CALPIRG benefits UCLA students
First of all let me state that I have not been canvassing for CALPIRG, though I do support the chapter having pledged, and I sincerely think there is a benefit to the UCLA community as a whole by having the chapter on campus.
The article by Makarechi (“CALPIRG funds local annoyance,” Feb. 9), however, paints a false portrait of the CALPIRG chapter.
I am fully aware of CALPIRG’s tactics, and no representative has ever “antagonized” me.
The fact of the matter is that CALPIRG is another outlet for students who are passionate about making positive real-life changes for the people of California.
They currently provide 30 internships for students to gain experience and build their resumes. They were instrumental in passing Proposition 1A, the high-speed rail initiative. They organized a press conference at UCLA, bringing officials and knowledgeable professionals to educate the student body.
Also, the UCLA CALPIRG chapter alone registered 2,300 students in the last election.
Sure, there were other voter registration efforts by funded student groups, but they all worked with members of CALPIRG to ensure that it was easy and convenient for students to register and vote.
As for the textbooks, CALPIRG has helped push through a 2010 law that enables students to have the option of purchasing textbooks without the bundled options of CD-ROMs and other bonus materials which may or may not be used.
Furthermore, his argument that Congress is simply going to do what it wants, regardless of public interest groups, is quite false, and it is contradictory to the claims he later echoes, saying, “Our democracy systematically depends on interest groups and lobbyists, and groups like CALPIRG have a right to exist.”
Let me also point out that many student groups on campus are funded through student fees involuntarily. CALPIRG isn’t asking for a huge donation, only $5 a quarter.
This averages out to $1.25 a month, less than a cup of coffee bought at Kerckhoff, which is run by ASUCLA.
CALPIRG provides students with the conscious decision of supporting a group which has proven itself historically to be a powerful lobbying tool in the state of California. It provides another community at UCLA where students can instantly join and feel connected to the issues affecting them which they care about.
Lastly, Makarechi’s comment that “it is a less powerful lobby than its opponents, which begs the question: Why would we fund it?”
We should fund it precisely because it is a less powerful lobby than its opponents.
We already fund its opponents overwhelmingly with the multitude of unconscious buying decisions we make every day, unaware of what political group we are supporting.
Just because companies don’t tell you what their interests are when they try to sell you their products and services doesn’t mean they aren’t lobbying for their self-interest.
Luchino Castagno
Fourth-year international development studies student
Depledging CALPIRG no easy task
In response to Kia Makarechi’s column (“CALPIRG funds local annoyance,” Feb. 9) about the annoyance of CALPIRG, I also wanted to include something.
I felt pressured into pledging CALPIRG my freshman year and thought I would just depledge a quarter later.
That was no easy task.
On at least three separate occasions during my four years at UCLA, I called the number listed on my BAR account next to the CALPIRG charge and got voice mail each time. The message said if I wanted to depledge, to leave my name and student ID number and it would be taken care of. That never happened.
I ended up paying 5 dollars a quarter against my will for 4 years. I feel like something should be said because students are essentially trapped into paying the fee once they sign up.
Ellen Ho
Alumna, class of 2008
Pherson gets the facts wrong
I’ve written once complaining about Alex Pherson’s use of fact in his editorials.
Consider this statement from his latest editorial on the stimulus plan: “(President Barack Obama’s) bill is laden with pork, which should not be part of any bill let alone a stimulus. There’s $400 million for global warming research, $4 billion for ACORN (a political organization that’s been charged with fraud), $1 billion for Amtrak, $2.4 billion to study carbon emissions, and $335 million for STI education.”
While the bill still includes a considerable amount of pork, Pherson is intent on claiming that the bill was written by President Obama.
Want to blame someone for the pork in the bill? Look to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
The only mistake Obama has made concerning the stimulus has been his inability to contain Pelosi and Reid’s mismanagement of the entire process.
How about the $4 billion for ACORN?
Flat-out lie.
“In fact, the bill contains no language mentioning ACORN. The false claim is based on a misrepresentation of a provision that would appropriate $4,190,000,000 “˜for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes as authorized under division B, title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008,'” according to mediamatters.org.
The provision requires that money will be distributed through competitive processes.
It states that “not less than $3,440,000,000 shall be allocated by a competition” to “states, units of general local government, and nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities.”
It also provides that “up to $750,000,000 shall be awarded by competition to nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities to provide community stabilization assistance.”
By the way, this is all from mediamatters.org, a nonprofit organization committed to exposing fictitious statements in the media. (The report Pherson might be referencing was one by a San Francisco Chronicle reporter who disseminated the initial falsehood.)
While ACORN might be able to secure funding, it is by no means guaranteed.
And while accusations of trying to register fake voters are real, it was an isolated incident by volunteers hired to go around neighborhoods and register voters. An isolated incident of registering fake voters has zero effect on the political process, most obviously because a fake registration doesn’t correspond to a real person. The forms get discarded.
Indeed, I share Mr. Pherson’s concern about the pork.
The Democrats’ are overreaching.
But it isn’t Obama’s overreaching. He is locked in a power struggle within his own majority party in Congress.
If Pelosi and Reid let Obama dictate the stimulus bill, they’ll be at a disadvantage throughout the rest of his term regarding their own liberal agenda.
Obama can’t afford to support this same agenda and expect to get re-elected in four years.
Michael Johnston
Fourth-year history and political science student
Regents should look at their priorities
The Daily Bruin has recently presented several stories and editorials discussing how the state budget cuts will affect UCLA students. These pieces have made it seem that all of the university’s budget problems stem from a lack of state funding.
The only problem with this repeated narrative is that it is simply false.
The UC system gets less than 15 percent of its total budget from the state. Moreover, the university has billions of dollars in reserves and has recently announced several new spending initiatives.
The reason why classes may be cut and fees will go up is purely a question of priorities.
The university has been able to raise the cost and lower the quality of a UC education because the students and parents rarely, if ever, protest these changes.
One reason for this lack of resistance is that everyone blames the state budget for everything.
While we still need to push the state to fund the university at a higher rate, we also have to push the university to make undergraduate education a priority. It makes no sense to increase enrollment or change admission standards if we do not have more faculty to teach the new students. Instead of talking about financial aid and SAT tests, the regents should be talking about class size and available courses.
Robert Samuels
Lecturer, writing programs