Archive

Getting ugly in California

  • Manhattan Buckeye
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/19/california.tuition.protests/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A

    I understand the budget situation is dire there, but why are they forcing the burden on those least able to pay for it?
  • fan_from_texas
    Ouch. Things are getting nasty out there.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    FFT, as you know I'm not a Californian, but I just read the School's report on UVA's payroll and budget for the past year, we have professors there who are not only incompetent, and wouldn't be hireable in private practice, but yet still get paid $300,000+ per year (ok, I'm only talking about one guy, but he was truly, truly bad, he must have pics on someone). This academic bubble is not sustainable. At some point market forces have to come into play.
  • Cleveland Buck
    Manhattan Buckeye wrote: FFT, as you know I'm not a Californian, but I just read the School's report on UVA's payroll and budget for the past year, we have professors there who are not only incompetent, and wouldn't be hireable in private practice, but yet still get paid $300,000+ per year (ok, I'm only talking about one guy, but he was truly, truly bad, he must have pics on someone). This academic bubble is not sustainable. At some point market forces have to come into play.
    As long as the government keeps handing out subsidies and tax breaks and grants and guaranteeing student loans, tuition will continue to rise until no one will be able to afford it, just like every other industry where the government gets involved.
  • fan_from_texas
    Manhattan Buckeye wrote: FFT, as you know I'm not a Californian, but I just read the School's report on UVA's payroll and budget for the past year, we have professors there who are not only incompetent, and wouldn't be hireable in private practice, but yet still get paid $300,000+ per year (ok, I'm only talking about one guy, but he was truly, truly bad, he must have pics on someone). This academic bubble is not sustainable. At some point market forces have to come into play.
    I feel bad for the UC-Davis kids who'll be paying $60k/yr + living expenses for their degree. I mean, the UC system is good and all, but with all the BIGLAW salary cuts this year (and layoffs in general), that just isn't sustainable.

    I need to get into the education business. There are so many crappy law schools popping out students . . . diploma mills costing them $50-70k/yr with no realistic payback options. Incredible. I'm surprised there haven't been more lawsuits about this.
  • majorspark
    California needs to fill a $20.7 billion budget hole. Decades of unbridled spending has caught up with them. A state blessed with all kinds of natural resources is reduced to this. You can't even reduce the rate of growth of a government program without someone crying foul. To answer the OP's question when the well goes dry those least able to pay and most dependend on the government will always bear the greatest burden

    http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/2334771.html

    Some problems California has in balancing its budget.
    California can't touch most funding for K-12 schools or colleges because the state already is spending close to a minimum amount required by the federal government. The state can't cut Medi-Cal until January 2011 for the same reason. Those programs make up more than half the state's $84.6 billion general fund budget.


    They try to trim spending and they get sued.
    California faces a new shortfall in part because lawmakers and Schwarzenegger relied on several risky solutions in budget agreements earlier this year.

    They include a $1 billion partial sale of the State Compensation Insurance Fund, now under legal challenge by Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner. They also include $800 million in transit money that courts said the state could not use for general purposes.

    The $20.7 billion gap could grow even larger if courts toss out a $1.7 billion shift of redevelopment funds that faces review, or deem furloughs illegal.
    Here is one area that may help but won't fly in the legislature.
    Schwarzenegger again may seek to allow oil drilling off the coast of Santa Barbara in exchange for royalties
    .

    This will be the answer. Can we say start the presses?
    Taylor recommended that the state lobby for a new round of federal relief to help plug its budget hole.
  • tk421
    I have no sympathy for the state of California. This is what happens when crackpot Democrats run the state and spend like crazy.
  • Footwedge
    tk421 wrote: I have no sympathy for the state of California. This is what happens when crackpot Democrats run the state and spend like crazy.
    Isn't the governor a Republican?
  • JoeA1010
    Footwedge wrote:
    tk421 wrote: I have no sympathy for the state of California. This is what happens when crackpot Democrats run the state and spend like crazy.
    Isn't the governor a Republican?
    Yes, the governor is a Republican. It goes to show that profligate spendng is a disaster no matter who is doing the spending.
  • tk421
    Crackpot politicians in general, but California State legislature, like Congress, controls the purse strings. They've been Democrat for a long time.
  • oldtriple
    Why yes the governor is a Republican, but look at who he is sleeping with. Kind of makes him a modern Republican.
  • BoatShoes
    It's really terrible the situation with Academia, as others have pointed out. If you're on a Board of Regents and you know that the Feds will offer federal aid for the cost of tuition and your state is facing budget problems, you're going to raise tuition.

    Also, universities, and my experience has only been with state universities spend and waste money like teenagers who stole their step dad's credit card. In undergrad I was on the student programming board, the people that spend money on programs like concerts and magic shows to provide things to do for the student population and I was absolutely appalled by what my fellow board members would approve. I voted no on everything. I was the "board member of no." I mean it really is a shame that the university raises tuition to pay for half of the crap programs that they run, when none of the students go to them because they're off trying to get wasted and get some poontang.

    Then, some of these professors just are terrible. The worst teacher I've ever had, going all the way back to kindegarten was a law professor, a 70 some year old dinosaur lady who looked like skeletor. It really seems immoral to me for this lady to be paid with taxpayer money.

    As to California, from what I understand, Arnie has been holding his ground pretty well and if it weren't for him who, at least calls himself "an old school conservative" on fiscal matters, it could be a lot worse. I mean heck, he changed all the toilet paper in public buildings to Scott one-ply to try and save money.

    It's going to be a blood bath and truthfully, I'd like to see a similar slaughter on Capitol Hill. Remember, you can't spell Slaughter without Laughter.
  • CenterBHSFan
    Ok. I'm going to get shredded for this, but oh well, here goes.

    I think that people in general (not just Californians) have gotten to the point where they expect to get a lighter load financially from the government. This includes tuition. I wonder what the percentage is of people that put themselves through college without grants or other types of gov. subsidies?
    We've become a conditioned society. And when we hit that bar and no pellets immediately pop out or we don't get the amount of pellets that we think we're entitled to, we're pissed off!
    I mean, we might as well just own up to that fact and get it over with. No problem will ever get justifiably solved unless the whole equation is written down. And, this is part of the equation.
  • fish82
    Footwedge wrote:
    tk421 wrote: I have no sympathy for the state of California. This is what happens when crackpot Democrats run the state and spend like crazy.
    Isn't the governor a Republican?
    Kinda. ;)
  • Footwedge
    fish82 wrote:
    Footwedge wrote:
    tk421 wrote: I have no sympathy for the state of California. This is what happens when crackpot Democrats run the state and spend like crazy.
    Isn't the governor a Republican?
    Kinda. ;)
    What's funny to me.....all this concern from Ohioans regarding the state of California....shouldn't Ohioans be more concerned about our own state of our state?

    It's kinda like the Sudanese complaining about the tribulations of Ethiopians.
  • Footwedge
    oldtriple wrote: Why yes the governor is a Republican, but look at who he is sleeping with. Kind of makes him a modern Republican.
    I don't think Arnold bases his governmental spending habits on what Maria Shriver thinks.

    The point once again...GOP administrations, whether at the national or state level, spend just as much if not more than their Democratic colleagues.

    If the mod insists that I prove it with links...I will do so for the umteenth time.
  • majorspark
    Footwedge wrote:What's funny to me.....all this concern from Ohioans regarding the state of California....shouldn't Ohioans be more concerned about our own state of our state?

    It's kinda like the Sudanese complaining about the tribulations of Ethiopians.
    Not exactly.

    See article in my post above.
    Taylor recommended that the state lobby for a new round of federal relief to help plug its budget hole.
  • Footwedge
    tk421 wrote: Crackpot politicians in general, but California State legislature, like Congress, controls the purse strings. They've been Democrat for a long time.
    Spending is signed off by the governor...just as the president signs off on the Congressional spending.
  • fish82
    Footwedge wrote:
    fish82 wrote:
    Footwedge wrote:
    tk421 wrote: I have no sympathy for the state of California. This is what happens when crackpot Democrats run the state and spend like crazy.
    Isn't the governor a Republican?
    Kinda. ;)
    What's funny to me.....all this concern from Ohioans regarding the state of California....shouldn't Ohioans be more concerned about our own state of our state?

    It's kinda like the Sudanese complaining about the tribulations of Ethiopians.
    True dat.
  • Footwedge
    majorspark wrote:
    Footwedge wrote:What's funny to me.....all this concern from Ohioans regarding the state of California....shouldn't Ohioans be more concerned about our own state of our state?

    It's kinda like the Sudanese complaining about the tribulations of Ethiopians.
    Not exactly.

    See article in my post above.
    Taylor recommended that the state lobby for a new round of federal relief to help plug its budget hole.
    Point taken. But my point still stands. California is not the only state that may need tax payer money.

    Many states will probably need bailout money.

    If the FDIC goes under, or exceeds their self funding (a distinct possibility given the record number of failed commercial banks)....more federal bailout money. If unemployment stays the way it is....the feds will use more bailout money.

    Sorry to swing off on such a tangent here...but unfortunately, the California situation is simply a microcosm of what lies ahead....across the states.
  • AcesinCalifornia
    I will throw my two cents in, as I am now a grad student at one of the UC's. Part of the angst is about the furloughs/layoffs that have occurred this fiscal year, as many believed that the lowest earners on campuses (say, less than 40,000/year) should have been insulated. Coupled with these furloughs is a nearly complete hiring freeze and the mass cancellation of numbers of classes due to the inability to hire new faculty or part-time faculty. Finally, the tuition increase, which has been on the table for most of the year, came up for a vote at UCLA yesterday (hence the news articles, protests, etc.).

    Some here in CA have framed this as whiny students wanting everything for free, while at the opposite end some accuse the California public university system (UCs, Cal States, Community Colleges) of attempting to weed out the poorest (often minority) students by making public education less affordable, particularly at the UCs, which are the highest rung of the three-tiered ladder. I don't really see it as being either of these extremes. If the tuition hike had been lower, say 5-10 percent, there would have been far less objection. Likewise, if the hike hadn't been coupled with the furloughs, cutting of campus services, and reduction of classes, the tuition increase would not have been such a big deal (In other words, some feel that they are going to pay more to get less educational opportunity). However, the increase of 32 percent in less than one year (part of it in January, the bulk in September) is of course far more dramatic than 5-10 percent over a 3-4 year period, and I think the massive rise is the major issue monetarily. This is especially true when one considers that the parents/grandparents of a number of these students attended public universities in CA for free, or at extremely low rates well into the 1990s. Most students are willing to shell out for their education, but the increase of over 2000 dollars in tuition abruptly was a major impetus for the student actions, particularly in light of the reduction of the resources and, in some cases, the quality of the education due to budget cuts. That being said, undergrads will be paying just over 10,000/year in tuition after the increases, which is not that far out of line with in-state tuition in many other states. For example, undergrads here currently pay about the same amount in tuition than I did at Ohio University in the mid-late 1990s. The increase will put the UC's at comparable levels to the tuition at OSU, OU, BG, etc., and less than a Miami, William and Mary, or other comparable highly rated public universities.

    However, the students really need to focus their complaints on the legislature/governor in Sacramento. As many have mentioned already, regardless of party affiliation, the government in this state have played a major role in both mismanaging the money they do have and cutting programs like education to compensate for their budget shortfalls. Only they can really implement meaningful change in the funding for the public universities.