Sequestering Morality

Emergency responders like the ones who are here today — their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded.  Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced.  FBI agents will be furloughed.  Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go. 

~  Remarks by President Obama on Sequestration, February, 19th 2013

"A culture that victimizes it's weakest members is a culture in decline."  ~  John Barry of The Southern Tier AIDS Program.

We’ve been sequestered!  Or is it sequestrated?  I don’t know; either way it comes out to the same thing.  We’ve been screwed.  By our government.  Again.  Actually I couldn’t say whether or not I’m actually part of the “we” that’s being screwed.  I’m in the comfortable middle class and I imagine I’ll come through this without really noticing much.  If I decide I want to take a flight somewhere I might have to show up at the airport a little earlier; so I lose a little sleep.

Mr. Romney's Indigence Envy

Here is another of those posts I really had no intention of getting into - I just hate doing politics.  Let’s just say, “The devil made me do it.”  In this case the devil is Facebook. 

In a moment of weakness (not really) I felt compelled to share a commentary about Mitt Romney and his income tax finagling.  The point of the commentary being Romney fudged his returns so that he paid MORE in taxes than he actually had to.  In 2011 he donated over 4 million dollars to charity but claimed only 2 million.  Why?  Because by taking the full deduction he would have paid less than the 13% he claims is the lowest that he’s ever paid.  The commentary went on to describe the many and varied Romney tax avoidance strategies including Cayman Island tax havens and a $77,000 deduction for Ann Romney’s Olympic horse.  My comment on the op-ed was, well, a little caustic towards Mr. Romney. 

Justice Served -- Late or Not At All

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State ~ From The Sixth Amendment of The United States Constitution

So it’s come to this.  California is closing the courthouse doors.  The recently enacted state budget is slashing 350 million dollars from the California Judicial System.  Over the last three years the court budget has been reduced by more than 30 percent.  And of course, he remarked dryly, the criminal element has chosen to reduce its activity by 30 percent so as not to further burden the groaning justice system.  This is just another casualty of the scorched earth, revenue free budget passed by that pompous Sacramento crowd. 

Let’s take a moment to delve into some of the details of what the budgetary meat axe wrought.

                You’d best get used to that albatross you once called your loved one because a divorce is now going to take 18 months.  That’s going to take a toll on the kitchen crockery.

                Lawsuits are now going to take five years to get to trial.  On the plus side I guess this gives the frivolous a few moments of pause but a truly egregious offense will fester. 

                Child custody cases which used to take four weeks will now wait for up to four months and there really isn’t anything humorous or cute I can say to that.

                In San Joaquin County the small claims court is closed.  Yes, I said closed, as in out of business.  So you’re a landlord whose property got trashed or a tenant whose landlord unfairly kept a deposit?  You’re just going to have to suck up that loss. 

                According to an article in The L.A. Times, the cuts may require changes in the law allowing for shorter trials or trials without juries.

                And you know that right to a speedy trial that The United States Constitution guarantees.  Well you can look for that guarantee to expire soon.  Closed courthouses, staff cuts and shorter hours will guarantee nothing but a pushed out trial date.

                But here is my favorite of all from The Times article, “State lawmakers raided Judiciary Branch funds for courthouse construction to balance this year's budget. The funds, built up through legal fees and fines, were supposed to be used to replace decrepit courthouses riddled with health and safety problems. State legislators said the funds would be repaid in more solvent times.”  That’s absolutely hilarious.  They’re going to pay it back.  That money is as gone as the 500 dollars you loaned to your 20 something year old child who says he swears he'll pay it back once he's back on his feet.  The difference of course is you love your child and you'll simply write it off.  Nobody loves the legislators, I dare say not even their parents.  I wouldn’t loan a thin dime to any of those brigands.  And if they don’t pay it back I suppose the courts can sue the state; that is if they have time to wait for it to go to trial.

Look, this is nothing short of travesty.  In a previous post, I commented on The State Legislature abdicating its responsibility and here is yet another instance.  It is a case of the budgetary knife cutting not just to the bone but into the bone so that the marrow is oozing out.  And we have a Republican wing of the legislature to thank for this.  A contingent that has made a no taxation vow come hell, high water or the rending of The Constitution.  Republican bashing you say?  Sure, but if it were on the Democratic foot I would be bashing them and frankly I’m a little tired of the continual caving on the part of the Democrats.

I’m also getting a little tired of the shop worn “tax and spend” cliche and the overworked analogy of “Well when you max out your credit at home you stop spending."  Personally I recall a time when my expenditures were exceeding my income.  Yes I did cut where I could but I also decided that I needed to raise more revenue and that’s just what I did.  I took a second job.  It wasn’t fun and it put a crimp on my lifestyle but I needed more revenue.  Well, California needs more revenue and while that might not be fun either we’re well beyond the point of biting that bullet.

Many of the cuts could have been avoided simply by renewing a quarter-percentage point increase in personal income tax and a one percent increase in sales tax.  These aren’t exactly usury taxes that require pulling the musket down off the wall and marching on Sacramento but a minority of legislators dug in their ideological heels.  The result is that in The State of California you’ll have your justice served; it will just be served late and cold.

Buying Leadership

Example is not the main thing in influencing others.  It is the only thing.  ~Albert Schweitzer

My last post discussed the recent University of California tuition increases passed by the UC Board of Regents.  Not to be outdone the California State University (CSU) Board of Trustees, in a twisted version of “keeping up with the Joneses,” passed some increases of its own.  According to their website, the CSU system is the largest university system in the nation, with 23 campuses and an enrollment of nearly 412,000 students.

Like UC, the CSU has passed a series of increases in less than a year’s time.  In November of 2010, the trustees did a financial two step and passed a 5 percent mid-year increase that went into effect in January of this year and a second increase of 10 percent beginning in fall 2011.  Last week CSU tuition was increased again by another 12 percent for a total increase of 27 percent.  The increases are due to the miserly budget recently passed by the California State Legislature which slashed 650 million dollars of state funding to the CSU system.  Along with the fee increases, CSU is expected to cut faculty and staff and to reduce enrollment by 2.4 percent.  That’s about 10,000 students that will be making other plans this coming fall.

But in nearly the same breath, the Board of Trustees did what could only be described as breathtaking.  Right after announcing the tuition hikes, the board announced that the incoming President of San Diego State, Elliot Hirshman would be getting a raise of 100,000 dollars over his predecessor and making a comfortable 400,000 dollars.  Needless to say folks all over the state from students to parents to legislators to the governor himself came off the wall. 

Members of the board defended the pay hike citing that high salaries are necessary in order to attract top talent.  The Governor, in a dry rebuttal, said, “The assumption is that you cannot find a qualified man or woman to lead the university unless paid twice that of the chief justice of the United States.  I reject this notion.”

Frankly I’m tired of hearing that stock excuse that you have to waive the combination to the bank vault in the air in order to find a qualified leader.  Hirshman’s case is particularly odious when you consider that a professor’s salary was sacrificed so that the top bureaucrat wouldn’t have to suffer the indignity of earning a paltry 300,000 dollars.  How many scholarships would 100,000 dollars have bought?

I imagine that it’s rather quaint and naïve of me to think that it would have been nice to see Hirshman recognize the crisis, turn down the raise, accept the job and tough it out on 300K.  He certainly would be able to walk through campus and command respect rather than the resentment that will surely follow in his rich wake.  My kind of leader is an individual who will recognize a problem and lead by example.  Hirshman is doing neither.  In accepting his raise Hirshman is turning up his nose at the budget problem and setting the example that he is exempt from the sacrifices that faculty, staff, students and parents are forced to make.  My question to Dr. Hirshman would be, how in good conscience can you accept that raise?  I suppose that in the cold world of business, outrageous and inappropriate salaries are the expected norm.  But to me, and here I go with my innocent way of thinking, in the world of academia there is an expectation of a nobler ideal. 

Less is More

In the year 1960 I was growing up in San Mateo, California; the Promised Land.  Everyone was migrating to California.  We were the Golden State with the California sunshine, never a rainy day and we were setting all of the standards for our nation.  The jobs were all moving here; in California, like nowhere else the car was king and our educational system was the envy of the world.

My granddaughter will soon be starting school here in the San Francisco Bay Area, in a system that seems to be working diligently to set the standard for everything that can go wrong with an education system.  This past week we plunged further to the depths as both of the California State University systems once again hiked tuitions.  This in addition to cuts in classes, enrollment, staff and services.  What a deal we have for you; we want you to pay more and get less.

In the year 1960 a resident student wishing to go to The University of California did not have to pay tuition.  Yes, you read that right but just in case that didn’t sink in, let me repeat; in 1960 a resident student DID NOT have to pay tuition to go to The University of California.  The university charged a registration fee of 120 dollars and a miscellaneous campus fee of 27 dollars for the grand total of 147 dollars.  Today that might cover a Chem. textbook and a highlighter.  In 1972, when I graduated from high school an actual tuition had been put in place, insisted upon by then Governor Ronald Reagan (here is where I bite my tongue and keep my comments to myself).  In that year tuition and fees amounted to 640 dollars.  That was a pretty decent deal when compared with the thousands my parents were preparing to shell out for my Santa Clara University education. 

In 1993 about the year today’s incoming freshmen were born, UC tuition and fees totaled 3727 dollars.  When those same children were entering high school the total damage was 6852 dollars.  About this time, parents who were diligently trying to save money for their child’s college education were probably finding the ever increasing gradient to be daunting.  This fall, UC tuition plus something called a mandatory campus fee will total 13,218 dollars.  The increase that was approved last week represents a 9.6 percent increase.  This is on top of an 8 percent increase that was enacted in November 2010, for the 2011 fall semester.  Since 1960 tuition has increased over 9500 percent.  Middle class parents have seen the college bill double in the four years since their children started high school.  The price increase of college has been in overdrive while the middle class wage has been stuck in neutral for a lot longer than four years.  The added financial kick in the groin to these middle class families is that they make too much money to qualify for financial aid.  

The cause for this spike is of course the state budget crisis which has not only necessitated the fee hikes but has also forced a number of service cuts.  To close the financial gaps, UC has been forced to lay off faculty and staff and to cut back on classes.   So to add a monetary upper cut to that groin shot, the cuts in class offerings has created a situation in which the student is forced to stay in school longer.  We all know the old jokes about kids who become “professional students” because they either waffle on declaring a major or keep changing in mid-stream.  The system, with all of its cuts is now busy creating “professional students” all by itself because it can’t offer enough classes to allow students to graduate in four years. 

I discussed this with my daughter in law who just last year received her nursing degree.  She told me of fellow students trying to get into the impacted nursing program and having to stay in school longer because required classes were closed.  Other students give up on their dreams and change majors and yet others simply leave school.  Ever wonder why, when you go to the hospital you find that the nurse who is caring for you graduated from a school in another country?  During a recent, short hospital stay I was under the care of three Filipina nurses and one who hailed from China (For the record, I had no issue with the care that I received.).  We can’t fill nursing spots with home grown nurses because we have decided not to educate them.  What the hell, we import everything else from Asia, why not nurses. 

In the wake of the tuition hikes former Assemblyman and UC Regent Bill Bagley called this just what it is; a parent tax.  He also rightfully accused the State Legislature of abdicating its responsibility.  The Republican wing of the State Legislature has consistently blocked efforts to raise taxes in order to balance the budget.  In a disingenuous statement Republican leader Connie Conway said, "Republicans listened to the voters and stayed true to the only special interest we represent - California's taxpayers.”  In fact Republicans in The California Legislature not only did not listen to voters, they took the very ballot out of the hands of the electorate.  When Governor Jerry Brown proposed putting a measure on the ballot to allow voters to approve or deny the extension of some expiring taxes, the Republicans in the Legislature defeated the proposal.  The GOP has been consistently thumping its collective chest for blocking taxes and forcing an austerity budget.  The truth of the matter is they’ve simply handed the problem off to others.  To Bagley’s point, with a decline in state funds, agencies and local governments are now forced to increase fees which simply amount to de facto taxation.  But allow me to offer a descriptive, if not disgusting analogy.  Let’s suppose that I go about thumping my chest over how clean I keep my backyard.  Let’s further suppose that I have a big dog who deposits big steamers in that backyard and I handle that problem by taking a shovel and tossing them over the fence into the neighbor’s yard.  Behold!  I have a clean yard and my neighbor got a crappy deal.  Kind of like how the legislature abdicated; and students and their families got dumped on….To be continued.