community colleges | CSU | politics | State Budget | tuition | UC
LA Times is Yes and No on Legislation to Lower Tuition
The LA Times today is unhappy with proposed legislation that would change corporate taxes and raise money for lowering public higher ed tuition. (Excerpt)
…SB 1500 and 1501, by Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) would …eliminat(e) a tax loophole for businesses and us(e) the resulting revenue to provide large scholarships to middle-class students in the state’s public colleges and universities, (and) reduc(e) their tuition costs by two-thirds…
We can think of more pressing needs than tuition relief for families earning between $80,000 and $150,000, and no doubt so can Pérez. A properly funded welfare-to-work program, for example, or medical care for poor children and the impoverished elderly. But in order to win the (2/3) votes required to eliminate the loophole, he says he has to come up with a use for the money that will appeal to at least a couple of Republicans as well as more moderate Democrats. Closing the tax loophole is an easier sell when politicians can go to their districts and boast to constituents that they’ll be providing thousands of dollars in tuition relief for kids in the state’s public colleges and universities. It’s a reasonable way to bring in money and help Californians, and it ought to be approved, with some changes…
Unfortunately, voters — and therefore the legislators who represent them — are unlikely to want to give the new revenue to the amorphous general fund or directly to the colleges to spend. Tuition reduction, by contrast, is a clear, tangible, readily understood benefit. The idea of bringing University of California tuition back down to a nostalgia-invoking $4,000 a year (instead of the current $12,000) is naturally appealing. In reality, the savings might prove to be less. Once middle-class students are receiving these scholarships, there’s less pressure on the college systems to keep tuition down — and there’s nothing in Pérez’s bill that would stop any of them from raising it sooner rather than later…
Full editorial at
The editorial is somewhat ambiguous. It seems to favor redirecting the money to community colleges but not to lower tuition. Rather it favors adding more classes so students could graduate faster, thus saving money for them. Not clear whether the Times favors any of the money going to UC and CSU in either tuition relief to students or direct allocation to the two systems. If it can’t have the bill it wants, is it in favor or against the current version?