If you recently purchased a boat or a yacht out of state, congratulations ““ you don’t have to pay a sales tax to the California state government. For those students who are not as likely to make such purchases, Governor Schwarzenegger and our state legislators have other goodies in store for us.
The time of year has come again when the state legislators and the governor must set a budget for California. This year, they have decided to cut back from education and Medi-Cal, a government-funded health insurance for the very poor and ill, in an attempt to balance the $14.5 billion deficit facing the state.
Decreasing spending on education and Medi-Cal benefits directly targets the young population of the state. Reducing what little aid is already provided to this age group will lead to more problems for this population in the future.
The government plans on cutting $507 million from education. Although this reduction will leave existing classes and programs as they are, it will reduce investments in the training of better teachers and materials for poorly developed schools.
In other words, the government appears to be leaving education as is instead of adding to it. But state legislators are failing to consider the negative effects of the increase in population on education. As the population increases, more and more children will need an education, and the resources available will be insufficient.
Therefore, even though classes and programs are going untouched, the $507 million would have been invested in more educational materials. Poorer education will ensue as a result of diminishing resources, thus adding to the problems in the years to come.
On the college level, more students who try to go to a public university will face increasing tuitions. UCs that rely on government aid are already trying to make up for lacking resources by increasing their tuition.
College students already face enough debt on their own as it is. Again, the $507 million could have reduced the burdens that college students will have to face in exponentially growing loans later.
In addition to the cuts from education, the youth are again targeted as the government issued a 10 percent reduction in Medi-Cal reimbursements to doctors. Doctors, who once readily agreed to accepting Medi-Cal will now not be as willing to provide services for reduced payments.
This is a setback particularly for people who rely on services provided by free clinics, which may close as a result.
The United States depends on today’s youth. If they are not educated ““ or alive for that matter ““ in the next 50 years, there is no point in working so hard to reduce the state’s deficits.
Medi-Cal provides benefits for children from poor families, while Medicare primarily covers the elderly. The government is cutting from the former program rather than the latter, an apparent disorientation of priorities. Rather than supporting the youth, the future workers of the country, the government is focusing on the part of the community that cannot and will not make the most contributions to society.
I personally know about a dozen elderly couples that make visits to the doctor about two or three times a week for medical check-ups, which are provided for them by Medicare. Although check-ups are important, I doubt that they are necessary almost every week. As a result, doctors under Medicare know patients keep coming back to keep their Medicare benefits, so they charge more and encourage more visits.
What the government grasps from these frequent visits to the doctor is that the elderly need more health provisions than the youth and thus take away from programs aiding children and students.
This is not to say that all elderly or doctors are abusing government privileges. Sadly, there are many elderly people whose lives depend on what the government can provide for them through the benefits of Medicare. Yet the future relies on today’s healthy and able children.
Instead of taking away money from education and health care, the government should consider alternative sources of revenue, including luxury taxes. The government refused to pass a bill that would add a luxury tax for the wealthy who purchase boating vessels outside the state. The tax would have raised about $5 million in revenue for 2008 and $21 million in 2009.
The state’s recent budget cuts target youths and leave the wealthy alone. The government needs a makeover for its list of priorities.
If you feel the state is trimming from all the wrong places, e-mail Tehrani at ntehrani@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.