Everybody wants everything, but nobody wants to pay for anything
I have been following Donald Douglas‘ stories (three separate links) about the University of California student protests over tuition hikes with some interest, and came across this comment from someone styling himself Pissed Off Conservative (@DitTwitr), who wrote:
I’m a 31 year old conservative student at UC Davis. I have a wife and three kids, work, and a rigorous academic schedule to keep up with. I’ve never been into protesting, demonstrations, or activism, but I am now in support of this action against the UC regents. My tuition is going up $1,500 in 4 weeks. It goes up another $1,500 next fall, meanwhile, CA taxes are rising. I’m being squeezed on all sides. And I will not be silent any longer. I struggle as it is to make ends meet and remain in school. I have classmates that can’t return to school next quarter because of the fee hikes. Meanwhile the regents sit upon a $3.2 Billion dollar emergency fund an won’t put forth the (effort) to tap into it. Instead, they raise my raise my tuition because it’s easier and requires less legal effort! Furthermore, CA spends more on prisons than on education!! Change must happen.
Dr Douglas has been somewhat dismissive of the protestors as socialists and communists, but when one of the people (intellectually) protesting identifies himself as a conservative, I had to take note, and responded:
Dear PO’d Conservative:
OK, so your tuition is going up. Surely you realize that your tuition does not cover the entire cost of your education at UC-Davis. Now, if you aren’t going to be responsible for the whole cost of your education, just whom do you think should be required to pay for it?
There are a lot of Californians who work as cashiers at convenience stores, who work collecting your garbage, who are stuck in the depressed areas of the cities, and who will never have a realistic chance at going to college themselves, and whose children will be lucky if they even finish high school; should they be taxed more to pay for your education?
I assume as a 31-year-old Californian, you voted last May in the special election: did you vote for the tax increase in Proposition 1A, or did you vote against it?
I wrote about the California special election concerning Propositions 1A-F last May, before the election, and said:
I’ve said it many times before: the voters have continually elected candidates who promised lower taxes: Ronald Reagan, the elder George Bush, Bill Clinton (even though he was lying through his scummy teeth), the younger George Bush, and even our current President, Barack Obama, ran on a promise of tax cuts, greater tax cuts than John McCain promised. (President Obama’s campaign website tax promises are still available on the internet.) Many of their opponents promised tax cuts as well: Al Gore ran on a huge tax cut platform, just one not as large as the one on which the younger Mr Bush ran.
There was, of course, one candidate who ran on an explicit promise to raise taxes. Walter Mondale did rather poorly in the 1984 election, winning just one state.
In California, probably our most liberal state, we’re about to see whether a liberal electorate is going to approve the tax increases to fund liberal policies enacted by government. It should send a very large message to our politicians: the voters either will approve higher taxes to support liberal programs, or they will prefer lower taxes.
I wrote that before the vote, but expected the results: there were plenty of polls which predicted them.
There are the results: in not even one county did the voters of the Pyrite State vote for the (supposedly) temporary tax increases. The voters rejected the tax increases by 3,152,141 to 1,668,216 (65.39% to 34.61%), in a state dominated by Democrats, a state where liberal policies dominate, and a state which, just 6½ months earlier had given 61% of its votes to Barack Obama. Even the very much leftist-dominated San Francisco voted against higher taxes, even though all of the state’s elites were out there, telling the voters of the draconian measures, the tremendous spending cuts, that would have to be enacted if they didn’t vote for the tax increases.
The problem that I see here is that even a urinated-off self-described conservative seems to think that somebody else owes him a college education¹, that even a self-described conservative thinks that other people should have to pay for a very significant benefit not available to everyone. This conservative probably hopes that his university education will lead to a better, and better-paying, profession in the future, something which will give him a greater economic advantage over most of the people in the Pyrite State, yet he somehow expects the waitresses and the cab drivers and the concrete finishers to pay for it.
________________________
¹ - My dear mother used to refer to taking a cat to the vet to have him neutered as getting his “college education.”
Americaneocon:
Good piece, Dana.
My argument is that the radicals are using student unrest to push their program of revolutionary change. The overwhelming number of students unhappy with fee increases would not occupy campus buildings or resort to violence confrontations with police. This is the the beginning of a youth rebellion, and the Marxist academic and media elites are milking it for what it’s worth.
Don’t know about that PO’d guy, but I guess he’s caught up in the entitlement thing even as he claims to be conservative.
22 November 2009, 9:10 amOther Dana:
It’s interesting that the 31 year old conservative at UC Davis who was protesting the fee increase, has a wife and three children to support, and I assume rent/mortgage payment as well. That said, there is a certain amount of planning that needs to be done in life. If you take on the immense financial responsibility of having children, unless you are independently wealthy, it is inevitable that other *dreams* go by the wayside for 18 years or so. This person did not plan accordingly. There is no one responsible for that lack of planning but himself (and his wife). Certainly not the taxpayers of Cali. If that means no UC now, then that’s just another consequence of his own decision and lack of planning. There are state colleges that are far less expensive, and there is simply the possibility that school is not a viable option right now. Once his kids are older and on there own, there is more money and opportunity to return to school and be able to afford it. Too bad, so sad.
Often this issue is more about wanting it right *now* rather than thoughtfully planning out a reasonable course of action. If our conservative UC Davis student has to focus on work and providing for his family while putting off school until the kids are independent, it won’t be the end of the world.
I don’t disagree that the cost of a UC education has gotten out of hand, but no one is forcing anyone to attend, and there are options.
22 November 2009, 10:53 amYorkshire:
Entitlements, the death of this country.
22 November 2009, 12:11 pmEric:
Well, I can sympathize with this guy to this extent - the tuition hikes were probably unexpected, and he wasn’t able to budget for them. That said, I was lucky. I went to the U of Arizona back when instate tuition was about $350 a Semester. You just couldn’t beat a deal like that!
22 November 2009, 12:23 pmJohn Hitchcock:
“Entitlements”, the death of this country.
Fixed that for you, Yorkshire.
22 November 2009, 12:31 pmOther Dana:
Eric, they were indeed unexpected, however, this being California and given our economic disintegration, it’s not surprising at all and frankly, should have been expected. We have seen for the past few years, more and more classes eliminated from college schedules in an effort to save money and to stave off fee increases (although they’ve certainly incrementally occurred as well). No one in California should expect anything less than to see severe cost increases in public services, education, utilities, infrastructure and anything else Sacramento can squeeze us for. After all, as we have had hammered home to us repeatedly, it’s not a spending problem, it’s a revenue problem. And if voters continue to vote in Dems, this will be the way of our state for years to come.
22 November 2009, 12:34 pmJohn Hitchcock:
I still like my idea of a longitudinal split in CA. Make 51 states out of the 50. We can have Coastal California (postal abbreviation CC) and East California (postal abbreviation EC). That way one part of Cali can survive as the other part sinks into the abyss.
22 November 2009, 12:42 pmDana Pico:
John: So, would the border be along the San Andreas Fault?
22 November 2009, 2:31 pmDana Pico:
The California Dana wrote:
Compared to what? Tuition is higher at the Pennsylvania State University system than in the UC system. The University of Kentucky, from which I was graduated, costs $8,123 for an academic year for freshmen and sophomores, $8,358 for juniors and seniors, exclusive of some higher costs for certain courses. That’s less expensive than UC or Penn State, but it still ain’t cheap. Costs of living are probably a lot lower in Kentucky than California.
If my memory is accurate, my tuition for my senior year was $405 a semester. Of course, that seemed like a whole lot to me at the time.
22 November 2009, 2:41 pmOther Dana:
Dana Pico, fair point and I absolutely think when you take into account our exorbitant (and continuing)cost of living here in the Golden State, the UC increase is just one more negative impact. Students and parent will have to work harder to find a solution if they’re bound and determine to graduate out of a UC (rather than state) but the idea that anyone deserves that privilege - even if it means someone else foots the bill - is something I cannot agree with.
22 November 2009, 3:25 pmPissed Off Conservative:
Dana,
I appreciate your piece and you raise some important issues. The central theme, being entitlement, but first let me address a glaring mischaracterization you’ve made of my argument.
Clearly the state of CA (taxpayers) subsidize my education - a fact I am very much aware of and incredibly appreciative of. But I ask, what’s your point? Are you advocating the dissolution of state universities? Do you truly want to see a less college educated America, and live with the consequences of not being able to become more competitive to bring back jobs to American shores? What purpose would dissolving affordable education serve? The UC system has been at the forefront of not only California research, but of research nationwide.
Now, of course your not advocating that (at least I hope not). I’m sure you were just using it to drive your point home that transferring the tax burden onto the cashiers, garbage collectors, and residents of low socio-economic neighborhoods would be unjust. I AGREE which is why I didn’t advocate such absurdity. You clearly missed my point entirely! The UC regents sit upon $3.2Billion dollars in an emergency fund and they are unwilling to put forth the legal effort to use it for this emergency. My support for the actions the students and faculty are taking lies in this point. Use the fund for what is was designed - this EMERGENCY!
As to your question about the Proposition 1A: no I did not vote for it, because it would transfer the burden of the State’s mismanagement onto the “cashier, garbage collector, and the residents of the low socio-economic neighborhoods.” - something that goes against my conservative beliefs. Had I voted yes for it, the “waitresses and the cab drivers and the concrete finishers” would have had to pay for it.
Do I feel entitled to an education? NO!! This is why I work while I’m school. I am not complaining about the sacrifices that I put forth or how difficult it is - I simply believe the UC regents should be accountable for their actions/mis-actions.
In other words I support this movement for the same reasons that I support the nationwide tea parties. I can’t imagine you’d argue against the tea party movement? Americans everywhere, myself included, are tired of the mismanagement of our leaders. Would you oppose people protesting tax increases? I’m certain you wouldn’t. Then why do you oppose students protesting fee increases? None of the students, at any of the protests, have been calling for an increase in taxes. At least none that I have been following. (If they do, I will be re-evaluating my support for them.)
In an effort to inform you, the organization you are de facto defending, the UC regents, are now lobbying to ask the CA legislature for more funding, (i.e. asking the taxpayer to further carry the burden of their mismanagement). Do you think that if they receive them they will then reduce the tuition increase? They most certainly will not.
A few more factoids for you - The fee increase put upon the UC undergrads are bloated in order to offset costs for the veterinarian, medical, and business schools. These program’s fees remain the same, but they take from the undergrads, whose likely earning potential upon graduating (if we can even find a job) will be one-fifth the earning potential of the vet, medical, and business school graduates. In this case the UC undergrads are analogous to your “waitresses, cab drivers, and concrete finishers”.
By the way, I’m not urinated off - I’m pissed off!!
[Released from moderation -- JH]
22 November 2009, 11:17 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Ticked off conservative, the reason Mr Pico used a different term is because there are some people, such as himself, who see no need in swearing in everyday language.
22 November 2009, 11:27 pmJeff:
POC:
The UC regents sit upon $3.2Billion dollars in an emergency fund and they are unwilling to put forth the legal effort to use it for this emergency. My support for the actions the students and faculty are taking lies in this point. Use the fund for what is was designed - this EMERGENCY!
If someone invested $3.2bn conservatively, the income off of that investment would probably be ~$60M a year. What is happening to that money?
23 November 2009, 12:23 amJeff:
(In practice, of course, universities tend to have very well-paid fund managers who would make more money off their investments than the paltry sub-2% return I assumed there…)
23 November 2009, 12:24 amPissed Off Conservative:
John Hitchcock,
Thank you for the heads up, and I agree on principal that swearing isn’t necessary. However, sometimes, there is no other way to invoke the correct sentiment that one has.
- PO’d Conservative
23 November 2009, 12:56 amOther Dana:
Pissed Off Conservative, I’m really glad you have commented here and given a fuller explanation of your actions. For the moment though, do you believe that the others protesting with you have thought the situation through as much and see basic problem in the way you do? It’s been my impression from the news clips/interviews that most of the students are young and perhaps with a bit *different* mindset (generalizing here: I deserve this, stick it to the man, mom and dad still paying tuition…) rather than someone a bit older as you are, and with a family, job, etc., which lends a different perspective.
23 November 2009, 1:10 amPissed Off Conservative:
Other Dana,
Fantastic point, and my short answer is not likely. To your more salient point, the mindset of the students: I believe that many of them don’t see the connection, or perhaps, are unwilling to see the connection between California’s implementation of social programs (in my view we are among the most “socialist” states in the union) and the current budget woes. When I talk to fellow students, I am quick to point this connection out. Some accept it, and others quickly dismiss it. However, to their credit, during the occupation of the administration building on Friday evening (Dutton Hall, where crowds dispersed peacefully when the police arrived, in contrast to the occupation of Thursday evening) many of the more liberal students expressed the importance of keeping the message to the accountability of the UC Regents, especially President Yudof, rather than making it the “responsibility” of the taxpayer.
Having said that, and at the risk of making yet another lengthly reply, there are some important facts to understand about the CA institutional restraints that have created our mess.
The CA history of district gerrmandering, ballot measures, and term limits have created a horrible situation. Voters, truly hold much of the blame for our budget mess. We (I include myself, as a Californian, but typically vote against spending measures) pass ridiculously expensive measures, without regard to where the money will come from. Most don’t realize that 90% of CA’s revenue apportionment has legal stipulations on where it must be spent. Voter’s by their ballot measures have done the stipulating. This then means that the state legislature really only has control over about 10% of the revenue. So when you hear in the news that CA can’t pass a budget (our last budget was 85 days late) it’s because legislators are quibbling over where to spend the table scraps.
Why not more consensus? This is where gerrymandering has played a detrimental role. Due to gerrmandering, CA districts are far right or far left leaning, and vote in representatives accordingly. While ideologically I like the idea of more staunch conservatives in Sacramento to counter the staunch liberals, pragmatically both sides have been detrimental to getting things done.
As for term limits, again, I agree with them on face value, but in a system like CA’s, where we have so many polarized freshman reps. because of the constant turnover on both sides of the aisle, many times the reps. seek the advice and research of special interests. These special interests don’t have turnover, and thus have become experts on navigating bills through Sacramento. I’m pretty sure I don’t need to say more on this point - (I can not stand the SEIU, and many others that have become so influential in CA politics).
Finally, we are the only state to require BOTH a 2/3 vote to raise taxes, AND a 2/3 vote to pass the state budget. You can see how the things I’ve laid out make it nearly impossible to pass a budget. These, in my opinion, are the most salient contributing factors to why California is the 1st in the country on Prison spending and 48th in the country on education. Not to mention, likely #1 on overall spending, or at least close to it. I wish Obama would look to the state of affairs in CA and put 2 and 2 together, just as my counterparts should at UCD.
Wow!! that is far too long winded an answer to your quick question - my apologies! (I really shouldn’t use this site as a place to procrastinate my writing my papers! Can you blame though when I have to write on the electoral systems of Afghanistan and Iraq? What a mess!!)
23 November 2009, 2:23 amPissed Off Conservative:
Other Dana,
23 November 2009, 2:38 amAfter going back over my much-too-long response, I realize I didn’t answer your question directly. NO I don’t believe that many of them see it in the same light as I do. Some may well be doing for the generalized character that you put forth. But there are many, many other principled students in this movement with me, that have given a lot of thought into why or why not support this action.
Dana Pico:
If the Regents are sitting on a $3.2 billion emergency fund, what is its legally-specified purpose? It must have one.
Given the formerly Golden State’s huge budget crisis, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if the Regents had to dip into that fund to pay normal operating costs. Our new PO’d (probably outraged?) friend noted that he didn’t vote for the Proposition 1A tax increases (though, from his statement, he might not have voted against it either; he may have chosen not to vote last May), and all of California’s elites were out there, making the case that the failure to approve 1A would lead to very deep cuts in services and state funding, including funding for education.
In effect, through a directly democratic process, the voters of California said that tuition was going to be increased.
I must say that I don’t understand your reasoning here. You have said that you “support the nationwide tea parties,” did not vote for the temporary tax increases in Proposition 1A, and that you certainly don’t support the notion of transferring greater tax burdens onto the economically lower rungs of society. But somebody has to pay for things!
Commenter Matt, in the same thread on American power, said that there were over 1.5 million students in CSU, CCC and UC. You said that your tuition was going to rise $1,500 for the next semester, and another $1,500 after that. If we assume that, over two semesters, the students in the California university systems are going to be facing $4,500 in additional tuition costs, that $3.2 billion would be exhausted, and more than exhausted, before it covered the tuition increases for the second semester.
It is really very simple: someone has to pay for your education. If you don’t pay for it all, then someone else will have to pick up the slack. If the state can’t afford to give the UC system as large a subsidy as previously, due to the budget crisis and the rejection of higher taxes by the voters, then from where do you think the extra money will come? The reserve fund? Your ideas would soon exhaust it, simply delaying the pain for a semester and a half, and then the problem would be right there again, with no reserve fund available for anything.
Here in the Keystone State, tuition is significantly higher than in UC; my daughters are looking at more than $15,000 a year. Their choices mean that the United States Army is going to be paying for their educations, but it also means that they could be called up at any time and told to put their lives on the line for it.
23 November 2009, 7:10 amDNW:
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but,
Re. Ca. and General Fund (not Special Fund)
General Fund History Revenues and Transfers versus Expenditures
General Fund Program Distribution
Note that in 1976-77 the General Fund percentage expended for K-12 was 27.74% and Higher Ed was 17.96%.
“K-12″ is now given 41% of the general fund revenues, while “Higher Ed.” constitutes 12.67% of the expenditures.
“Tax Relief”, whatever that actually is, as a General Fund category is now .053% as opposed to 12.98%.
Something is sucking up the money, even accounting for declines in tax revenues …
From 2001
23 November 2009, 2:23 pm“The Structure of California’s Budget California’s state budget is divided between the “general fund” and various special funds. The official budget for fiscal year 2001-2002 (beginning July 1, 2001) involved projected expenditures of $100.1 billion of which $78.8 billion are part of the general fund and $21.3 billion come from special funds. Another $3.2 billion in expenditures was planned for other bond funds. Revenue going to special funds such as transportation is in principle earmarked for a single purpose, whereas revenue to the general fund can be used for a range of public purposes. In theory, therefore, the general fund is the source of discretionary spending whereas the special funds are earmarked and in principle limited in use. Charts 2A-B and 3A-B show the projected division of expenditures for the total state budget in 2001-2002 and for the general fund alone. As can be seen, K-12 education is the largest single element of state expenditures. Income and sales taxes are the largest sources of revenue. The precise percentages vary depending on whether the general fund alone or whether all funds are included. In fact, the boundary line between the general fund and the special funds is fuzzy. So, too, is the concept of discretionary use. Various mandates and entitlements effectively earmark a large proportion of the expenditures from the general fund. The most important of these are the requirements of Proposition 98, passed by the voters in 1988. This complex law requires that a certain percentage of general fund revenue – determined by formula but on the order of 40% - be used for K-14 educational purposes.5 Some state funding comes from the federal government and is used for designated objectives. Such funding must be used for the entitlement programs specified by the federal government. In addition, some expenditures are ultimately determined by caseload. For example, if more people are sent to prison, corrections expenditures will increase. On the other hand, mandates such as Proposition 98 could be changed through the political process. Voters could amend or even repeal Proposition 98. Thus, even mandatory expenditures could be seen as discretionary under some scenarios, however unlikely these may be.6″
PO'd Conservative:
First, the UC system, CSU system, and CCC are separate systems. True that all fall under the umbrella of “state schools” however, the UC regents and their reserve funds only affect the UC schools. The $3.2B and (subsequent interests if its possible to be re-invested) would only go to the UC Schools. I’ve been remiss in explaining that every year tuition goes up, to cover operating costs. You haven’t seen us complain about the yearly 10% that has become standard. But 32%! Really? There are other options. And a generous portion of that goes to cover the programs of the “upper rung” programs such as Veterinarian, Medical and Business programs. Surely you can see this as a problem. To put a finer point on it - the somebody to pay for the increase the UC reserve fund. (Again, which only covers the UC schools, and not the CSU or CCC schools) Also why not cash out some other property holdings or to offset the increase, so that instead of 32% increase, perhaps a 15% or 20% increase.
To shed some perspective between Penn State (a fantastic institution) and the UC system, Penn State has the highest tuition of any of the PAC - 10 schools. It’s tuition is twice that of the national average. That being said, the Keystone state’s tuition only increases only 5.5% to 6% from year to year. Even in the budget crunch that the fine state of PA is in, the most that its tuition will increase is 9.8%, (4.5% with state aid), a rate far more manageable than 32%.
In the end, who will pay for the cost of my increase? I will. And I’ll do what it takes to make it happen, but it is absolutely ridiculous that I must bear the burden of the cost for the Vet, medical, and business student’s education, especially given that their income potential upon graduating is form $95K to $120K. But most absurdly, I must pay for the gross mismanagement of the Regents handling of this mess.
23 November 2009, 4:11 pmOther Dana:
I’m on my way out the door but in quick response to PO’d Conservative, you will note that UC’s last year began the task of charging engineering and business majors more because their majors ensure higher paying jobs.
I see that as unfair. People freely choose their majors. There is a current of liberal arts majors who can’t find work, and yet that is still the most common major chosen by students. Whose responsibility and/or choice is it that they do this? Why should engineering students be charged more money simply because they are savvy enough and smart enough to choose a major that it is in demand?
23 November 2009, 4:22 pmPO'd Conservative:
Other Dana:
23 November 2009, 4:36 pmI absolutely agree! That it’s asinine, especially at the undergraduate level. Unless I missed something in the piece that you linked to, it looked like it was a proposal (which hopefully won’t go through, but given the Regents modus operandi it’s likely it will). It also didn’t show causality that they’re doing it specifically because they have greater income potential, (are there greater costs in those programs such as the obtaining of engines, tools, etc.?). Regardless, I agree that it’s unfair.
Eric:
Well, in fairness to PoC, he did point out that, pretty much by definition, all state colleges/universities etc. are subsidized to one extent or another. So, whether you’re going to the U of Alaska or Florida State, you’re getting some help from the taxpayers. The only alternative is to either abolish all state schools or else privatize them so that 100% of the operating costs are covered by tuition. So, I’m not sure what your point is, other than the obvious, which is that state colleges are paid for, in part, by state taxpayers, something we’ve generally accepted in the 100 plus years that such institutions have existed. We could, of course, do away with that, but for various reasons have chosen not to.
23 November 2009, 5:45 pmDana Pico:
I’m not going to defend the details of the Regents’ plan: I simply don’t know enough — or care enough — about the divisions between veterinary students and other majors. At that point, you may have a point.
Your complaint now — and maybe all along, but just now expressed — isn’t that tuition has increased, but that you are being asked to pay a much bigger percentage increase, in effect, paying a larger percentage of your total educational costs than before. This is surely a hardship, but it is difficult for me to see anyone being asked to pay less than 100% of his total educational costs as having a complaint. If I give you a gift — and state-subsidized education is truly a gift — I do not see how I am obligated to continue giving you the same gift, year after year, and be further obligated to never reduce the size of the gifts given. It’s like Dudley Dursley counting the number of gifts he got for his eleventh birthday, and demanding more because he was about to get fewer presents than the previous year. (If you are familiar with the reference, you know it’s a harsh one. I don’t mean to be rude, but I have always been very blunt.)
You’re a well-spoken — or at least well-written — man. At this point, I’d suggest that you should be running for the State Assembly. You clearly have a problem with how a particular part of the state government is functioning. Well, I’d say it’s time for you to take action to get your voice into the decision-taking process. Right now, you are simply one of the governed, and subject to the decisions of the governors.
But, be prepared: should you ever become part of the governors, you will have to deal with all of the competing interests for the taxpayers’ money. If your current objection is to be satisfied, then something else must be cut.
23 November 2009, 7:20 pmSharon:
We went through a similar shock in Texas during the 1980s when I was in college. For about 30 years, all Texas state schools charged $4 per semester hour for in-state tuition. This was wonderful for me, in 1982, when I was paying my own way through school. By the time I had my (at the time) well-paying job at the newspaper, I could pay for an entire semester plus books with one paycheck (about $350). But about a year before I graduated, the state began racheting up the price quite steeply. It was a big shock to discover that I suddenly had to budget and save my money to pay for the next semester.
Of course, that is all 20-odd years ago, but the response is the same. Big increases, as opposed to very small and gradual ones, will always get a heated response from students, most of whom, whether 20-somethings or older students, just can’t adjust their budgets as quickly as the regents can adjust theirs. Maybe it means taking longer to get through school, but obviously, the taxpayers don’t want to foot any more of the bill.
23 November 2009, 7:55 pmPO'd Conservative:
No, I’ve been quite consistent in my argument from the beginning. In response to Donald Douglas‘ stories, (to which you responded here) I wrote:
I’ve repeated this in these comments three additional times since my original post. The regents are out of line in raising the tuition when they have viable alternatives, but are unwilling to pursuit them.
Dana Pico wrote:
If you don’t know or care about this, than you you don’t know or care about the problem, or why the students are protesting!! This is the crux of why we are protesting. Or in more simpler terms:
We are not protesting the taxpayer, we are protesting the UC Regents actions!
We are not protesting taxpayers wanting to pay less taxes, we are protesting the UC Regents!
Dana wrote:
This is a straw man argument! Who is asking you (the taxpayer) to pay more? NOBODY!! Or actually I take that back, in your piece above YOU give a tone of advocacy that the liberal state of CA should be willing to fund a liberal tax hike. Which to use your argument against you, would put the tax burden upon the “lower rungs” of society.
Dana wrote:
Another fallible straw man argument. NO I don’t believe that somebody else “owes” me an education. I do however, believe that the regents should be held accountable.
Dana wrote:
So, you’re saying that I shouldn’t call it how I see it because I go to a state school? That is absolutely ridiculous. That’s tantamount to saying, “Dana, unless you paid 100% of the $2.4 Trillion in U.S. tax revenues, you can’t complain about America’s state of affairs”, which clearly is a ridiculous argument.
So allow me to say it one more time: my point is that I support the UC student protests to the actions of the UC Regents - not the taxpayers - the board of governors of the UC system - the UC Regents.
“Education should be the handmaid of citizenship” - Calvin Coolidge.
23 November 2009, 11:05 pmCommon Sense Political Thought » Blog Archive » Ten nouns, five verbs and one adjective:
[...] how did Allie herself vote? I wrote about this topic previously, and when I asked one UC-Davis student protesting the tuition increases how he voted in the special [...]
13 December 2009, 9:47 amfamily law solicitors:
This is interesting. Fees have only become an issue in the UK in the last ten years. I worked at a University when the fees where introduced and it led to Students asking for more services for their money which is fine in princple but the department I worked in gained no extra funding from the fees. It leds to conflict but hopefully improved services. With an election in the UK next year it will be interested to see what role tax will play.
16 December 2009, 7:01 amLisa Hammer:
Put university employees on a four-day workweek (retaining a five-day schedule) and withhold 20 percent of their pay.
27 January 2010, 2:18 pm