In the last issue of Random Lengths News (Dec. 3), I wrote an article about the University of California fee hikes in the context of the California budget crisis. In it, I wrote about the same dynamic I discussed in my Nov 21 diary here, "California's higher education crisis: "Shock Doctrine" in action". More and more, the UC is operating like a private business, making decisions out of a private business mindset, rather than a public trust mindset.
The big picture here is that conservatism is about elite rule, and maintaining or resurrecting social structures, institutions and practices that support it, while liberalism is about the spread of individual freedom, equality, and open, democratic self-governance. Close to the heart of this difference is the issue of how money functions in the society. It's most important to have Democratic budget processes, in which the broadest possible choices between public spending priorities are made in the most open, transparent and representative manner. More specific choices are properly delegated to those with specific administrative authority, but always within the confines defined by democratically adopted laws. This is key to the creation and maintenance of a liberal democratic order, as opposed to a neo-feudal one, which is what we have been in the grip of increasingly since Reagan's election in 1980--right around the time that cyberpunk novelists invented the dystopian neo-feudal vision.
Under neo-feudalism, budgetary powers are constrained by an elaborate framework of structural and procedural restrictions that effectively insulate decisions from broad democratic accountability, empowering entrenched special interests against the common good. Instead of everything being on the table at once, so that big-picture choices can be made that truly reflect the broad consensus of public priorities, different procedures help ensure that different logics apply to different areas of public expenditure. That's why elites are currently trying to create a special commission to gut Medicare and Social Security, for example. The story of higher education in California is the story of that process in action over a period of nearly two decades now.
California's Budget Crisis:
Privatization vs. Democratization
By Paul Rosenberg, Senior Editor
On November 19, the University of California Board of Regents approved a 32-percent fee hike, amidst waves of protests by UC students, faculty, staff and supporters. The massive fee hike contrasted sharply with the staunch refusal to raise general revenue taxes, which has resulted in the most massive cut-backs in state services ever seen in California history. But the total UC fee increases since 1992 are actually ten times that amount-318 percent, adjusted for inflation.
In Major Downturn 1 (1992-1995), UC lost about 20% of its state funding and raised fees (excluding campus fees) from $1624 to $3799, an increase of 134% in 3 years.
In Major Downturn 2 (2002-2005), UC lost about 16% of its state funding and raised fees from $3834 to $6141, an increase of 60%.
In Major Downturn 3 (2008-??), UC has already lost 25% of its state funding. This is by far the worst of the downturns, and is hitting the state workforce hard. Fees started at $7126 in 2008. Were they to rise by the average of the two previous increases, or say 100%, they would be at about $14,250 by 2011-12 - up another $4000 from 2010-11 (set yesterday at $10,302).
Adjusted for inflation, the 1992 fees of $1624 would be $2462.30, less than 1/4 the new fee level.
Call their offices and urge them to vote YES on S. 1762, and NO on the Nelson-Burr Amendment. The Capitol Switchboard can be reached at (202) 224-3121.
------------------
Last week, most student organizations rejoiced as the Democrats shepherded the Cost of College Reduction Act through the House of Representatives. The Bill represented the largest increase in student aid since the G.I. Bill. It accomplished this in part by cutting excess government subsidies to corporate lenders, who were fattening their wallets on the backs of debt-ridden students. Republicans tried unsuccessfully to kill the bill in the House. The Gavel had an excellent post about that fight and the bill's passage.
The Senate version of the bill - The Higher Education Access Act of 2007 - is set to provide $17 billion in student aid to college students and recent graduates, among other provisions to further protect students. But Ben Nelson (D-NE), whose home state is also home to Nelnet, one of the biggest corporate lenders, is trying to weaken the Senate version of the bill and return $3 billion of that to the lending industry so they can continue to line their pockets on with corporate welfare.
What I'm hearing is that the cloture votes on Iraq and the DOD reauthorization are going to fail, and the Higher Education Access Act of 2007 will be brought to the floor instead, with voting to be scheduled for today or tomorrow. Right now, Republicans supposedly have 3-6 Democrats willing to side with lenders on the Amendment, so they are likely to see it pass.
Here's what you can do:
Call your Senator and urge them to vote YES on S. 1762, and NO on the Nelson-Burr Amendment. The Capitol Switchboard can be reached at (202) 224-3121, and the operators can tell you both who your Senators are and connect you.
Also ask which way your Senator plans on voting. If we can find out who those 3-6 Democrats are that are supporting lender subsidies over students we can ratchet up the pressure on them.
STATE BLOGS
