The LA Times reported today (More non-Californians are offered freshman slots at UC schools) about the disturbing trend of the University of California increasing the number of out-of-state freshmen to make up for budgetary shortfalls.
The UC System is built and funded to provide California's children a world class education - part of our state's collective effort to help our citizens achieve their dreams and create a more vibrant economy. This is one part of the reason California used to be the 6th largest economy in the world.
Fact is that, due to budget cuts and revenue shortfalls, they now need to raise more money from tuition than before - out of state tuition is now $34K (UC out of State Tuition), about 3x in-state tuition of $12K (UC in State Tuition)- do the math.
What this means is that our educational institutions are no longer fulfilling their mission to the state in terms of delivering on the promise of improving education for state residents.
This is due to revenue (tax) and budget shortfalls and choices we are making as a state about what to fund, and not to fund. Real tradeoffs are being made that the average citizen either isn't aware of, or doesn't care about. For example - we decide to fund prisons ($9.4 BN in 2011 up from $8.6BN in 2009) (CA Corrections Budget - look to page two, bottom of the page for summary by year) to the detriment of UC funding ($6 BN proposed down from$6.4 BN) (CA Education Budget - read the first line for UC system).
The choice we are making as a society through our elected representatives is clear - less educational and economic opportunity for our citizens coupled with more funding to lock them up when, unable to get good jobs due to lack of opportunity and education, they break the law. Couple that with fewer in-state students because the UC system needs to raise revenue, and you have a vicious cycle that we're feeding through public policy gone wrong.
If you aren't pissed off then you simply aren't paying attention.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Perpetuating the Welfare Society
As the debate about what we can, or can not afford as a nation continues we have some tough choices to make. Seems to me that ideology is getting in the way of open and considered dialog on the topics that face us, and what we as a society want to be.
What values will we use to determine where to invest or not? What can we afford and what can't we afford? What role should the government play and where should it steer clear? One issue (among many) is the role of government in creating a level playing field and support structure for our citizens to live and work within. Looking at the Obama proposed budget for 2011 (NY Times Budget Analysis), something like 63% of the proposed budget goes to Social Programs (about $2.4 Trillion out of $3.69 Trillion. (1) All I can say is WOW! That's a lot to be spending. This has to beg some basic questions:
Unfortunately all we seem to be getting from both sides of the aisle is rhetoric and an uncompromising restatement of core belief statements. I don't see any real effort being made to get the issues on the table and have an honest dialog about them. Rather I see grandstanding and so called principles based discussions. In other words, I can't compromise without breaking my principles, so we won't even talk about the issues. Rather we'll shout past each other and throw our hands up in disgust when the other side won't agree to our demands. Frankly the process makes me sick and begs whether our form of government, to use a Donald Rumsfeld saying, is a "quaint anachronism" requiring a total overhaul - topic for another day perhaps.
So in an effort to start a dialog on the issues I'll lay out some premises and understandings. Today I'll try to address the first question - is there a problem here. For if we can't agree there is a problem, then certainly we'll never be able to agree that we should do something about it.
Is there a problem here worth focusing on?
So, the time I have to write this edition of Random Politics comes to a close. I know this hasn't been the most cogent of arguments. I'm sure you disagree with some if not all of what I've written. That's alright though, for it's in the dialog that we can find commonality of ideas and purpose. All I ask is that you consider the points I've made. Rebut them if you like.
In closing, a quote from one of the wisest Americans of all time. Something to think about as we consider what sort of support systems we want to have for our nation and its people:
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
Ben Franklin - On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor (29 November 1766)
Footnotes
(1) For those of you footing and ticking I've included Social Security ($738Bn), Medicare ($498Bn), "Income Security" ($567Bn), Health ($381 Bn) and Education / Training (estimated at $142Bn) in this. The next three categories are Defense (strangely $738Bn the same as Social Security), Everything Else (tons of different programs like DOE etc. at $375Bn) and Interest Expense at $251 Bn).
What values will we use to determine where to invest or not? What can we afford and what can't we afford? What role should the government play and where should it steer clear? One issue (among many) is the role of government in creating a level playing field and support structure for our citizens to live and work within. Looking at the Obama proposed budget for 2011 (NY Times Budget Analysis), something like 63% of the proposed budget goes to Social Programs (about $2.4 Trillion out of $3.69 Trillion. (1) All I can say is WOW! That's a lot to be spending. This has to beg some basic questions:
- Is there a problem here worth focusing on?
- Should we be investing in these things? Is it really the government's role to do this? Should it be the Federal Government's role? Or should it be left to someone else?
- Even if the Federal government should be investing in these matters, is it doing so in a effective and cost efficient manner? All weighty questions worthy of discussion and debate.
Unfortunately all we seem to be getting from both sides of the aisle is rhetoric and an uncompromising restatement of core belief statements. I don't see any real effort being made to get the issues on the table and have an honest dialog about them. Rather I see grandstanding and so called principles based discussions. In other words, I can't compromise without breaking my principles, so we won't even talk about the issues. Rather we'll shout past each other and throw our hands up in disgust when the other side won't agree to our demands. Frankly the process makes me sick and begs whether our form of government, to use a Donald Rumsfeld saying, is a "quaint anachronism" requiring a total overhaul - topic for another day perhaps.
So in an effort to start a dialog on the issues I'll lay out some premises and understandings. Today I'll try to address the first question - is there a problem here. For if we can't agree there is a problem, then certainly we'll never be able to agree that we should do something about it.
Is there a problem here worth focusing on?
We've heard a lot about free markets, minimalist government and a desire to take back our hard earned tax dollars. Laissez-faire capitalism seems to be all the rage these days. However, let's be clear - we don't have free capitalism in the United States. There isn't a level playing field for We the People to compete on. Rather, we've systematically created a situation where a very small number of people have enormous advantages over the rest of society. To believe that somehow the rest of us can succeed in this system is foolhardy, and needs to be challenged.
Further, Laissez-faire capitalism is a cold, hard world. It's truly the law of the jungle where innate ability and drive determine your lot, and if you're on the bottom of the ladder you get trampled. Recent economic history shows just how bad this can be with the Great Recession here in the US. Driven by corporate greed in the financial sector, and unregulated by the Government (I recall when the Glass Steagall act was repealed in 1999 telling myself and others that this surely was the beginnings of financial market collapse - the surprise to me was that it took 9 years to happen), millions of Americans were put out of work following the market crash. To policy wonks and economists these may be "market transition" effects, to common Americans this is a tragedy they can neither forecast nor control. . Something close to 60% of Americans have less than $12,000 in savings - a nest egg that is easily wiped out in turbulent times. And with no jobs on the horizon, they truly have no recourses.
We should really ask ourselves how far down the free market path we want to go
That said, do we even have a free market?
Our current system subsidizes corporations for their efforts. Oil companies receive subsidies even during years of record profits. GE posts record US profits and not only pays nothing in taxes, but receives a multi-billion dollar refund. This is known as Corporate Welfare Capitalism in progressive circles.
Further, we don't have a level playing field for individuals to compete within the market. Much of our nation's wealth is transfered inter-generationally, with the top 400 individuals currently (2010) owning something like $1.37 Trillion worth of assets (about 2.5% of everything of value in the country), and the bottom 60% of the population, or about 180 Million Americans combined owning LESS than the top 400 (about $1.26 Trillion or 2.3% of all wealth). (Politifact) As a matter of fact, the capital base is concentrated to the point of the top 20% of the populous owns 87% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 25% have negative net worth. (Economic Policy Institute Wealth Distribution press release). As a side note, the tax benefits for corporations noted above therefore flow directly to this small portion of the population that owns all the assets.
In other words a small minority of the population has a huge advantage over all others in terms of access to opportunity, much of it derived not from their own labors and abilities, but rather through the luck of the draw on who their parents were. This is similar to other systems we've seen in history - Feudalism, Oligarchies and the like. And this advantage has been increasing significantly for the past several decades with the richest 1% now having 50% greater wealth than in 1983, and the bottom 60% actually being worse off. Further, our laws perpetuate this situation through capital gains taxes (less than wages), tax exempt bonds, and inheritance laws.
Wealth accumulation in the US is intergenerational - with the majority of wealth being transferred through inheritance over time. The fact is that there's something like an 85% plus probability that you are in the same wealth quintile as your grandparents were. And if things remain the same, there's a similar probability that your grandchildren will be in the same economic lot as you are today. We have the most stagnant populous in terms of income and wealth mobility of any of the 25 OECD countries - we're worse than Great Britain or South Africa. The privileges of wealth flow to this minority therefore based on parentage rather than merit. Starting with what pre-natal care you're likely to receive (therefore determining your health and longevity once born), moving on to what schools you go to (determining your education and competitiveness in the marketplace as well as the network you have access to after school), and what society you have access to - all these are determined by who your parents are, not by your innate drive and ability. Oh, to be sure there are plenty of exceptions to this - there are hundreds of self-made millionaires out there. You may be one of them, or you may know one. However, in the law of large numbers, these are anomalies for the greater population. We can't be basing public policy on these exceptions, and shouldn't be using them to drive our world view.
So, the above tells me that we don't have free capitalism in this country, that we've created a system, and reinforced it with laws and tax codes that perpetuate the agglomeration of capital, and therefore opportunity into an increasingly small segment of the population.
These observations beg a few questions:
First - is this system somehow wrong? Do we require a level playing field? Do we care about this intergenerational accumulation of wealth and its implications for our economy and society, or is this what our nation should look like?
Second, what about the rest of the country? What does it imply for the 80% of the country that doesn't have the advantages of the wealthy? What support mechanisms need to be in place (if any?) to create opportunity and some form of security for the bottom 80%? I
hear plenty of talk about the sense of entitlement the poor seem to have, what about the real entitlement the rich have? Somehow I'd think the rich would have learned from the French Terror - that "let them eat cake" would not be the mantra of this class. It would seem to be in their self interest to at least recognize the issue and address it.
Lastly, what sort of society and government do we want to have? Should we truly be creating a free capitalistic society, a movement back to Upton Sinclair's world of The Jungle, or should we be focused on creating something different? A place where we all can succeed if we want to. Where we have the opportunity to harness the talents and passions of our citizenry. Where the weak, elderly and infirm have support systems in place to ensure they aren't cast out on the cold hard streets?
These are important issues to discuss and come to a shared point of view for they shape the answers to the next two major considerations - What role should government play in addressing this issue, and how can it be done efficiently and cost effectively.
So, the time I have to write this edition of Random Politics comes to a close. I know this hasn't been the most cogent of arguments. I'm sure you disagree with some if not all of what I've written. That's alright though, for it's in the dialog that we can find commonality of ideas and purpose. All I ask is that you consider the points I've made. Rebut them if you like.
In closing, a quote from one of the wisest Americans of all time. Something to think about as we consider what sort of support systems we want to have for our nation and its people:
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
Ben Franklin - On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor (29 November 1766)
Footnotes
(1) For those of you footing and ticking I've included Social Security ($738Bn), Medicare ($498Bn), "Income Security" ($567Bn), Health ($381 Bn) and Education / Training (estimated at $142Bn) in this. The next three categories are Defense (strangely $738Bn the same as Social Security), Everything Else (tons of different programs like DOE etc. at $375Bn) and Interest Expense at $251 Bn).
Friday, April 8, 2011
Net Neutrality?
A free and democratic society depends upon a well-informed and educated populace, for without it the forces of totalitarianism will certainly prevail. Our founding fathers recognized this in the principles of freedom of the press, never visualizing a world where the reigns of the press, or access to information, could be accumulated in the hands of a very few.
Recent history has seen an agglomeration of power and control in the radio, television and print media spaces. Unfettered by thoughtful dialog or action by our elected representatives, these sectors have been allowed to concentrate to the point where we now have a thoughtless and uninformed press, beholden to, rather than independent of, entrenched corporate interests.
We the people require free movement of ideas to maintain our independence and freedoms, something that Congress has been asleep on the watch in protecting. Today we face an even more insidious issue – the distribution networks for alternative media and information are under attack through loss of net neutrality. If companies such as Comcast or AT&T are allowed to tier or deny access to content, of any sort, then yet another source of information required to maintain a free society will have been lost.
The stakes and issues are clear. The Senate can vote for continued accumulation of power and control into the hands of a few corporations as has the House, or it can vote to keep a free society.
I know that the issue is a difficult one – these are the very corporations that provide our elected officials with large donations they so desperately need for re-election. However, as citizens of this great nation, with children and grand children who will have to live with the consequences of their decisions, I can only hope they vote for net neutrality and maintain the last vestiges of free communication that we have as a people.
Remember what this nation is supposed to represent and uphold it. This is your Senators' sacred trust. Hold them accountable to it.
Live Free or Die – John Stark, 1809.
Recent history has seen an agglomeration of power and control in the radio, television and print media spaces. Unfettered by thoughtful dialog or action by our elected representatives, these sectors have been allowed to concentrate to the point where we now have a thoughtless and uninformed press, beholden to, rather than independent of, entrenched corporate interests.
We the people require free movement of ideas to maintain our independence and freedoms, something that Congress has been asleep on the watch in protecting. Today we face an even more insidious issue – the distribution networks for alternative media and information are under attack through loss of net neutrality. If companies such as Comcast or AT&T are allowed to tier or deny access to content, of any sort, then yet another source of information required to maintain a free society will have been lost.
The stakes and issues are clear. The Senate can vote for continued accumulation of power and control into the hands of a few corporations as has the House, or it can vote to keep a free society.
I know that the issue is a difficult one – these are the very corporations that provide our elected officials with large donations they so desperately need for re-election. However, as citizens of this great nation, with children and grand children who will have to live with the consequences of their decisions, I can only hope they vote for net neutrality and maintain the last vestiges of free communication that we have as a people.
Remember what this nation is supposed to represent and uphold it. This is your Senators' sacred trust. Hold them accountable to it.
Live Free or Die – John Stark, 1809.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)