Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently released his new state
budget and detailed his plans for possible fee increases in higher
education.
The governor’s budget is both a product of unfair federal
tax policies that have deprived California of necessary revenue,
and a product of political leadership that fails to consider the
benefits of small tax increases. Thus the budget wields substantial
cuts, fee hikes and altered tax distributions.
It is certainly not an easy time to be a Californian, but in
order to make progress, we must push for major reform and new
leadership at both the federal and state level.
Schwarzenegger’s budget will be painful for many segments
of California. For example, state subsidies for chemotherapy will
be reduced or even eliminated for persons afflicted with cancer
““ including children. Also, state workers’ pensions
will be adversely affected as they are forced to pay even more
money into pension plans.
Additionally, California’s K-12 system will lose a minimum
of $2 billion in funding, while enrollment at University of
California and California State campuses will be slashed by 10
percent. Funding for research and faculty development will also be
hindered.
Fee increases of 40 percent are in order for UC graduate
students and community college students, and UC undergraduates may
see annual fee increases of as much as 10 percent. The Cal Grant
program, which helps students pay for their educations, will likely
bear cuts as well.
Further, local governments will suffer considerably as $1.3
billion in tax revenue is moved from local to state coffers,
hindering local governments’ ability to establish a
comprehensive set of priorities and goals.
However, Gov. Schwarzenegger is only partially to blame for the
current situation. The governor has refused to consider minor tax
increases, even on the wealthiest Californians. Such increases
could prevent some of the drastic cuts in services that the budget
includes. An increase in tax revenue will certainly not benefit the
economic health of the state, but it could prevent cuts in vital
services without which the state will suffer many more far-reaching
consequences in the long run. A state with a high crime rate and
poor education is more dangerous than any short-term economic gains
of avoiding tax increases. With even modest tax increases, these
problems could be at least partially alleviated.
Unfortunately, Schwarzenegger seems to be haunted by his pledge,
largely directed at his own party, not to raise taxes. Our
governor’s political “obligations” seem to be
driving his decisions in this area. Ironically, this reminds one of
Governor Gray Davis and the misguided promises he slavishly
remained beholden to ““ and we all know where that got us.
However, there are also aspects of Schwarzenegger’s budget
that must be commended for attempting to make the best of a bad
situation. For example, UC undergraduate fee increases will be
limited to 10 percent per year at the maximum. While this is still
painful for students, and reflective of the deprioritization of
education by state and national leaders, it is much more palatable
than the 40 percent increase imposed for the 2003-2004 school
year.
Most of all, it is important to remember that Schwarzenegger has
been in office for a relatively short period of time, and he
inherited a very dismal budget situation. He did not create it
himself. And, the general budgetary difficulties faced by the state
are, among other things, fundamentally the product of years of
unfair treatment of our state at the hands of the federal
government.
One of the major reasons why California has undertaken such
massive spending cuts is an unfair federal tax system that actually
punishes California for being economically successful and
contributing so much revenue to the federal government. According
to Taxfoundation.org, California receives roughly 76 cents for
every dollar we send to the federal government in tax revenues.
This means that California is actually harmed by taxation in terms
of services received, while states like New Mexico, which receives
$2.37 per dollar paid in federal taxes, benefit. This trend is
largely due to California having a higher per capita income than
many states that are helped by federal taxation, and thus
California pays more because of the “progressive taxation
system.” The money our state is deprived of could be used to
prevent budget cuts in vital area and to preserve access to
education by eliminating the need for fee increases in community
colleges and universities.
Clearly, California voters must push the national government to
alter the ill-planned tax system and make it more equitable to
states that contribute so much to the national economy, like
California. I understand that wealthier states will have to help
poorer states, much as people with more money are asked to pay more
taxes in order to help those less fortunate. However, when a
wealthy state, such as California, is in such dire straits, the
federal government is obligated to assist ““ much as they do
for poor states. Thus, while it is fair that California receives
less money than many poorer states, the current system is far too
skewed and drastic.
With the largest congressional delegation in the nation, and
more voters than any other state, if Californians decide to demand
fairer treatment from our national government, we certainly have
the power to improve the budgetary situation of our state.
With so many national seats up for election, it is time we
require our potential representatives to address these difficult
issues to our satisfaction. It is time that we elect a
congressional delegation, a state government and a president who
recognize the needs of our state and who do their best to alter the
current system to make it more equitable.
Bhaskar is a third-year political science student. E-mail
him at sbhaskar@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.