Yesterday the Seattle Times editorial board argued that the Governor and the Legislature should balance the state budget without raising any taxes. They don’t explain why we shouldn’t raise any taxes, it’s just kinda a given behind all their editorials, which they apparently don’t feel they have to explain. But that’s not my concern for the moment.
Instead I want to briefly talk about how we fund higher education in Washington state, spurred on by this line item from the Times’ list of possible cuts:
• $600 million — Cut seats in state universities and community colleges. Cut some tuition waivers. Offset some cuts with increased tuition.
Of course, with unemployment rising, we’re already seeing a spike in demand, particularly at our state’s community colleges, as students of all ages seek the training and retraining necessary to compete for jobs in our rapidly changing economy, so the last thing you want to do during an economic downturn is to cut seats and raise tuition, thus denying unemployed and underemployed workers the opportunity to better their job prospects. But then, education comprises by far the largest chunk of our state budget, so it’s hard to imagine pulling education cuts entirely off the table.
There is another solution though, that I’ve written about before, that could absorb some of these cuts in the short term, while allowing for an expansion of seats in the future, without costing taxpayers a dime: dramatically raise tuition near market rates, while broadly expanding our state’s financial aid system.
Essentially, under our current system, every college student in the state is heavily subsidized, whether they need the subsidy or not. This broad, per student subsidy lowers tuition rates for all, but still leaves college unaffordable for many potential applicants. But perhaps worse, it strains our college and university system’s resources, leaving it unable to expand the number of seats available to meet existing demand.
But if we were to shift a larger portion of the state subsidy toward financial aid, while allowing tuition rates to rise, those students who can afford to pay the full cost of their education will do so, leaving more state resources to fund the education of those students who cannot.
When we talk about budget cuts, in education or elsewhere, we are talking about rationing. Right now, with our broad, per student subsidy, we ration access to education. Under a high tuition/high financial aid model we can maintain and expand access to higher education while rationing the state subsidy.
Hiking tuition is never popular, but then nothing about the upcoming budget is going to be popular. So why not take advantage of this crisis to put higher education funding on a solid footing for the future?
They don’t explain why we shouldn’t raise any taxes
————–
Because they have faith in Gregoire’s thinking on the issue?
@1:
It’s code for “Don’t eliminate the tax write-offs we, who make good to ludicrous sums of money, are entitled to. And for God’s sake, don’t make me your primary target via an income tax. Oh, and can we have some bailout money too?”
As of a couple of years ago, the public college from which I graduated was charging $7500 a year for in-state tuition, while UW’s was a fair piece lower.
One thing though. How would this effect holders of GET credits, if at all?
I know that in general raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea, as more taxes will most likely depress economic activity even further. But, with the budget crunch, and with gas prices dropping like a rock, isn’t now the perfect time to raise the gas tax? Would anyone even notice a 10 cent per gallon increase given the fluctuation in price these last few months?
And if the gas tax were raised, could the extra money go to the general fund, or would it have to be used for roads/transit? That is, is there a law that says all gas tax revenues have to go to a certain program?
Means testing tuition seems to me to go exactly opposite to what a liberal should support. We should promote equality of opportunity AND elitism. If we need to make cuts, make them at a level were there is less vlaue to a student attending the UW.
Currently, driven by pork, the uW operates two “branches” that are little more than community college suppliments … Bothell and Tacoma. Attendance ag either campus costs a lot more tha attendance at a state college and, there is no evidence the education is as good as the excellent education offered by the state colleges.
Moreover, these Potemkin campuses are not competitive with the Seattle site .. the college board scores are a good 100 points lower!
Similar issues obtain locally. Not all or perhaps not even most UW students need the resources of a research university, Does anyone think it takes a University to train a teacher or athletic studies grad? Should we make further cuts in the much needed computer science, political science, or biology programs in order to support vocational programs that could be handled at less expensive state campuses?
My bottom line, if we are to make cuts in the size of the student body, we need to preserve Cutting that meat so we can run Potemkin campuses in Tacoma, maintian a large student body irrespectivce of their use of UW resources, or build a new stadium is inane.
more …
There are other worrisome issues. In the recent years the UW has made some leveraged acquisitions .. the SLU campus and the former Safeco Bldg. Are these viable?
The Athletic Dept. is proposing a six million dollar salary for the new coach.
taxes @3,
The state constitution dedicates the motor fuel excise tax to roads and ferries, but it says nothing about a motor fuel sales tax. We could, for example, extend the sales tax gasoline, and pull that into the general fund, or dedicate it to whatever purpose we want.
Personally, I would like to see a local option motor fuel sales tax that could be spent on operating and building transit.
Goldy–
Like a typical Leftist, you jump immediately to the FUNDING without 1st attacking the COST of Higher Education. You just ASS-U-ME there are no possible cuts to be made in overhead, facilities, compensation, benefits etc.
C’mon Goldy…1st things first.
NO SACRED COWS!
Let’s put ALL the Higher Education Costs on the table and do our best to get dollars to the CLASSROOM….not to the Leftist “Academic Snort & Sneer” krowd. They have been sucking off of tax dollars Waaaaaaaaaay too long.
Look at what our University Presidents are being paid…and Athletic Coaches. Athletics SHOULD be funding education a lot more than it has been.
I’m just sayin’———–
COSTS must be put under the microscope First!
Since the poorest 20% pay 17% of their income in local/state taxes and the richest 20% pay only 4%, why is it a given that those most able to pay shouldn’t pay a little more? I’m not saying they should pay 17%, but why is raising their share from 4% to, say, 5% such a big deal? It’s not like this will cost the state economy jobs; if our reason for giving the rich their special privilege of not paying the taxes that working people have to pay is a tradeoff for jobs, where are the jobs? With the jobs the rich supposedly provide for the rest of us disappearing right and left, isn’t the rationale for their special tax privileges also disappearing?
Seattle Jew–
You seem to know A LOT about the Academic Pork. Time to start carving out the fat, don’t you think? Actually, it’s loooooooooong past due. It’s just if you ever speak up or question academic spending, the AKademic Elitists “squeal” like stuck pigs making questioners out to be Child-haters and Anti-Edukation.
I’m just sayin’……..
Seems like yet another area Conservatives and many Liberals can agree needs serious reform.
BTW…Who works for whom???
Seems like we work for the spoiled, elitist AKademics…when it should be the other way around.
Rog–
You keep repeating these percentages like a broken record.
Just because I take risks and make good money, why should I pay more for basic local services?
I already pay more because of the value of my property.
I already pay more because I purchase more.
I already pay more because I contribute more.
Yet a family of 4 uses more public services than our family of 2!
Sorry Rog…folks are tired of your diehard Lefty mantra of make the “rich” pay more for Government Services. Let’s first CUT the administration & overhead Bureaucratic Goo along with the mission of Government.
Government at all levels needs to get back to the basics….Infrastructure and Public Safety/Defense.
@7 Athletic coaches are paid from broadcast license fees and ticket sales, Cynical. They command high salaries because they bring in big bucks for colleges. Sorta like CEOs of corporations, but with less socialism. In other words, unlike a CEO, if a coach doesn’t produce he loses his job. At any rate, I think you’ll find that successful coaches are net revenue producers for their colleges. At the U.W., football and basketball ticket sales subsidize all the other athletic programs, such as the U.W.’s top-ranked women’s gymnastics team. The U.W. has about 20 all-expenses athletic scholarships for female gymnasts, and that comes from football revnues.
@10 I see a lot of whining in this comment, but I don’t see any explanation of why poor people should pay 4 times as much of their income in local/state taxes as rich people.
Goldy — I’m in the unusual situation of strongly disagreeing with you on this. I think that once you’ve imposed a means test, you’ve destroyed the broad coalition of working-class & middle-class families that currently fight to hold tuition in line. Imposing a means test may be a short-term wise use of financial resources, but it’s a short-sighted use of ideological resources. And in the long run, it will likely push tuition higher for everybody of all income levels.
More on my blog, if anyone’s interested: http://fattailed.com/2008/11/2.....subsidies/
@10 (continued) There’s a reason why I keep citing the same percentages, Cynical. You know damn well where they came from — the Gates Commission study. Unlike wingnuts, I don’t peel numbers off the wall or “fix the facts around the policy” — these are the actual numbers, and we’re both stuck with them. If you don’t like those percentages, then change Washington’s tax laws so they look better, instead of whining about the measly 4% you don’t have to pay because you don’t even live in this state. That’s what I’m trying to do, and I invite you to join me in this worthwhile effort.
FiveThirtyEight.com Projects Franken Win By 27 Votes
FiveThirtyEight.com, renowned for some of the most accurate polling in the nation, has used a statistical regression analysis to determine that Al Franken will win Minnesota’s U.S. Senate recount by 27 votes.
On a precinct-by-precinct basis, FTEC noticed a direct relationship between the number of challenged votes and whether Franken is gaining in the recount. Needless to say, the GOP camp is filing most of the challenges, and the number of votes challenged by the GOP is escalating as the race draws closer.
Among other things, FTEC observed that Franken has gained grounds in precincts where there are few or no challenges, and lost ground where 5 or more ballots were challenged.
The Brand X candidate had a 215-vote lead going into the recount. That has shrunk to about half that size as the recount has progressed, but there are thousands of challenged votes yet to be determined by a state canvassing made up of nonpartisan judges, and these are expected to favor Franken as the GOP has been doing most of the challenging, obviously hoping to keep Franken votes from being counted. The overwhelming majority of these challenges are frivolous and will be thrown out by the canvassing board, adding to Franken’s vote total. The Franken campaign has deployed 1,000 lawyers to keep the recount honest.
Minnesota is a slightly larger state than Washington, with nearly 2.9 million votes cast in this race, so the Brand X candidate – Franken contest is shaping up to be even closer than Washington’s 2004 governor’s race.
Now ask yourself, what are the odds of two major races — a governorship and a Senate seat — being that close only 4 years apart, when nothing like this ever happened in the first 228 years of our country’s existence? That’s a remarkable coincidence … and one that points straight at Republican election fraud.
You see, when they steal elections, they don’t want it to be obvious. So when they go into the black boxes to alter the vote count, they don’t give themselves large and implausible victory margins. The idea is to create just enough fictitious electronic votes to eke out a win, so nobody will take too close a look at where the victory margin came from. But this can go awry if the election thieves underestimate the number of Democratic votes, which can happen for any number of reasons, such as underestimating turnout in certain demographic groups. These sorts of miscalculations are why Rossi lost in 2004 (they didn’t steal enough votes in Snohomish County, where numerous touch screen machine anomalies and malfunctions were reported), why the GOP lost the 2006 midterms (they underestimated the Democratic turnout), and why the Brand X candidate is fighting for his political life in Minnesota this year (they didn’t steal quite enough votes to nail it down tight, so now they have to scramble to keep legitimate Franken votes from being counted).
Means testing won’t necessarily mean smooth sailing for poor students. Back in the ’60s, when I was in college, the imperious financial aid bureaucrats considered you a “dependent” until age 22 and your parents had to submit financial forms. All they looked at was how much money your parents made. It didn’t matter if they had other kids to feed, or big medical bills, or simply refused to put you through college. It was formulaic: If your parents made X dollars, then you got Y financial aid.
Well, the way that worked in my case was, even though I was on my own, living far away from home, and dirt poor — and I do mean dirt poor — and got no family help whatsoever, I never qualified for Pell grants or work-study or anything except loans that I had to pay back (and did pay back). Never mind that my parents couldn’t put me through college because they were rabbits and, well, you know how rabbits breed … according to the damn formula, they made X dollars so I theoretically received Y dollars from my parents and that’s the only thing they counted and never mind the fact I didn’t get a penny from them.
It was a clusterfuck, and the scheme outlined by Goldy will be too, unless the rules are written to reflect the actual reality of each student’s personal financial circumstances. As always, the devil is in the details, and in the 21st century — when 18-year-olds are considered adults, serve in the military, and vote — if a college student isn’t getting de facto financial assistance from his/her parents, then parental assistance should not be presumed.
If you don’t do it that way, you’ll end up discriminating against rabbits and other students from big families, or families with high medical expenses, or students whose parents simply are tightfisted.
ROGER RABBIT
With all due respect this is hokum. The Athletic Department pays NO overhead and returns no moneys to the rest of the enterprise. claiming it make money is like saying the US Navy makes money off or its aerobatic jet team .. THE BlUE ANGELS.
All other enterprises on campus pay overhead of 60-100%. As for the pro-teams supporting the other costs of the student athletic programs, nonone has ever been willing to show me those numbers.
Finally, there are serious issues with racism when the major part of the UW’s African American students are on athletic scholarships and manu of those are put of state.
Yesterday the Seattle Times editorial board argued that the Governor and the Legislature should balance the state budget without raising any taxes. They don’t explain why we shouldn’t raise any taxes, it’s just kinda a given behind all their editorials, which they apparently don’t feel they have to explain. But that’s not my concern for the moment.
————
For one thing, Goldy, you’ve argued regularly there is no deficit, just a deficit projection, so until we actually see the numbers we should reserve judgment, no?
And, of course, Gregoire swore up and down there would be no tax increases, and I don’t recall your raising objections to these pledges at the time.
A final observation . . . the Times’ thinking for spending reduction comes up a billion dollars short based on a 5 billion shortfall. As Gregoire noted Friday, this could go to 6 billion, and at this point I doubt any state planner has much confidence in even this larger number given the fluid environment.
With Gregoire’s tax pledge I don’t see how massive spending cuts can be avoided, with higher ed being ground zero.
@7 Mr. Cynical
The saddest thing about your post is that you seem to have no real interest in reform..
For whatever it is worth to you, the UW is an awesome bargain. Even if you add in ALL the state contributions to student costs, we are at worst in the moddle of other state schools in total costs BUT we are, in many areas, near or at the top pf ALL American Universities! In effect, this makes a UW degree one of the best bargains left in education.
Where the UW does get less done than it might, it is exactly the problem of a flase effort tat accommodating politicians aho care more about local pork or the footbhall team than they do about productivity. Here are some examples:
+ 1/3 of all UW diplomas now go to students who come here from community colleges. Is this a good deal for the state or does it mean we are overspending on the 2/3 who now get a community college level first two years on campus?
+ the UW offers a large number of bachelor degrees in vocational topics that could and are being taught as well or better in the state colleges.
With a few important exceptions, e.g. neurobiology, the uW makes very little support avai;lbale for undergrads who want to avail themselves of our respources.
+ the UW lags far behind other national universities in developing internet and computer based resources that could enr8ich programs at the State Colleges, CC, and even high schools. If you want hard evidence of this take your iPOD and look at iTunes University for the the UW presence.
BTW, very few workers in any other enterprise who work for the low wages the UW pays. We do it for nonfinancial rewards .. i8ncluding the joy of helping others learn.
@13 Shhep
We agree. Means testing ITSELF adds costs. Lets just make admission to the UW very hard and then admit fewer kids bhut fully pay their tuition as it is done in the civilized world. If anyone thinks this is unfair, create a pay back obligation.
@18 John
Right!
Gregoire knowingly lied, of couse so did Rossi. I wish there were a way to recall the effin elction and make them both run with lie detectors!
I fault CG more. She has had 4 years where a leader could have and should have educated the public on our real needs.
#17
How do we know that? Maybe it’s true, but how do we know it?
@16 RR
I agree. Means testing is a bad idea .. period.
A btter idea is ability and achievement testing. We need to encourage hard work and reward success.
If anyone thinks bright kids from high value homes should pay more, then lets just have a progressive tax system.
@22 Emily
I have sat in a committee that reviewed this and read the published UW budgets.
The NY Times ran a piece, about a year ago, showing that essentially no colleg athletics program braks even UNLESS yu factor in and believe their claim that the teams bring in academic donations.
19. Proud to be SeattleJew Today spews:
Au contraire SJ, I have plenty of interest in reform.
There is little objective accountability for Universities…just propaganda. It has lead to a never ending spiral of increasing costs waaaaaaaaay above the rate of inflation.
The game works like this—
USC says UW has this and we don’t.
UW says UCLA has this and we don’t.
The University Presidents say, this University pays more…we are better (cuz I say so) therefore increase my salary.
And ALL the University Presidents gladly participate in this merry-go-round of justifying accelerating salary & benefit packages.
Look at the Cost/Student numbers SJ…and look at inflation. Not even close.
The problem is this:
University Presidents control their Board of Regents just like CEO’s control their Corporate Boards. What is even worse about University’s is THEY TAKE PUBLIC MONEY and are PUBLIC RESOURCES.
Bargain @ UW???
Perhaps in your eyes.
Do you teach there SJ??
Does anyone in your family circle teach there??
@17 Why don’t you call the UW athletic dep’t to find out, SJ? You work for the UW so that shouldn’t be too hard for you to do. My baby bunny was in UW girls’ gymnastics for years and we never paid a penny for it. The coaches told me the gymnastics program was supported by football money.
Rog–
SJ works for the UW??
No wonder he thinks a UW education is a real bargain!
@19 “For one thing, Goldy, you’ve argued regularly there is no deficit, just a deficit projection, so until we actually see the numbers we should reserve judgment, no?”
No. The governor is correct to anticipate that the Bush Depression will result in a future revenue shortfall and to take pro-active steps now to deal with it, which she has been doing for about a year now.
@27 Yeah, he’s a research scientist in the medical school.*
* Don’t let this go to your head, Cynical — just because you conduct field research on the sexual behavior of goats doesn’t mkae you as smart as SJ. You both have PHDs, but his is a Doctor of Philosophy and yours is only a Post Hole Digger.
@28 RR
I HAVE talked about this before with them as a member of a committee, discussed this with a former university president, and had many discussions with others who are knowledgeable.
The issue is complicated because not all their revenue is visible. What I can do is point you to the NY Times magazine and to any copy of the UW budget, it is available on line, that shows a net inflow of moneys. If there is a net cash flow to the campus I would assume ti would be easy to find.
Frankly I am NOT an opponent of the football program, it seems to me as raional a function fo the UW as performances at Meany, the museums. or the maintenance of the Arboretum. We are a public service.
What I am concerned about is the image of a six million dollar state salary, from any source, at a time of fiscal stress, the lack of an in state competitve athletic effort, the racism resulting from the program, and the false impression that somehow the rest of the campus benefits from this activity. Cap that with a reguest for over a 100 million ot enhance Husky stadium and I do have a concern.
If I had my druthers, we would leave the PAC 10 and join a conference that puts more value on acadecmic achievement and representation of state students on the team. Athletic scholarships should not be allowed at all unless we do the same for academic scholars.
@30 If the football coach’s salary comes out of athletic revenues, I don’t see what the beef is. But in these tough budget times, or in any times for that matter, I can’t see giving the U.W. a dime of the $150 million of General Fund money they want for remodeling Husky Stadium. What’s wrong with Husky Stadium the way it is?
@25 Cynical
Get some facts to support your claims.
I have nO interest in a head to head comparison with USC .. we are a far better school and we generally do better than UCLA as well. I fact, in some areas the UW ranks number one nationally, despite not having one of the best state support levels. Is that a bad thing?
Of course, we could take your view and pick as a standard Mississippi or would your prefer some Ukranian campus? How long would we keep Microsoft, Boeing, Amazon, etc without an excellent campus?
Look, I AGREE with you that there is a need to rationalize BUT unlike you I believe in data. If you know where the UW should be more efficient, say so .. show me numbers.
@31 What’s wrong with Husky Stadium the way it is?
—————-
It’s impossible for the host team to win games there.
@31 The athletic Dept is NOT a separate business. If the Seahawks wanna pay that I have no ocnern .. though I wish my taxes did not subsidize them too!
Moreover, isn’t there something unseemly in paying that sort of a salary out of state funds at times like these?
The inheritance tax is very low, it could be raised substantially without affecting many citizens feeling the current economic pinch. Same for the B&O tax on newspaper publishers.
@4: Poor Seattle Jew and his defense of UW.
Hey, I went to UW as a grad student – but would I recommend it to an undergrad? Heck NO!
Huge classes taught by TA’s and professors who get their promotions based solely on research.
Sure there are some good profs who also like to teach – but the key here is “also like to teach” – it isn’t the primary focus.
Meantime, the branch campuses and community colleges are specializing in education and kicking UW’s butt. In the sciences, I see many students who say the the community colleges are FAR superior to UW at less than half the cost for the same classes – more rigorous and better instructors with no TAs and smaller classes. why bother going to the UW?
And WSU – even worse in most categories. And you can’t even say the football teams are any good anymore.
@10: cynical
Yeah, like the billions your hero bush wasted on Iraq? Or the billions going into the pockets of wall street bankers for screwing up?
Right….like you have ANY credibility. Public education is the shining light of democracy. Without public education all the other crap doesn’t matter because NO ONE can succeed. Democracy is a rigged game without public education.
Right….like you have ANY credibility. Public education is the shining light of democracy. Without public education all the other crap doesn’t matter because NO ONE can succeed. Democracy is a rigged game without public education.
————-
Contact Gregoire and let her know about this before she finalizes the “ugly, ugly” cuts she’s talking about now.
Right….like you have ANY credibility. Public education is the shining light of democracy. Without public education all the other crap doesn’t matter because NO ONE can succeed. Democracy is a rigged game without public education.
————-
Contact Gregoire and let her know about this before she finalizes the “ugly, ugly” cuts she’s talking about now, especially in higher ed.
@24 Proud to be:
When I worked at the UW, one of my duties was to reconcile monthly Budget Activity Reports for three different budgets in my office. One budget was self-supporting (like the Athletic Department is supposed to be). Every quarter, some money would be sucked out automatically for “institutional overhead.” It wasn’t much money, < $100/year, but that budget took in <$10,000/year. So maybe all the budgets in the Athletic Department have to pay institutional overhead, too.
Emily
The rules are pretty easy .
basal costs for sup[port of externally funded work ay UW cost about 65%. That covers the libraries, the police, the building, accounting, purchasing, Drumheller, the president, the provost, student support, etc.
100 WOULD NOT COVER MUCH.
Emily–
Thanks for the enlightenment.
University’s…and all government for that matter are masters at Budget shell-games. Especially making sure all dollars are pissed away at the end of the Budget cycle.
It’s an institutional bad habit that must be exposed & ended.
PS—In my past, I did audits on several government entities and even as a young bean-counter, I was amazed at the reckless spending at the end of a Budget Cycle.
Spend it or lose it.
Spend it or get it deducted in the next budget.
UGLY & RECKLESS with TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
If Gregoire could so easily raise spending 8 Billion in the last 4 years, she is the perfect individual to cut that very 8 Billion and we will once again have a 2 Billion dollar surplus.
I’d even support her then!
This is NOT the time to be raising taxes, even Obama knows that.
Get a CLUE!
Couldn’t raising tuition push high-income students out of state schools and into private ones, therefore decreasing the amount of $$ going to financial aid?
@41
Proud to be: Of course $100 isn’t very much. But my budget was just a little bitty one. And the Athletic Department’s budgets are great big ones, I betcha. Before we say the Athletic Department doesn’t pay its share of the overhead, we need to know how much it actually pays.
these are YOUR earnings that are being stolen and squandered.