Tim Pawlenty isn’t just trying to kill to goose that laid the golden egg, he’s trying to bludgeon it to death with a tire iron. Nobody understands this better than one of my favorite legislators, Tom Rukavina:
To resolve the state’s budget deficit, Gov. Tim Pawlenty has proposed a series of deep cuts, including more than $50 million from our state universities and colleges. The direct result would be either substantial tuition increases or significant reductions in student services, making our schools less attractive for prospective students.
If this sounds familiar, it’s because it is exactly what happened last time the governor dealt with a budget deficit. The University of Minnesota and MnSCU were the largest funding casualties when the governor made deep cuts in 2003 to our schools, local governments, nursing homes and higher-education institutions.
The nearly $380 million in cuts to the U and to MnSCU triggered five years of steep, double-digit tuition increases. As a result, according to a study just released by the governor’s own Office of Higher Education, tuition in Minnesota is now double the national average. In addition, Minnesota has become a Big Ten leader in student debt, with the average graduate leaving school $21,000 in the hole. Last year, we successfully put an end to double-digit tuition increases by nearly filling the funding gap left by the cuts in 2003, but the governor’s new proposed cuts would derail this progress…
We face a budget deficit again this year due in part to the economic damage left by Pawlenty’s actions when we had a deficit in 2003. By disinvesting in our schools and higher-education institutions, we disinvested in jobs and weakened our economy. Last year, Minnesota lagged behind the national average on unemployment for the first time in recorded history, and in 2006 we fell to 46th nationally in personal-income growth. State economist Tom Stinson has said that a lack of jobs significantly contributed to our current budget situation.
Every reputable economist, conservative or liberal, agrees that economic development is intrinsically linked to a quality workforce. This is exactly why higher education is critical to long-term economic competitiveness. It is no coincidence that until recently, Minnesota has been a national leader in both college graduation rates and key economic indicators like personal income and employment. But as our higher-education investment started to slip, so did our economic competitive edge.Our long-term economic success hinges on the competence of our workforce, and the competence of our workforce hinges on the quality of our universities and colleges. Right now, more than 32,000 students graduate from Minnesota public universities and colleges each year, and more than 80 percent stay in Minnesota, fueling the pipeline of a healthy Minnesota economy.
Recommitment to higher education will lead to a healthy, prosperous economy. If the governor cuts higher education again, he will compound our economic troubles by repeating the mistakes that stunted job growth and led us back to a budget deficit.
I was just going to post excerpts, but its just too important.
Loading ...
Maybe the reason our colleges and universities cost so much (compared to the rest of the nation) is because they are not managed well. Perhaps if during times that their funding from the state (thankfully not their only source of revenue) decreased, they couls do something to reduce their spending rather than just raising tuition. Does each school really need 80, 100, 150 majors? Maybe Duluth could have 40, Winona have 40, Morris have 40, etc. and each one have another 20 that the others don’t have. Less majors=less departments=less professors=less money needed to run the schools and students can still get four year degrees (just not in “Primate sociology/Middle Eastern studies”).
Fine, then why won’t Democrats raise taxes then? They are in charge of the legislature, where is their tax increase plan?
I love that the Democrats are so fearful of Republicans that they are actually going to implement Gov. Pawlenty’s agenda for him.
Why vote Republican when Democrats will implement the conservative agenda for you.
Or perhaps high schools could be extended to grades: 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, with a 17th grade for red-shirted athletes.
Then perhaps Duluth could have 80 because in reality it could be similar to grades 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 but offer a wider variety of courses.
Then Education Minnesota could advocate for K-17 education, pre-K, and also higher ed. 17-25.
No child left behind (NCLB) could be altered to NC&ALB and the Military Services and NFL, MLB, could open booths on campus.
Why study Primate Sociology cost control when you can actually be one!
It’s a shame, but it’s cheaper for my kid to go to a “name” private, southern university, than go to the University of Minnesota.
On the brighter side, I do enjoy the mid-winter trips down south.
We brag in this state about how great our education system is. If students get such a benefit from higher ed in Minnesota, why shouldn’t they be more than happy to incur a little debt to cover some of the costs of what they are getting. $21,000 probably isn’t even the average cost of a new car in this country. Moreover $50 million isn’t that big of a cut from higher ed. Considering the amount of money in the U’s endowment fund, why don’t they put some of that money to use instead of raising the taxes on people (like my parents) who didn’t even have the opportunity to go to college.
By the way, according to the 2008-09 budget, we are spending $3.155 billion on higher education. If you can’t trim $50 million out of a $3 billion budget without draconian tuition increases, our colleges and universities are beyond mismanaged.
Chris,
Figure out how much of your parents’ taxes goes for higher education in the State of Minnesota (dollars and %).
Then take a look around and figure out if they have had any medical procedures done that were pioneered at the U of MN hospitals, have benefited from technology developed at the U of MN, were served by pharmacists or others in medicine who benefited from the U of MN or other higher education in the State of Minnesota.
I could go on but, I think that you will find that the % and the dollar amount that they pay to help support higher education is much lower than you have anticipated.
Contrast that to the costs of the War in Iraq, or the costs of the upcoming US Senate Campaigns in MN.
If Tommy Rukavina was truly concerned about $50 million for higher education he would offer to take some of the $25 million in the IRRRB budget and put it into the state university system. OF course that would mean his constituents would have to pay into a state system rather than simply be the receivers of funds so he won’t do that.
Maybe we shouldn’t be spending $300 million on a building for extra curricular activities. The University system is terribly mismanaged and there is plenty of blame to go around.
So far the DFL at the capital are doing a lot of complaining but offered very little in the way of solutions. If they don’t like the governor’s plan they need to suggest one of their own. Are they going to raise taxes or cut other areas? The best thing I have heard so far is Rep Lenczewski’s plan to get rid of all tax incentives to specific businesses and make the code the same for everybody in trade for an overall 1% cut to the rate. It sounds good but I haven’t taken a close look at it yet. Even that though is only about a $10 million increase to revenue.
The DFL needs to provide solutions rather for their complaints to be taken seriously at this point.
“The DFL needs to provide solutions rather for their complaints to be taken seriously at this point.”
Totally agree.
Higher Ed costs are going up way too fast - why not ask schools to share in keeping costs down?
Almost every economist agrees that raising taxes in an economic slowdown is a bad idea. Is that the Dem’s plan? Because all I’ve heard so far is a lot of whining.
Well, when government is the largest employer in the state, as is the case here in Minnesota, then I can see how reining in government spending during a recession might lead to a loss of jobs in the public sector.
Well, than maybe we’ll see the sort of cost cutting-lead efficency that has made universities through out the Appalachian South such academic and research powerhouses!
So, my Republicans, when taxes go up, businesses will instinctively leave the state, but when tuition goes up, qualified student’s won’t go to cheaper universities elsewhere? And those qualified students might not, y’know, stay were they went to school, laid down connections, etc. instead of returning to MN? Just a thought? Similar sort of logic? Ah, I see you’ve all lost interest.
Personally, I think this is of a piece with cutting the renters tax refund. People in the cities overwhelming use it? They don’t vote GOP, so ef’em. Meanwhile, the DFL is saying we should repair roads that serve the red districts and the blue districts, on the strange and radical idea that the state of Minnesota is about the state of Minnesota, not just the people who voted for the governor.
SO WHY DON’T THE DEMOCRATS PROPOSE A TAX INCREASE?
Don’t they have the courage to raise taxes?
Since they did do the shockingly radical thing of paying up front instead of borrowing for transportation (or just praying that nothing goes wrong) I’d say wait and see. There is plenty of session left to run, and plenty of people who think the state’s priorities should be determined by what Minnesota needs, and not simply what will sound best for the governor as he runs for higher office.
el Presidente,
You’re setting up a strawman to knock it down. The state spends over $3 billion a biennium on higher ed, nearly 10% of the overall budget. The U of M medical school receives some money from the state general fund but they also receive funding from other sources, including revenue from the technology they create. But to imply that a $50 million cut from a $3 billion budget will harm the medical school will harm people is just crazy.
At what point are we going to hold colleges accountable for being unable to control their spending? They got hundreds of millions of dollars in new money last year and they still raised tuition.
I did a little research on the University of MN system using data from the 2003-04 school year to 2007-08.
Enrollment - has stayed virtually flat at around 51,000 full & part time students
04-05 - 50,954
05-06 - 51,175
06-07 - 50,402
07-08 - 50,883
Therefore, costs shouldn’t be going up from a per student basis
Consumer Price Index change from 2003-2007 = 12.7%
Tuition Increase 2003 - 2007 = 18.4%
(2003-04 - 15,062 ; 2007-08 - 17,838)
Increase in Wages/Benefits 2003 - 2007 = 27.4%
Tada - we have our problem!!
Increase in FT employees at Twin Cities campus in past 2 years = 4.5%
Why do they need that many more people if enrollment is flat?
Solution - reduce headcount or hold the line on wages/benefits. Just like a “real” private employer would do.
Why don’t the Democrats (progressives) have the courage to propose tax increases?
I mean totally - who would have thought that you needed people to teach students? Sure, real science is better taught in small labs than giant lectures - but lets have students 500 to the lecture hall, straining their eyes to see a loan figure at a lab table at the front. They’ll probably learn just as much!
Sarcasm aside, here’s the dilemma: You get what you pay for, and knowledge ain’t getting cheaper. Biotech, new sources of energy, genetics, the works: finding and keeping people is a continuing problem. Also, a lot of this stuff is hands on stuff to teach. Try being a lab assistant after learning from books and slides only. Even someone willing to take lower than private sector wages to teach will have their own loans to pay, and if the pay ain’t competitive, good-bye.
Point being, you get what you pay for in education, and if you want a first-rate system in times like these, the outlays are neccessary. I know its a few less pennies to be spent on the suburbs, but I’ve lived in states with brain-drains due to sup-par universities, and it ain’t pretty. Small class size’s, hands on learning - that how to make a world-class system. It can’t be done on the cheap.
“It can’t be done on the cheap.”
What does that mean in real, objective measures? How are we “cheap”? compared to whom?
Check out the US News rankings. The good news? We’re looking pretty good in those rankings. The bad news? Everyone else who’s high in those rankings also didn’t do it cheaply. I wish I could point to an example of budget slashing magically producing a highly efficent, first-rate system. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to work like that. There are some ‘pretty-good’ run on the cheap schools. But few first-rate ones. And if you google the rating for research universities, it only becomes more apparent. If anything, giving the U of M several million more to target to tuition reduction seems like what should happen.
I mean, I know there is a budget shortfall.But is cutting money to one of this state’s competitive advantages really a solution?
How about we look at UW-Madison, a school that is comparable in just about every way. State Universities founded within a couple years of each other in states with similar demographics and undergraduate student body sizes of 32,113 for the U of M and 30,098 for Madison. They also have a very similar cost of living.
Madison is ranked 38th by US News awhile the U of M is 71st. While Minnesota is good Madison is significantly better by their measure. The overall budgets for each campus’s fiscal year 06-07 is $2.9 billion for Minnesota and $2.2 for Madison or about $90,306 per undergrad here and $73,094 across the border, about 20% less. Yes, I realize that the money goes to more than undergrad education but if we are concerned about providing a good education to the average citizen it is a valid measuring stick for comparable institutions.
Tuition at Madison is $8,808 per year for in state compared to $9,885 at the U of M.
So Wisconsin is able to provide a better education for a good deal less money at a lower cost to the students. Is it that people don’t think we are capable here or is it that they don’t want to?
Madison receives $424 million from the state. The budget figures I can find for the U don’t provide me with any clean numbers so if anybody can find them we can do an apples to apples comparison.
Here is the site for the Madison figures. http://www.wisc.edu/about/facts/budget.php
The U of M receive over $700M/year this biennium from the state.
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/fiscalpol/tracking/2007/07highered HF1063 Tracking.pdf
“But is cutting money to one of this state’s competitive advantages really a solution”
You don’t get it.
We’ve been spending money on higher education at a much higher rate than inflation already.
In addition, the state and University have done pretty darn well economically in the past 40 years. Why is it that we now need to invest signifcantly more money to try and “move up” the US News rankings? Also, if they were successful at bringing up the rankings wouldn’t that tend to make the U a much bigger draw for “non-Minnesotan’s” who are much more likely to leave after college?
And again, the futility of telling people you can’t get something for nothing.
$1.4 billion is “nothing”?
You may “get what you pay for” if you pay attention and ask the right questions. Simply paying whatever somebody asks you to pay is not the best policy for getting a good deal. It isn’t about getting something for nothing. It is about getting what you pay for.
It seems like the people of Wisconsin are getting a much better deal. A better school for less money. We should be looking into why that is rather than simply spending more and hoping for the best. I’d be fine paying more for a better university those asking for it could explain the current situation and then shown why an increase in funding would fix the issues at hand. Money does not fix all problems, especially when fed into inefficient systems.
However, the rankings would seem to indicate that the U of M does a rather effecient job of educating people, researching stuff, training graduate students, and the other normal functions of a University. In other words, its not MN DOT under Molanu. To be blunt, not every increase is a sign of inefficiency, especially when the techniques the system is called on to teach evolve to the point that they are different every five years.
I’m saying that assuming that the U has all the money in the world is mistake. They have plenty of it - but they are performing a vital function, and doing so in a number of massively expensive fields. Also, I should add, the field that most of the good-paying jobs of this century are going to be in.
My point being, cutting the budget for short term gain and covering it with sermons about efficency is tragiclly and dangerously short-sighted.
JohnS,
At what point do you look at how money is spent? During budget surplus years? Nobody has said that every increase is a sign of inefficiency and I have no desire to reduce the performance of the University. It seems that when compared to a school that is almost identical it the U of M is doing a poor job of spending their money. If that were not the case I would say that a cut is for sure a very bad idea. If you have any actual information that says otherwise let us hear it.
I think it’s safe to say that Nony Mouse’s were in that direction that it was a sign of inefficency. Personally, I think re-thinking how Wisconsin residents get treated by the U would be a wiser place to look for money/wastage.
I have no idea what that last comment means at all
Chris,
I you brought up your [straw] parents, and wrote that they did/do not have an opportunity to take advantage of higher education.
I would think that unless your parents are very frail, very elderly, etc. that they can still take advantage of of higher education.
There are many programs available through the different programs of the University of Minnesota, and other public educations institutions.
I personally know elderly relatives and friends who have taken advantage of some of these programs. Some are for credit, and some are not. Some cost money and some are very low cost or in some cases are free.
Some people are familiar with the “land grant” University of Minnesota. It is in the Minnesota Constitution.
When a UMDuluth student graduates that person graduates from the University of Minnesota, not necessarily U of M @ Duluth.
Only 21k? Well hell lets cut from the schools even more. When did college become free?
And I suppose if we gave them more money tuition would go down just like when we raise LGA….oh wait…
Take a good look a U of W Madison around October 31st [commonly known at Halloween].
The respective legislatures can take care of the reciprocity factors. There is one community college (plus branches) on the border of northern Iowa that I think that Minnesota still has reciprocity with.
If there is or is not reciprocity, if there are or are not student and faculty exchange programs, etc. are factors that I think also enter into what I think can be a somewhat be a narrowly defined argument, that at some point you would probably want to broaden when the college or university wants to apply for governmental, foundation, or private money.
Sounds like a Nony Moose wants to start a Charter University similar to a Charter School.
The other thing is what happens when a graduate of a University of Minnesota goes to say Oklahoma or Texas and secures a job there.
Should the graduates of Minnesota Universities stay in Minnesota?
Should the graduates of Minnesota High Schools stay in Minnesota and attend just Minnesota High Schools?
There was a time not very long ago when the University of Minnesota Hockey Team (Twin Cities Campus) had only Minnesota students play hockey.
Frostbite Falls, MN beckons Nony Moose to visit cousin Bullwinkle.
“At what point do you look at how money is spent? During budget surplus years?”
Amen. DFL legislators can stand there all day long and proclaim “we got them more money” and “we secured more funding”. And then their job is done. They have a victory that they can go celebrate over a wine cooler.
But when someone comes to a press conference and says “we worked with and identified ways to use each dollar 10% more efficiently”, then I will be the first to stand up and applaud.
And I love the math games democrats play. A hypothetical illustration:
Last Year’s Budget: $100
This Year’s DFL Proposed Budget: $120
This Year’s final budget: $110
The DFL will proclaim “a cut of 8%!!! (when it is actually an increase of 10%)
At what point will the landed gentry, the elite amoung us decide that it is in their best interest that the least of us prosper? Will it take starving children? I doubt it. Will it take riots in the streets? I doubt it. It will take their financial prosperity being threatened to finally make them understand that we are all in this together. The state’s costs go up with an increased population. The state’s costs go up with unfunded mandates from the federal government. The state’s costs go up with unfunded mandates from state government. At what point do we stop blaming the other party and start figuring out the most reasonable, affordable, equitable solution? The latest tax increase was regressive as hell but that was the only bill that had even the slightest hope of passing. And it did by a hair’s breath. Any tax increase more intrusive to the comfort of the elite wouid’ve failed. Let’s get past the idea that the most wealthy contribute an extrordinary amount to the grand economic picture and just say if you profit a lot, your going to contribute a lot.
DantheMan,
I wonder if you curse the PRIVATE organization called the DFL when you drive down smooth roadways with no potholes.
GEORGE W. BUSH, RICHARD B. CHENEY, TIM PAWLENTY, & CAROL MOLNEAU, ARE the National and MN heads of Government.
PAW CLAWS, CHENEY, did not serve in the military; I am not sure about CAROL MOLNEAU.
Much $$ has gone to the military efforts. The borrowing for this military spending while having tax cuts will be borne by future tax payers.
Good grief!!
I’m all for equality of opportunity. I’m willing to pay a portion of my income in tax to assure it.
Many of you want to be able to assure equality of result. I beleive the result is up to the individual’s choices and work. I don’t think it should be create by the Government.
The things you describe, Richard, such as investing in the least for the good of society, is a good thing. I don’t argue with that.
But it is up to a liberal government to decide when someone is making too much? I hear that sentiment on these boards all the time. “The wealthy”, as they have been labelled by Democratic pollsters, are this unlimited bucket of money for Government’s pet projects.
I’ll pay my fair share for roads, bridges, and education. Especially in Minnesota. But what ever happened to Federalism? Why is my federal tax bill so many times more than my state one?
“It will take their financial prosperity being threatened to finally make them understand that we are all in this together.”
Richard - upon re-reading, it is funny you use this line. Because the State and Federal Governments behave like one of the ultra-rich: They don’t know where the money comes from, they just know it will never run out.
While the masses are belt-tightening during this recession, the Government plans to do anything but.
If the Government were a person, it would resemble a Cargill heir much more than a middle income taxpayer.
***
But what ever happened to Federalism?
***
republiCons killed it. As with most everything, it’s the hypocrisy of the right that done it in.