• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

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.