On Nov. 16, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted 227–205 to overhaul the U.S. tax code. Congresswoman Claudia Tenney, who represents New York’s 22nd district, in which Hamilton is located, voted yes on the bill.

“I don’t love this bill, but I want to get this tax discussion started,” Tenney, told syracuse.com, adding, “It was a very difficult decision to vote ‘yes’ for this…but in the end I think it’s the right thing to do.”

Tenney indicated that she made the decision after weeks of lobbying by Republican leaders, with Vice President Mike Pence being among them; his lobbying came in the form of a 14-minute phone call.

“This is not a final product,” Tenney said. “But I don’t want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good here.”

The measure, however, was opposed by 23 of New York’s 27 Congressional representatives; the three who voted for the bill, along with Tenney, were fellow Republicans John Katko, Chris Collins, and Tom Reed.

On a national level, 13 Republicans defected from their leadership to vote against the bill, joining the unanimous block of 192 Democrats.

Following the initial passage of this bill, those in higher education have begun to ring the alarm, due to specific provisions which administrators believe will hamper their institutions.

“Congressional Republicans’ plans to slap unprecedented new taxes on higher education have left college leaders shocked and scrambling,” Benjamin Wermund writes in

Politico

, adding that this appears to be “the latest salvo in what some observers say is a growing culture war on a higher education system seen as elitist and out of touch.”

Countless College presidents have publicly denounced the bill; Vanderbilt President Nicholas Zeppos called the tax legislation “unprecedented,” adding, “It’s troubling.”

Some College presidents have been far more aggressive in their statements. “We’re being challenged on all of these fronts, and we see that reflected for example in the tax legislation,” Rice University President David Leebron told

Politico

, adding “We’re being out-demagogued by folks who just want to talk about how wealthy we are rather than what we use those dollars for.”

Hamilton President David Wippman walked a careful line, simultaneously expressing his concerns without deriding the bill in full before seeing the final product.

“While it’s difficult to evaluate the overall impact of the legislation or its effects on endowment growth, particularly since the legislation remains in flux, there are provisions that are of concern to the College, including the excise tax that would hit the endowments of schools like Hamilton and the elimination of tax breaks for certain benefits now available to the College or its employees,” Wippman told

The Spectator.

“It is important to remember that the largest percentage of Hamilton’s endowment is earmarked for scholarship aid, so any reduction in the income we receive from the endowment would affect one of our core principles: access.”

“We have advised our representative in Congress of our concerns and will continue to follow the debate as it moves forward,” Wippman concluded.

The excise tax, which Wippman took specific issue with, is a proposed 1.4 percent tax on investment income stemming from college endowments. Buried on page 75 of the bill, the language clearly targets only the most affluent colleges; the institutions subject to the tax are those with endowment assets of at least $100,000 per student.

Hamilton’s endowment, as of 2014, was $498,131 per student. As a result, Hamilton, according to syracuse.com, would have to pay $650,000 per year as a tax on its private endowment, which the College utilizes to provide scholarships, among other benefits.

Additionally, according to an unnamed administrator, under this bill, Hamilton employees would have to pay federal income tax on benefits worth $2.23 million this year. This administrator was likely largely referring to the tuition benefit provided by the College; Hamilton pays 50 percent of tuition for children of College employees.

This benefit is extended to lower-wage hourly workers, such as custodians, as well as higher-paid tenured and nontenured professors. As of writing, 87 children of Hamilton College employees receive such a benefit. Nine of these students attend Hamilton itself, where tuition this year is $52,250. Under the GOP plan, employees would have to pay a federal income tax on this benefit.

According to Erica Green of

The New York Times,

“To help pay for the $1.5 trillion tax cut, lawmakers eliminated many individual tax breaks,” adding, “while many families and businesses would see tax cuts, a large percentage of undergraduate and graduate students would see their tax bills increase, some dramatically.”

Karen Leach, Hamilton’s Vice President for Administration and Finance, expressed concern about placing a tax on such benefits, indicating that the College uses the benefit to recruit potential employees.

“The faculty’s children are treated the same as a custodian’s children,” Leach told syracuse.com, adding, “It has been a great tool for us. We have tried to pay average salaries for the region and have slightly better benefits. It’s how we stay competitive.”

Despite the concerns expressed by College presidents and administrators, the consequences of the bill on higher education — and Hamilton specifically — remain difficult to truly grasp.

Ann Owen, Chair, Professor of Economics and Henry Platt Bristol Professor of Public Policy at Hamilton, indicated pessimistic caution in a conversation with

The Spectator.

Owen, formerly a Federal Reserve economist, told

The Spectator

, “Current CBO estimates suggest that over the next 10 years, the deficit will increase by about $1.4 trillion under the Republican tax plan under consideration in the Senate. In other words, net tax revenues will decrease under this plan. While an increase in the federal government deficit can negatively impact the economy in the long-run, it would not have a major effect on Hamilton.”

Overall, Owen expressed ambivalence about the yet-to-be finalized plan, saying, “There are several provisions of the plans under discussion that would directly affect Hamilton, but the impacts are not all positive or all negative.”

“For example,” Owen continued, “potential changes in tax code that could affect Hamilton in a negative way include: imposing a tax on Hamilton’s endowment returns or repealing the individual mandate which could substantially increase the cost of health insurance that Hamilton provides to all its employees,” while “An example of a provision that could benefit Hamilton’s financial position would be the cut in the corporate tax rate. This would likely lead to higher stock prices and endowment returns.”

“At this point, until the details are finalized, it is difficult to say what the net effect on Hamilton will be.”