(164,861 - 164,880 of 180,383)
Pages
-
-
Title
-
CRS85746EPWpage11
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:64563
-
Text
-
£38-é~ nondiscrimination Requirements {Section ?Q7) A local educational agency eust provide on its appiication for assistance a series of nondiscriminatien assurances. ?he»agency:must assure~that it will not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin in: (1) the hiring, promoting, or assigning of its employees; (2) the mandatory assignment of students to schools
-
-
Title
-
CRS85746EPWpage19
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:64563
-
Text
-
an eligible desegregation plan, i.e., one requiring student orfaculty desegregation under a court order, order of a State agency or official, an agreement with the Secretary of Education under title VI of the Civil Rights Act, or a voluntary effort. i Approximately $2.2 billion was appropriated for ESAA between FY 1973 and FY 1981. The peak year of funding was FY 1978 when $300.5 million was
-
-
Title
-
CRS85577EPWpage12
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:55099
-
Text
-
. g/ 3/ U.S. Library of Congress. ‘Congressional Research Service. Education funding issues: %FY85 and FY86 [by] Angela M. Evans. Washington. 1985 Issue brief 85040. Regularly updated. Congressional Budget Office. The economic and budget outlnokzs fiscal years 1986~l99O9 a report to the House and Senate committees on the budget. February 1985-
-
-
Title
-
CRS85577EPWpage25
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:55099
-
Text
-
.mua:o_; 0.4 »zmo:_m umg:_ C2< m><4»DO zo.»<u:om muzo_:«4<_c_ m2. 20¢: omm<m mu»<:._mu um< m>«4_:o zo__«u:ou mu:o_: zw:.oT .mmm. _mmg ._woo:m oz< _zm:uc<z<: mo uu_uuo .omm_ m<m> 4<um_u ._zu:2¢u>oo mm»<_m ow__z: wI_ mo _moo:m .mu4m<p 4<u_¢o_m_: uwuaaom .mmm_ -v .mmu aum<m4uz m4 2<;& pmooam com. m.zo__<z»m_z.:o< z
-
-
Title
-
CRS85577EPWpage37
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:55099
-
Text
-
2. mom w4<5o5 o2_o2:m m5«ou¢um< o5 u4m<¢<a2ou 5oz um< oz< . mom oz< ~om..om mzo.5uz=um:m to saw ~15 ma< m4<5o5 zo.5<u:ou . .mu_>mum :um<umu¢ 4<zo_mmmzozou >m ouz<amm¢ u4m<_ w5oz m.o 5.o- 5..- H omm_ - «mm. m.a. m.¢_ n.o_ «mm. - mom. moz<:u mo u5<a 4<:zz< \ .«.m m_. 5..- m.« m.a- m.o 5.5mm. omm. e.n 5.o o.m- m.m m.o.- o.m- ..5mu. mom. ~.a
-
-
Title
-
CRS85577EPWpage26
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:55099
-
Text
-
CRS-18 omm_ mam. ¢mm_ _mm_ mmm_ mum. mum. mom. mwm_ “W couuuusvw ma:o«uwuo> wan .>uuv:ouwm .>uau:Qnw~m oo.m¢ oo.m$ coquuoavm .::_m:. OOO .m mm 00 .N.& oo 5; nv«<%=c«uuu=vm uuuocou van nuuauaom -32 . co 4m a 22.3. 32 E328 E maze: E 8.: .3» mam: .. $2 22; _..§_.J__ . nofinozwm how 393:0 MN mazmrm
-
-
Title
-
CRS85577EPWpage03
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:55099
-
Text
-
For Education As A Percent Of Total Human Resources Functions Outlays Fiscal Year 1965 - Fiscal 1990000000000000000000IOIOOOOCOOOQOOOIQQVOIOOIllidwl TABLE 6: Outlays For Education As A Percent Of Total Education Cluster Outlays Fiscal Year 1965 - Fiscal Year 1990... 27 sq TABLE : ‘Education Percentage Change In Budget Outlays Fiscal 1-990000CCOOOIOOOOOOOIIOOO000.0 TABLE 8: Education Percentage Change
-
-
Title
-
CRS85577EPWpage20
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:55099
-
Text
-
CRS-14s . There were three principal areas of increased spending in the edu- cation cluster during the mid- to late-1970's: S --the enactment of basic education opportunity grants in 1972 (subsequently renamed Pell Grants) provided Federal grant assistance to college students from low-income families; --the Education of the Handicapped Act of 1975 substantially expanded the Federal funding
-
-
Title
-
CRS87233Epage20
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:52951
-
Text
-
CRS-16 Congress has dealt with the issue by constructing a two-part test for identifying private use of State and local bond proceeds. Interest on bonds which satisfy both a private trade or business use test (hereafter referred to as the "use" test) agg_a security interest test (hereafter referred to as the "security" test) is not tax exempt. Prior to 1987, the private use
-
-
Title
-
CRS87233Epage10
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:52951
-
Text
-
% ‘ 0.00% 0 Utah 1 19.02 16.62 3.152 172 Vermont -ll.0Z 14.9% -1.642 66 Virginia 9.02 25.02 2.252 123 0002 4 0 West Virginia 11.02 14.21 1.562 85 Wisconsin 4.02 27.52 1.102 60 Wyoming 0.01 0.02 0.002 0 a Estimates are not yet available for Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, and South Carolina Sources: Column 1--Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Preliminary Estimates of the Effect
-
-
Title
-
CRS87233Epage22
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:52951
-
Text
-
-activity tax-exempt bonds is presented in table 5. The first column contains the volume cap applied in 1984 by the Deficit Reduction Act, $150 per capita or $200 million, whichever is greater. The 1986 volume cap (based on 1985 population estimates) is in column 2, $75 per capita or a $250 million floor, whichever is greater. The 1988 cap is in column 3, $50 per capita or a $150 million floor, whichever
-
-
Title
-
CRS87233Epage13
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:52951
-
Text
-
the price of the sales tax and other deductible -State and local taxes for the average itemizer before and after they tax reform. The price of a dollar of sales tax increases from 0.884- before tax. reform to 1.00 after tax reform due to its move to nondeductibility status... This. represents; an~~ increase in price: of”- l3.l2 percent- The price of other deductibletaxes. increases from 0.884 before tax
-
-
Title
-
CRS87233Epage14
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:52951
-
Text
-
CRS-10 The important measure for assessing the likely effect on tax structure is presented in the last column of the table. This presents the ratio of the sales tax price to the price of other deductible taxes before and after tax reform. This relative sales tax price increases by 8.6 percent, almost four points lower than the percentage increase in the sales tax considered alone. Thus, in spite
-
-
Title
-
CRS87233Epage03
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:52951
-
Text
-
of State Taxes to be Increased - . . . . . . . . . 7O TABLE 3; The Effect of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 on the After-Federal-Tax Price of the Sales Tax Relative to Other DeduCtib1e“TaXeS~ 0 9£.'. Ovt 0 0 0 t.o 0 0 0-0»: 0 0-0.0 r 0 0 0 11. TABLE 4. Differential between Each State3s Top Effective Marginal Income Tax Rate and the Average Top Effective Income Tax Rate for All Statestf Before and After
Pages