Plan B Forum

We're 20 billion in the hole, sacfrifices must be made.

It's really a shame how a once beaufiful state has been run into the ground by the nincompoops in Sacto.

Yes, California once had a superb network of State parks (recreation areas, etc.). Then the Republicans wrecked it.

California once had a public higher-eductation system that was the envy of much of the world. Until the Republicans wrecked it.

And these are the people who now want to run the country. And given the awe-inspiring stupidity of much of the American right, they probably will.

Duck and cover.

Or as us Brits would say;

Andrew D wrote:Yes, California once had a superb network of State parks (recreation areas, etc.). Then the Republicans wrecked it.

California once had a public higher-eductation system that was the envy of much of the world. Until the Republicans wrecked it.

And these are the people who now want to run the country. And given the awe-inspiring stupidity of much of the American right, they probably will.

Duck and cover.

Horse apples.


There is enough blame to go around, only the most simplistic see Californias plight as being cuased by either the dems or the reps. All of them bear some responsibility and unlil those clowns in Sacto figure this one out, CA will still suffer gridlock we have now.

Pull off your partisan blinders, Andrew.....it makes you look like a tool.

Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around. But that does not mean that it should be spread evenly, without regard to the underlying facts. And in the cases of California's public-education and state-park systems, the lion's share of the blame lies squarely with the Republicans.

Horse Apples

Based on what?

Correct me if I'm wrong....

Haven't the dems cotrolled the purse strings via the legislature for 40+ years?

Wassup with that?

The Democrats have had majorities in the State Senate at least since 1970 and in the State Assembly for almost all of that time.

But those majorities have not been two-thirds majorities. So they have not been veto-proof. And because California requires a two-thirds majority to pass a budget, obstructionist Republicans have managed to override the will of the great majority of California voters by blocking budgets until their unpopular policy preferences have been, to various degrees accommodated.

Public higher education in California used to be free. In those enlightened days, the people of California considered higher education to be a public good; they recognized that people with talents that could benefit all Californians came from all walks of life, not just from the ranks of the privileged few.

Then Republican Governor Ronald ("Hey! I've Got An Idea: Let's Throw The Mentally Ill Onto The Streets") Reagan and his merry band of mouth-frothing pseudo-conservatives in the minority party in the Legislature managed to get registration fees enacted for the first time. That was the beginning of the end of the Golden Age of public higher education in California.

Reagan and his minions tried to get tuition enacted, but they failed. That dark development had to await another Republican Governor.

But the wait wasn't long. Less than a decade after Reagan blessed California by leaving office, another Republican, George Deukmeijian, again relying on the obstructionist efforts of the minority party (his party) in the Legislature, managed to get tuition -- risibly called an "education fee" -- enacted. Since then, it has skyrocketed.

California's public higher education system continues to produce outstanding results. Graduates of that system continue to advance human learning in sciences, humanities, law, medicine, and a host of other things.

But every day, people who could contribute to those advances, and who have proved their scholarly merit, are turned away from California's public higher education system, because they cannot afford it. Every day, we Californians lose the opportunities which those people's talents, skills, and learning offer.

And it's getting worse all the time. UCLA now estimates that for the academic year (nine months) 2010-2011, it will cost California resident students who live with their parents (or other relatives) $21,663 to attend. That is only $387 less than the income required for a family of four not to be officially in poverty.

California's public higher education system was once the envy of much of the world: It provided a top-notch education to everyone who wanted a top-notch education and who possessed the intellectual wherewithal to undertake one. Now, California's public higher education system (at least in its upper divisions*) still provides a top-notch education, but only to those who can afford to shell out money, for nine months' of education, that would keep an entire family of three out of poverty for a year.

Why? Because the Republicans got hold of California's public higher education system and wrecked it.

The Republicans also wrecked California's State Park System. I leave it to you, should you decide that facts matter, to ascertain that dismal story for yourself.

*California's public higher education has three divisions: Admission to the University of California system is open to the top 12.5% of California's high school graduating class, admission to the California State University system is open to the top 33.3% of California's high school graduating class, and admission to the California Community College System (which offers only certificates and two-year (AA) degrees) is simply open.

And in the cases of California's public-education and state-park systems, the lion's share of the blame lies squarely with the Republicans.

Bull puckey....

In the case of California's public-education, "the lion's share" of the blame belongs with The California Teachers Association, a group that ought to be put on the State Department's list of known terrorist organizations....

The budget shortfalls that perennially plague this state and have affected other services can be laid at the feet of other public sector employee unions and their fat pension and benefit plans, (and the politicians who suck up to them) a ridiculous disability benefit system, (that Arnold has done at least a little to reform) and an irresistible proclivity on the part of state legislators, (Republican and Democrat...but mostly Democrat) to spend like drunken sailors in good revenue years rather than building up a cushion for bad times....

I also place part of the blame on the idiotic "term limits" that erase all institutional memory from the legislature and encourage it's members to be even more short sighted and venal than they were before.

Well, I suppose Andrew's solution is to have one-party rule in Sacto and an endless supply of butt-wipes in all California state parks.

I'm just do sick and tired of the blame game while CA is stuck in grid lock via partisan bullshtye. Take the blinders off, everyone and smell the rage that's coming from the hinterlands! People are angry and all the partisan diatribe doesn't help anyone. It postpones the inevitable demise of BOTH useless parties we have in control. It might take decades, but it's coming soon to a theatre near YOU!


Let me propose that we take the reams of useless bullshite that eminates from Sacto and use it to wipe out the seepage. It might be a little rough but we Californian are used to taking it up the rear end from those @ss-siffers in Sacto.

I need a beer!

OUCH!

Yeah, right. Blame it all on ordinary working people.

Let's just make a modification necessary to bring right-wing ravings into the realm of reality:

... public sector employee unions and their DECENT pension and benefit plans ....

Of course, right-wingers don't want ordinary working people to have decent pension and benefit plans. Right-wingers don't want ordinary people to have pensions or benefit plans at all. Right-wingers want ordinary working people simply to be chewed up and spat out like garbage.

The history is inconctrovertible: Right-wing economic policy is and always has been very simple -- impoverish as many people as possible and concentrate wealth in as few hands as possible.

In civilized countries, wealth is far more evenly distributed than it is here. And guess what: PEOPLE IN THOSE COUNTRIES LIVE BETTER THAN WE DO.

While we are busy feeding the oligarchic few through a military-industrial complex that no rational person can possibly defend, civilized countries are busy improving the standards of living of their citizens. Their citizens are not dying because their insurance companies won't pay for their necessary, life-saving treatments; our citizens are. Their infant-mortality rates are lower than ours. Their poverty rates are lower than ours. Etc., etc., etc.

And that is what scares the right-wingers most. The right-wingers deliberately wrecked California's public higher education system, because they were afraid (and rightly so) that if a large portion of Californians understood what was and is actually happening, they wouldn't stand for it.

That is why the right-wingers spew a continuous flood of lies about almost everything. They say that refusing to raise taxes on the wealthy is necessary to create jobs. Well, guess what: The tax giveaway to the rich has been in place for eight or nine years now; what has happened to job creation during that time?

When we we had tax rates sometimes reaching 90%+ for the richest among us, we also had huge job growth. We had the development of the modern American middle class. And we had the growth of unions.

Unions were a fundamental part of the development of the modern American middle class, and that is exactly why right-wingers hate unions. The right-wingers -- the ones who run the show, not necessarily the poor, deluded dupes who actually believe the drivel spewed by those who are actually in charge -- hate unions precisely because unions have a tendency to equalize bargaining power. Right-wingism is fundamentally opposed to equality of bargaining power.

The right-wingers say that raising taxes on the wealthy will hurt small businesses. Well, guess what: As proved in a related thread, that claim is pure horseshit.

When one gets right down to it -- and no right-winger will ever admit this, but their denials are always vacuous; right-wingism and facts have an adversarial relationship -- the ideal right-wing economic system is feudalism. A minuscule fraction of the population holds virtually all of the wealth, and the vast bulk of people are serfs. That's what they want. That's what they love. When they masturbate, that is what they imagine.

And it's getting worse all the time. UCLA now estimates that for the academic year (nine months) 2010-2011, it will cost California resident students who live with their parents (or other relatives) $21,663 to attend. That is only $387 less than the income required for a family of four not to be officially in poverty.

California's public higher education system was once the envy of much of the world: It provided a top-notch education to everyone who wanted a top-notch education and who possessed the intellectual wherewithal to undertake one. Now, California's public higher education system (at least in its upper divisions*) still provides a top-notch education, but only to those who can afford to shell out money, for nine months' of education, that would keep an entire family of three out of poverty for a year.

You be voting for Meg, she want to kill off welfare and give the "money saved" to higher ed.

$21,663 to attend

Mere bag of shells. i pay almost $30k for my daughters tuition.
While inflation has been around 4% over the last 10 years, college tuition has gone up almost 40%. Where's the money going? Can't tell me these students are 40% better off than those ten years ago.

PS
and I always carry tissue/paper towels with me when I venture into stat/county parks/wilderness. Be a Boy Scout, Be Prepared.

In-state tuition for the University of California is the cheapest deal in higher education in the United States. It is still a little too high, in my opinion, but in relative cost it is very cheap to go to the best public university system in the world.

yrs,
rubato

Oldr--you'd probably pay a thrid of that (maybe half) at a SUNY school; is your daughter in a private school? Tuition for my daughter at a private university is over $30,000, but I get a pretty good discount because I teach there. Out of state tuition at public olleges is also much higher than in state tuition. As for where it is going, it's not to the faculty; granted I'm just an adjunct, but the tuition for just one student in my graduate course is more than my entire slalry for teaching it--and I always have 35-40 students.

You pay more if you are from "out of state"?

Gob--if the college is publicly funded by the state, yes, those from out of state pay higher tuition. In my state we also have a system of two year colleges funded by individual counties, and those who reside outside the county pay a higher tuition.

What does the bear on our state flag tell ya, Gob?