Several leaders of prominent state universities are concerned that a proposed Pennsylvania… Several leaders of prominent state universities are concerned that a proposed Pennsylvania spending cap would cause students to spend big bucks in the future.

Two bills have passed through each of the houses, that propose a spending cap prohibiting the state budget from increasing at more than a calculated rate, unless three-fifths of legislators or referendum voters allow an exception.

Republicans say the bill would control the spending of Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, and his administration.

“They have continued to spend out of control in areas such as welfare,” explained Al Bowman, the policy director for the House appropriations committee, which is dominated by a Republican majority.

The bill makes legislators unable to dramatically change the amount of money allotted to programs such as higher education. Instead, the budget would increase consistently with the cost of living.

When Pennsylvania brings in excess revenue, a portion of that money would go into a “rainy day” fund, used for disasters and less lucrative years, and the rest would go directly back to taxpayers.

Bowman said the legislation would force the administration to make real decisions about spending. He added that it lessens the chance of a tax hike.

“Essentially, what they want is a blank check and what we’re saying is that Pennsylvania families can’t afford the blank check mentality of the administration and the state Democrats,” Bowman said.

The House and Senate chambers have yet to decide what version of the subtly different bills will go before Rendell, but Democrats and state institutions of higher education have already spoken out against both bills.

Chancellor Mark Nordenberg, Penn State University President Graham Spanier and Temple University President David Adamany wrote a letter to House Majority Leader Sam Smith asking legislators to reconsider.

“The spending cap in the proposed legislation relies on a formula that does not reflect the reality of the pressures facing our institutions or our shared responsibility for ensuring that our institutions continue to provide accessible public education to Pennsylvanians,” Nordenberg, Spanier and Adamany wrote.

Bowman said that Nordenberg and the other college presidents misunderstand what the spending cap does.

He said that institutes of higher education should look forward to the implementation of this legislation, because they are guaranteed to get the same amount of money or more from the commonwealth each year and will not have to worry about cuts.

Democrats argue that some expenses – like health care – continue to increase, and that this legislation would force lawmakers to cut programs to make up this cost.

They used Colorado as an example, where legislators passed a similar cap that had a negative affect on higher education. The cap caused the University of Colorado’s tuition to increase by 50 percent in a two-year period.

Those against the cap worry that Pennsylvania’s state schools and state-affiliated schools will meet the same fate.

“Tuition went up in Colorado. That’s a fact, nobody can deny it,” said Tom Andrews, press secretary for House Minority Leader William DeWeese.

However, Bowman argued that the Colorado spending cap differed from the Pennsylvania one because the legislation capped both spending and taxation. Colorado’s cap also had a component that increased certain programs by a set percentage each year. After a few years, the amount of money allotted to these programs was larger than the state could afford, according to Bowman.

“Five percent of $100,000 is a lot bigger than 5 percent of a dollar,” he said.

Pitt’s administration is concerned such a cap would add to already rising tuition or cause the University to cut programs because of the large amount of money the state gives to Pitt.

The University was given more than $150 million from Pennsylvania in 2005, which makes up 12.1 percent of its revenues.

Paul Supowitz, associate vice chancellor for commonwealth and community relations, said the University has been talking to legislators to persuade them to vote against the final version of the bill, but has not yet received a formal response to their letter to Rep. Smith.