With the possible exception of food, in each of these, there is a huge
role for the state. And the state may be in a position to invest in
such a way that you end up with more money in your pocket than
if it did nothing. In other words, done properly, state spending is not
a zero-sum game.
Aaron of Hub Politics was at the <a
href=”http://www.hubpolitics.com/archives/000628.php”>MassINC event
last night, and he also noted the exchange between Cellucci and
Dukakis about housing: “Dukakis said he believes the only way to make
housing affordable is
with public assistance, a euphemism for taxpayer dollars. Of course,
this is something that does nothing to address the costs of housing
either.” But what about the market effect of providing such housing —
perhaps in conjunction with zoning and building reform? Insofar as the
state can help let the air out of the housing
bubble/boom/plateau/whatever, that would make it possible to lower
property taxes, save new homebuyers thousands, and make it possible
for young folks to stick around and create economic value in our state.
Aaron’s right: It does mean taxpayer dollars, but it’s an investment
that it would seem we can’t afford not to make.
Related to housing is transportation: Does it make sense to continue
our housing bubble when we’ve still got communities in western and
southern MA that are isolated from the Boston economy, thereby
isolating their housing stock. So yeah, running trains is expensive;
but not running trains is expensive, too: Lost opportunity,
lost housing.
Furthermore, let’s look at a couple of past transportation projects:
Yes, it was a legendary money pit … but isn’t driving the Big Dig
about a thousand times better than the old artery? Was the Red Line
expansion from Harvard to Alewife over the last 22 years a worthwhile
investment?
Student loans: Does it really make sense to get $200 back a year in
exchange for gutting our state university system, which 1. provides
enormous discounts on education, and 2. ought to be and could be <a
href=”http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/natudoc/tier1/t1natudoc_brief.php”>among
the best state systems, but isn’t? 3. ought to be an economic
driver like our private universities, and where 4. students are getting
socked by the federal government and increased tuition costs to take on
more and more debt? And no one’s talking about restoring UMass
funding before a tax cut kicks in. Let’s face it: the UMass system is
the bald-headed stepchild of higher education in Massachusetts; doesn’t
it deserve better treatment?
Health care is another: As I’ve constantly complained, in America, we
pay more for health care as a percentage of GDP than any other country
in the world, and have lousy results to show for it. Under an
accountable single-payer system (pace concerns about Canadian
waitlists — we don’t have to do it like them), you might pay more in
taxes, but with the efficiencies of government-run health care — yes,
efficiencies, my conservative friends — maybe you don’t have vast
10-14%
premium increases every year. Better care, more efficiency, more
money in your pocket. Needless to say, our new health care law is not
single-payer, and doesn’t address cost of care at all —
although it may well make insurance more affordable through increased
pooling. In any event, we’ve got a lot of work to do — perhaps
starting with the state <a
href=”http://www.hcfama.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=488″>buying
prescription drugs bulk..
Opportunity depends on all of the other factors. It is true that — all
things being equal — businesses will tend to move to lower-cost
states. But all things aren’t equal. You can’t get a qualified,
well-educated workforce in Alabama like you can here. North Carolina,
which we in MA see as our cut-throat competitor, underwent <a
href=”http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=13839″>major
education reform in the ’90s (supposedly the model for No Child
Left Behind, except with extra money) and has a terrific state
university system. So, they’ve made investments, too. Who knows —
maybe they’re on the road to becoming the Massachusetts of the
Southeast.
We will never be a low-cost state, but we can definitely be a
high-value state. The question is whether these investments are done
with the strictest possible oversight. It is possible: Mayor Richard
Daley in Chicago seems to be able to accomplish projects on time and
under budget. Why can’t we? Are we so paralyzed by cynicism that we
don’t trust ourselves to do anything right? Have we given up on holding
our government accountable? (Don’t we dare vote the bums out when
necessary?) What are the “best practices” for education, health care,
contracting? Do we even know? Do our legislators follow them when we do?
Investments are always made in uncertainty, but we mustn’t let the
uncertainty lead to paralysis: “thinking pennies”. Let’s not let the
debate over a 0.3% tax cut (just say that again: “zero point three
percent”) obscure the big issues — the “thousands”.
What you bring up is very important when it comes to the future of the state. The problem is that it doesn’t matter when people are not interested in that future. Let’s do the numbers:
<
p>
A family reporting an income of 500,000 would save
1500.00, one reporting 100,000 would save 300.00 – slighly over two months of lattes.
<
p>
Yet Reilly, Healey, Gabrieli and Mihos see that rollback as preferable to educating children, policing cities and towns etc. etc.
<
p>
While they appeal to our lessor angels (two hundred dollars for me is two hundred dollars for me), Patrick is telling us that “govenment is things we choose to do together (your two hundred and my two hundred and Harry’s two hundred, and before long we can pay a teacher or build a bridge.
<
p>
I think it is not so much the income tax rollback that is important, but the philosophy behind it. For my money, Patrick is on the right side of this one.
<
p>
That was the topic of my post, “On Our Own, or Together?” – did you see it?
But advocacy has 2 sides:
<
p>
<
p>
Gutting? You really have evidence or otherwise believe that the .3% rollback will “gut” the system?
<
p>
<
p>
The UMass system is very open and provide discounts. This accessibility isn’t reflected in the rankings that next cite. Perhaps if the system’s budget was reduced or increased at a slower rate, it would be compelled to be more selective, less accessible, and the rankings in US NEWS would rise.
<
p>
<
p>
It’s ranked 104 in the US overall, and 51th in public colleges. Not bad. Would more money help? Doubt it. It’s 51th ranking has no component that rewards accessibility.
<
p>
<
p>
You know this how?,
<
p>
<
p>
School is an investment. I’d rather leave UMASS with no debt but there’s a certain pride of ownership knowing that I bought it and paid for it by myself and not on the taxpayers’ dole.
<
p>
ciao,
<
p>
gary
Granted there is pride in knowing you paid for your own education yourself and “not on the taxpayer’s dole.” But what about those unable to afford the amount of loans brought on by a college education. The point of having a non-private and publicly funded school is to create affordable education for those who may not have the means to pay the large rates on their own (keep in mind I am not advocating tuition free colleges, simply State aided). One should think of it as an investment of the taxpayers’ money, one that will be returned when the student enters the work force and makes enough to stay off welfare (lessening the taxpayers’ burden to support him/her). Not to mention their contribution to society in general, both through their profession and through the taxes that they are paying into the system.
<
p>
The question that should be asking is how are we going to keep these students here when they graduate so Massachusetts can reap the benifits of it’s investment. This question comes just in time for a Gubernatorial election. If one looks at the Lieutenant Governor candidates they will find that Mayor Tim Murray of Worcester has the knowledge and history best suited for the solution to this question. Among the answers he has is the creation of jobs suited for the college graduates. He has given Worcester a new bio-tech lab (under construction) and has plans for integrating more of the area colleges more closely into the cities economic framework. If your looking for an influential State official that can give the citizens a return on their investment, one can’t help but look at Murray.
<
p>
While I like several of the points you made, especially the one about the rankings. I personally see the issue more so on the side of educational output (that being the amount of college grads in the work force) especially since it is becoming increasingly difficult to get a decent paying job without college degree. Don’t get me wrong though, I would not be opposed to having rankings get better, I am simply commenting on the rising tuition costs as originally brought up by Charlie.
<
p>
~John
>>which 1. provides enormous discounts on education, and>>
<
p>
The UMass system is very open and provide discounts. This accessibility isn’t reflected in the rankings that next cite. Perhaps if the system’s budget was reduced or increased at a slower rate, it would be compelled to be more selective, less accessible, and the rankings in US NEWS would rise.
<
p>
Open? Puh-leaze. Here’s a comparison, brought on by a mention above.
One year tuition&fees at UMass-Amherst, in state: $9278
One year tuition&fees at UNC-Chapel Hill, in state: $4613
<
p>
That, my friends, is a huge difference. It’s also the difference between supporting your state schools and letting them languish on the vine, keeping the potentially upwardly mobile young Mass residents from pouring their full potential into the state economy, since unlike the private schools, nearly all state school graduates stick around Mass.
<
p>
>>2. ought to be and could be among the best state systems, but isn’t? >>
<
p>
It’s ranked 104 in the US overall, and 51th in public colleges. Not bad. Would more money help? Doubt it. It’s 51th ranking has no component that rewards accessibility.
<
p>
Not bad? Are you off your gourd? Given that there’s 50 states and UMass is 51st, that means that there’s at least one state with two state colleges ranked above UMass. Not bad?
<
p>
Accessibility is absolutely reflected in ranking. Every time you miss out on bringing in a quality kid because he can’t afford to choose UMass, you reduce the quality of the student body. Do this year after year, and you’ll find that your student body simply isn’t as capable as it could have been — and therefore not graduate as frequently, not go to good graduate schools as frequently, not be quality candidates for good jobs as frequently, etc.
<
p>
Accessibility is certainly reflected in the ranking, it’s just not in the rubric.
<
p>
>>3. ought to be an economic driver like our private universities>>
<
p>
You know this how?,
<
p>
It’s an opinion, but based in pretty sound observation. Check out the economies of VA and NC, both with multiple higher quality, lower tuition state schools, and with surging population, economy, and income. Neither Duke nor Wake Forest is carrying the water of NC (small schools whose graduates don’t stay in NC in high percentages), it’s UNC and NC State and to a lesser extent ECU, UNC-C, and UNC-G.
<
p>
Kids who go to state schools stay in state with a far greater frequency than those who go to private schools. If Massachusetts wants to hang on to that talent, it’s got to attract it to the state schools.
<
p>
>>and where 4. students are getting socked by the federal government and increased tuition costs to take on more and more debt?>>
<
p>
School is an investment. I’d rather leave UMASS with no debt but there’s a certain pride of ownership knowing that I bought it and paid for it by myself and not on the taxpayers’ dole.
<
p>
Like all investments, it must be weighed against the costs and returns of similar investments. Right now, it’s clear that UMass is a lousy investment for out-of-state students, and not necessarily the best investment for in-state students. By dropping the tuition at UMass, it would become the best investment for more students and, given a (roughly) fixed enrollment, it means that UMass could be more selective, thereby improving its reputation, its quality, and the economic prospects for the state.
<
p>
And the taxpayers dole perspective is crap. Feel free to restrict your driving to private toll-roads, so as not to take a free ride on the government dole. Government expenditure on education isn’t charity — it’s investment in the well being of all citizens by investing in the economic potential of a subset of them.
Especially when I’m away from the computer for a long stretch! Needless to say, I absolutely agree with all your points.
<
p>
I might add that UNC Chapel Hill is thought to be hands-down one of the best universities in the country. UMass Amherst is generally not accorded such respect. Why not?
<
p>
Gary: the “gutting” already happened. Here’s a compilation of articles of what happened in 2002; and here’s a nice graph: Hey, it’s not so bad, right? After all, the revenue’s up since 2002. But look at the state support — still way down; and look at the student fees — way up. Screw the kids: that’s the simple way to do it.
<
p>
As for Gary’s “pride”: You’re entitled to your feelings, but frankly, who cares? I’d prefer a smart, competent, educated, bad-ass workforce — free from debilitating student debt — to propping up your sense of “independence”, which as stomv points out is illusory anyway. Bottom line: I want UMass grads to be making mad bank and spending it in the neighborhood, not paying off Citibank for 30 years.
<
p>
Here’s more from last year from a guest blogger at UMass.
I’ll have to correct UNC Chapel Hill is thought to be hands-down one of the best universities in the country.
<
p>
In fact, I might be willing to concede that UNC Chapel Hill is thought to be hands-down one of the best public liberal arts universities in the country.
<
p>
But then, as an NC State grad, I’ve never missed a chance to take pot shots at those sissy boys in blue over the hill.
I can’t tell precisely how that compares to your chart of the drop in state contribution to the UMASS Amherst budget, but it looks approximately equal. No question that state contribution has dropped. Perhaps, and it’s just a thought, the budget was fat in 2002.
<
p>
NC Government appropriation for UNC-Chapel Hill, Academic fiscal 2005-2006 was $210,509,492.
<
p>
We’ll each have our own views based on politics, but I think your inflammatory use of the words “gutting,” and “screw the kids” and “debilitating debt” is inappropriate. The school budget isn’t “gutted”; kids aren’t selling pencils on the street to pay tuition.
<
p>
Only 60% of UMASS graduates leave with debt, and the average for that group is under $17,000.
<
p>
ciao,
<
p>
gary
Let me offer a different perspective. It’s not just about keeping out the students who can’t afford it. It’s about making it very attractive to better students.
<
p>
If UMass cost $20k and BC cost $25k, which would you choose? No-brainer, BC, right?
<
p>
If UMass cost $5k and BC cost $25k, which would you choose? Hmm. Is BC really worth $20k more per year? Maybe not.
<
p>
That, my friends, is a huge difference. It’s also the difference between supporting your state schools and letting them languish on the vine,…>>>
<
p>
$4613 is a bargain. $9278 is a bargain. It should be free? Is that your position?
<
p>
It’s my philosophical/political opinion that “user based fees” are preferable to broad taxes: i.e. tolls, licenses, tutition. On that point we’ll either agree, or agree to disagree. Tuition primarily benefits the individual. Society too, but primarily the individual. The student should bear some cost and will appreciate the reward, much the same as a home-owner appreciates ownership, while government projects of the Great Society failed.
<
p>
BTW, $15,048 In dollars, is the average four-year indebtedness of a UNC student in 2002. UMass? Nearly 60 percent of UMass students graduate with college-related debt and the debt average for those students is $16,392. What do those statistic tell us? It says the UMass tuition is higher but the aid is greater.
<
p>
All in, UNC students debt upon graduation is $1,300 less than UMASS students. That hardly a “huge difference.” Certainly not a difference that supports “languishing on vine” or “gutting.”
<
p>
<
p>
Accessibility is absolutely reflected in ranking. Every time you miss out on bringing in a quality kid because he can’t afford to choose UMass, you reduce the quality of the student body. >>>
<
p>
Given the relatively low debt of the UMASS student on graduation and your argument is pretty well skewered. Accessibility is absolutely NOT refected in the US News ranking.
<
p>
Raise the entrance requirements; lower the enrollment from the current enrollment of 18,812, average GPA of 3.38 average SAT: 1143
and student Faculty Ratio of 17:1 and the USNews ranking will rise. Accessibility will drop.
<
p>
BTW, Enrollment at UNC for the comparable period is 16,278 with an average GPA of 4.33 and an average SAT: 1299. Student Faculty Ratio is 14:1.
<
p>
See how UNC’s stats are better? Greater selectivity.
<
p>
<
p>
A therefore B. (Better school create better economies) B is true, therefore A must have been the cause.
<
p>
That is incredible flawed logic. I’ve seen nothing to support the notion that the school of any state created a booming economy in that state.
<
p>
BTW, UMass spends approximately $300 million on research (student and faculty). I’ll argue that this is a significant “economic engine.”
<
p>
Gary, I scored you well on this one. Good, tough points.
<
p>
“government projects of the Great Society failed”
<
p>
1. That’s arguable at best. Medicare/Medicaid failed? Old people and poor people have medical care. That’s not failure. They’re prized programs, for good reason.
<
p>
2. Anyway, it’s beside the point. UWisconsin, UMichigan, Indiana U. (Go Hoosiers!), UNC, UC Berkeley, UCLA, etc. etc. Are these failures? No? Well, then, I guess we can do something right.
<
p>
Your student debt figures are interesting, but I wish you had provided links. Are they based on in-state tuitions? For a state school (a major qualifier, to be sure) UNC is expensive for out-of-staters: $19,681 next year.
<
p>
Here’s an article on UMass, affordability and accessibility.
<
p>
<
p>
If we’re charging fifth-most, we ought to be fifth-best.
<
p>
“I’ve seen nothing to support the notion that the school of any state created a booming economy in that state.”
<
p>
What about this? And that’s just from a quick Google. The evidence is everywhere.
<
p>
You were correct to criticize the post-hoc-ergo-hoc logic, but then you marred it with this assertion. Forget about public vs. private for a moment; do Massachusetts’ schools help our economy? Are NC and VA helped economically by their terrific state schools? How could one argue otherwise?
<
p>
You make a good point — up to a point: that by making UMass more attractive in price or quality, selectivity would go up and probably change who is going to UMass schools to some extent. But to the extent that there’s overlap, or that some folks can’t afford to go who ought to be able to go, we’ve got to do it. Education isn’t a race-to-the-bottom situation.
1: When I referred to failed government “projects” I was comparing home ownership to the government sponsored housing projects, which I think failed. No reference to other New Society “programs.”
<
p>
2: Sorry about the links re: student debt. I didn’t save them all. Here’s one:
http://www.massachusetts.edu/?fuseaction=Generic.Items&aiid=6&h=10&mode=content&item_ID=263
<
p>
3: I agree that if we’re spending 5th best the school should be 5th best. But, (a) the USNEWS isn’t necessarily the measure of best. I still see no bona fide argument the USNEWS lacks a variable for accessibility. UMASS is simply willing to accept students of a lower standard than many other state schools: UNC, Univ. of Calif-Berkley, UVA, etc. and (b) spending more doesn’t necessarily mean improvement.
<
p>
4: Tks for the rating. I use SAFARI, and I don’t seem to have the drop-down ratings menu…
<
p>
ciao,
<
p>
gary