older women -- would need to make both payments.

Opponents have said that would not go far enough to keep federal money from subsidizing abortion. Democratic leaders disagree, saying it maintains the status quo.

Meanwhile, abortion rights advocates have grown increasingly convinced that the language would restrict the reach of abortion coverage nearly as much as the Stupak language in the House bill passed in December. That measure would have forced those who want abortion coverage to buy it in a rider.

Abortion rights groups and health-care analysts now are predicting that, under the Senate language, few plans would cover abortion because the requirement of two payments would be cumbersome for insurers and objectionable to customers.

"There will not be abortion coverage in the exchanges. There just won't be," said Linda J. Blumberg, a health policy analyst at the Urban Institute.

At the time of the deal with Nelson, Senate Democrats reassured abortion rights supporters by noting that many people would pay for their coverage via automatic bank debits, minimizing the impact of the separate payments. But abortion rights groups argue that the requirement of a separate check is almost tailor-made to spark public opposition to abortion, complete with protests of companies that offer plans covering it.

"It's clearly intended to be stigmatizing," said Laura MacCleery of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The rules would not affect women with employer-based insurance, which often covers abortion. But the legislation envisions that more people over time would get their insurance through the exchange, giving its rules a potentially broad impact.

In making their case to the Stupak group, Democratic leaders point out that Nelson -- who initially fought for the Stupak provision but was rebuffed -- thinks his language is highly restrictive. That is not so much because it would discourage insurers from offering abortion coverage, his aide said, but because he thinks it preserves the ban on federal financing of abortion by segregating that money.

"He tried to figure out language that would be as close to Stupak as you could be without repeating the language," said Jake Thompson, his spokesman.

Some abortion opponents concede that it is possible that the two-checks rule will dissuade insurers from offering plans covering the procedure. But they say they still oppose the language on principle, because it would allow federal subsidies to help people buy plans with abortion coverage.

"The fact that the pro-abortion groups don't like it either doesn't make me support it," said Richard Doerflinger, a spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Abortion opponents also decry what they say are other loopholes in the Senate bill, warning, for instance, that a technicality could allow community health clinics to provide abortions, circumventing the federal ban.

Stupak said he rejected a proposal from congressional leaders to revisit the abortion language in the future. He has urged adding stricter language to the revisions of the Senate bill that both chambers are planning to pass. Leaders say rules allow only budget-related issues to be in this package, but Stupak notes that abortion changes could be added if 60 senators agreed.

Short of that, the only way forward will be to convince the Stupak contingent that the Senate language is as restrictive as abortion rights supporters fear it is -- and at the same time try to put those very fears to rest.

"The good news is that the Senate bill does allow" abortion coverage, said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), co-chairman of the House's Pro-Choice Caucus. "But the question is: Would [the coverage] really be there?"

Staff writer Lori Montgomery contributed to this report.