Berkeley prof to students: 'You have been the victims of a terrible swindle'

[Newsjock]

By Michael O'Hare

Welcome to Berkeley, probably still the best public university in the world. Meet your classmates, the best group of partners you can find anywhere. The percentages for grades on exams, papers, etc. in my courses always add up to 110% because that’s what I’ve learned to expect from you, over twenty years in the best job in the world.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that you have been the victims of a terrible swindle, denied an inheritance you deserve by contract and by your merits. And you aren’t the only ones; victims of this ripoff include the students who were on your left and on your right in high school but didn’t get into Cal, a whole generation stiffed by mine. This letter is an apology, and more usefully, perhaps a signal to start demanding what’s been taken from you so you can pass it on with interest.

... This deal held until about thirty years ago, when for a variety of reasons, California voters realized that while they had done very well from the existing contract, they could do even better by walking away from their obligations and spending what they had inherited on themselves. “My kids are finished with school; why should I pay taxes for someone else’s? Posterity never did anything for me!” An army of fake ‘leaders’ sprang up to pull the moral and fiscal wool over their eyes, and again and again, your parents and their parents lashed out at government (as though there were something else that could replace it) with tax limits, term limits, safe districts, throw-away-the-key imprisonment no matter the cost, smoke-and-mirrors budgeting, and a rule never to use the words taxes and services in the same paragraph.

... Many of your parents took a hike as well, somehow getting the idea that the schools had taken over their duties to keep you learning, or so beat-up working two jobs each and commuting two hours a day to put food on the table that they couldn’t be there for you. A quarter of your classmates didn’t finish high school, discouraged and defeated; but they didn’t leave the planet, even if you don’t run into them in the gated community you will be tempted to hide out in. They have to eat just like you, and they aren’t equipped to do their share of the work, so you will have to support them.

Read more: http://www.samefacts.com/2010/08/education-policy/a-letter-to-my-students/#more-12932
The author is a professor at UC Berkeley's school of public policy.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. That's saying it like it is.

Sadly...

K&R

[Confusious]

2. That pretty much applies to all america

I've had arguments with people about paying taxes for schools.

Them: I don't have kids so why should I pay?

Me: because somebody paid for you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. We don't have kids

and no, you did not pay for my school, since I did not grow up here. And for a fact i know my parents paid for it. That said, when RW tell me that... I look them in the eye and ask them... buddy, who do you think is gonna fund SS?

They usually have that look of what?

It is those kids that we first need to educate... you want to live in a civilized society, entry fee please.

I had one particular gentleman really look puzzled.

Taxes, the entry fee to civilized society.

Yes I have used this in the recent part... and it seems to make their light bulbs turn on. Sadly making it about them, but if it works...

[slampoet]

11. "An Investment in Education, Pays the Best Dividend" - Benjamin Franklin

It is literally true the way it broadens the tax base and increases jobs.

[JDPriestly]

61. The GI BIll -- proved the point.

The GI Bill educated a whole generation of Americans, and brought in about 20 years of prosperity -- until 1973 when the first oil crisis hit.

In addition to more investment in education, we have to invest in energy independence. We did not learn our lesson in 1973. The first oil crisis showed us that we were too dependent on foreign oil. We still are.

Our two fundamental problems are: 1) dependence on foreign oil, and 2) too little funding for our public schools. Everything else that is wrong is the result of those two problems.

If we do not remedy those problems, we will soon have food and water shortages as well as deficiencies in our basic infrastructure that result in epidemics due to poor sewage and garbage disposal, unmanageable riots, out-of-control fires and increased crime.

No amount of electronic surveillance will prevent disasters if we don't stop depending on foreign oil and educate our children as they need to be educated. In particular, American children need to understand science and math, the two fields in which they are weakest.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. And who fought the GI Bill?

The GOP.

And what happened for example in California? Prop 13.

People have forgotten why the society once worked.

[pscot]

47. I like that

Thanks for the meme.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. Oh you welcome

[drmeow]

87. I call them the dues we pay

to live in a civilized society.

[Merlot]

5. or how about: education reduces crime?

possibly, just maybe, if kids got a good education and had opportunities they wouldn't grow up to become criminals?

[markbark]

16. Not always....

I mean, look at the BFEE: All the opportunity in the world and an ivy league education and they STILL became criminals
:evilgrin:

[kimmylavin]

53. Yes...

But of the kind who usually go unpunished in this country.

[demigoddess]

72. OR people pay for homeowners insurance when they don't

have house fires, health insurance when they are healthy, car insurance when they don't have accidents. It is like insurance in that they may change their minds and have children later on. What you pay in school taxes for one year does not cover one child let alone two or three. I strongly believe that if we want a stronger economy we should also pay for college educations or trade educations for all our kids who want it or who have the grades for it.

[Hannah Bell]

3. great letter.

[malaise]

8. Indeed

Reaganomics fugged up the planet

I'll put this on my office door tomorrow

[Ishoutandscream2]

33. It sure did. That's what it all boils down to

Yes, I have an intense dislike of the Bush criminals. But St. Ronnie will always top my list. He began this mess that we're in.

[Carolina]

46. you're right and St. Ronnie was brought to us (US)

via California where he had been screen actors' guild prez, GE shill, CA governor

[Grins]

62. ....and FBI informant.

That bastard ratted out members of the Screen Actors Guild when he was its head. I hate him and I let my RW friends know it. I call him "Traitor Reagan.

[Carolina]

106. an all-around awful guy

Unfortunately he's been packaged and sold as the best thing since sliced bread to the very people he screwed. And those people have bought the package and years of hype and mythology about him.
As JFK once said: "the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the MYTH – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic!"

This country is doomed by bullshit marketing and ignorance.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. I share the author's disgust. nt.

[martymar64]

7. Thanks to Howard Jarvis and Prop 13

I hope he's lying rotting and stinking in the ground, that bastard.

[KansDem]

29. I was living in California when the Prop.13 hysteria begain...

L.A. area. I knew one couple who swore up and down that if Prop.13 didn't pass, they'd have to move out of state.

Well, Prop.13 passed and the next thing this couple did was buy a second home in Big Bear. :shrug:

They confused "entitlement" with "need."

[mike_c]

9. every dollar invested in higher education in california returns four dollars...

...to the state economy, so in many ways the fiscal problems the state faces now are the result of the last several decades of California voters and legislators walking away from their obligations to future Californians. They stopped investing, and eventually stopped reaping the returns.

[ElectricLightDem]

26. Wow. Is it really that much?

Mind if I ask for your source?

[mike_c]

57. that figure is quoted constantly by both CSU administration and by the faculty union....

It's been part of the discussion here for as long as I've been a professor in the CSU.

Your question intrigued me, so I did a little digging, and found that in 2005 the numbers were revised downward a little (by about 25%) to reflect the erosion in investment and state commitment to higher ed that had already occurred:

http://www.cpec.ca.gov/completereports/2010reports/D10-01.pdf

A 2005 study performed by the UC Berkeley Survey Research Center, “Return on Investment,” shows that
for every new dollar California invests in college completion, it will receive a net return of $3. The report,
commissioned by the Campaign for College Opportunity, noted that California would realize a positive balance
ten years after students complete their education. By the time graduates reach age 35, the state’s initial
investment would be fully repaid.

Still, there is little doubt that California's massive net economic growth during the 1970s-90s was fueled in large measure by a qualified, well educated work force. And the return on investment is not evenly distributed-- my sense is that the CSU makes a broader impact on future returns than the UC simply because it educates so many more students.

[liberation]

65. And even if the return on investment was nil...

... why do Americans can't grasp the concept that a proper education should be a right, even if it does not turn every single citizen into a super productive working bee that will make money for other people. Having an educated population leads to citizens which have concept of self worth and can make a democracy work and more importantly: can live full lives. Intellectual wealth can't be assigned a half assed arbitrary metric like a dollar value to it.

It is like requesting the bears at Yosemite to provide a powerpoint presentation to conjure a proper capital value proposition for the state, or else we should nuke it and replace the entire national park with a lead paint factory.

[mike_c]

90. +1

Well said!

[ElectricLightDem]

78. Thanks for that

Oddly enough, I just did move to CA a few months ago. One of the reasons I now live where I do is because it is close to Columbia College. I already have a B.A., but decided on a lifesytle change and am now aiming for an A.S. Once I, hopefully, get the A.S., I just might transfer to a CSU school. Do you by any chance reside in Central CA?

But back on topic, thanks again for doing the legwork on that. The new number is more aligned to my initial guess as to the R.O.I.

[musiclawyer]

91. I live near columbia college

why would you move out to the sticks instead of a school closer to civilization
Sorry off topic PM the answer

[ElectricLightDem]

94. I do not have enough posts to PM you.

So, I'll just say that I moved from Reno to here, and the girlfriend has family back in the Washoe Valley. I have family in the Bay area and the Mother Lode is a nice equi-distant point on the map. That, and Columbia offers the courses I seek.

[mike_c]

92. best wishes to you....

I'm in Humboldt County actually, on the far North Coast (at Humboldt State University).

[ElectricLightDem]

93. Thanks

I absolutely love Eureka / Arcata. I went to the Kinetic Races in '08 and have been dissapointed in not being able to attend the next few years. I am hoping that the A.S. can get me employment out near you.

[Xithras]

42. Even better than that for the government....

Every tax dollar invested in higher education eventually returns $1.50 to $1.75 in taxes. People who learn more, make more. People who make more, pay more.

Higher ed in California has traditionally been a fiscally beneficial investment, raising both the economy as a whole, and the state tax base specifically. Cutting it off now simply guarantees a lower PERMANENT tax base in the future.

[ooglymoogly]

10. Perfect thoughts from a perfect mind, whose analysis has to be....

Short sighted, selfish pugs do not deserve a place at the table of reality, where the future of mankind is debated.

[Prometheus Bound]

12. Is anyone else irritated by the comment: "They aren’t equipped to do their share of the work."

Just because they didn't finish high school doesn't mean they aren't equipped to do their share of the work. It's utter nonsense.

That kind of statement gives me the creeps. You get a feeling about what this person really thinks about those without a college degree.

[PassingFair]

17. He's clearly talking about the 25% that don't graduate from high school.

It's nearly impossible to support yourself
if you CAN'T READ.

[valerief]

19. When I was a kid, we learned how to read in the first grade. Of course,

that was decades before they stopped funding public school teaching. Now, I guess, they just fund public school testing.

[Prometheus Bound]

75. Yes, he makes it quite clear that is the group he is talking about.

But many of them are surely quite capable of reading. I know many many people who never finished high school. Most are very valuable workers, some have their own businesses. Lumping them all into a group that must be supported by their better educated brethren makes no sense.

[Wednesdays]

20. Sure, they're equipped...

...to become a Wal-Mart greeter, nothing else.

Problem is, there are only so many Wal-Mart greeter jobs to go around.
:shrug:

[SteveM]

60. Hey, hey, that's an old person's job! Keep away from that, whipper-snapper!

[Prometheus Bound]

79. As I said above, they are equipped to do many valuable jobs in society.

I know quite a number of successful small business owners who never finished high school.

I know a large number of factory workers and mechanics who never finished high school. It doesn't seem to have affected their ability to do the jobs they enjoy most.

[slackmaster]

24. That one irritates me on multiple levels

It absolves all drop-outs of blame for their own actions and inaction; and suggests that college should be an entitlement for every individual regardless of their ability to achieve higher levels of education.

You get a feeling about what this person really thinks about those without a college degree.

I get the impression he looks down his nose at everyone outside of academia.

[MedicalAdmin]

36. I didn't see it that way, so I wasn't bothered.

My interpretation of that is that those who have should, in a democratic and just society, feel obligated to assist those of lesser means.

On the other hand this is just another way of saying Nobles Oblige, so I guess it could be interpreted as "looking down his nose."

On the other hand given the overall tone of the article, it seems unlikely that the less charitable interpretation is in keeping with his beliefs.


Hey! I have 3 hands.

[liberation]

67. I don't think the two of you realize your comments tells us more about you..

... than the professor.

Projection is funny that way.

[Prometheus Bound]

80. Perhaps you could explain what you mean.

Cryptic one-liners that only you understand are kind of a lazy way to make a point don't you think?

[Prometheus Bound]

86. Yup.

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. Really? Tell you what - read a semester's worth of college freshman

lit essays.

Then, consider that THESE are the kids who HAVE the education, who DID get through high school and who KNOW how to read a 'help wanted' section.

The rate of functional illiteracy in this country is appalling. If you can't read at better than a 3rd grade level, you are not equipped to do your share of work. What's a dropout going to do? You can't be a cashier at a diner without being able to run a computer and make change.

Even people of my generation COULD get by without a finished education, but the upcoming generations can't. Most menial jobs require you be able to read an MSDS sheet, or you will wind up poisoning yourself or other - janitors, landscapers, whatever. The economy is such that nobody hires someone just to push a broom - the broom pushing is done be people who were hired for other reasons.

My daughter who has learning disabilities and emotional problems has been trying to get her GED for ten years. She has been unemployed for the last 5. When there are people who are far better equipped fighting for the few jobs she could handle, she doesn't have a chance. She, at least, can get disability. But what about the kid who does not have a diagnosable problem, who just quit? If he is not equipped for the job market, what's his options? Selling drugs?

[Prometheus Bound]

81. Well, I've taught 3-5 courses a semester for 17 years.

At a university on the other side of the globe, but still, I get your point. I've also taught at secondary school here and have seen hundreds of kids leave high school before graduating. But they all seem to find gainful employment. Mind you, the unemployment rate here is only 4.5%.

[laurel46]

55. Perhaps the author meant something more diplomatic?

I can understand your point, It can be interpreted as insulting. However, I interpreted it to mean robbing people of rightful needed and joyful equipment. There is more to collage than a job, learning is a gift. I also feel the author may have meant that society demands much of the people, and requires certain abilities but does not equip people for such. This is cruel to demand high prices for food and rent on very low paying or none existent jobs. It is not legal to exist in society without a home (loitering), so having any unemployment for those who would want to work for a modest life is not reasonable and they will be forced to live on the streets, illegally. I think the point was that life costs more than we prepare or equip our citizens for, and it is unreasonable to expect those that have been thrown under the bus to compete.

I should edit more but I can't find my glasses, so sorry try to over look the bad phrasing and grammar this morning.

[Prometheus Bound]

82. I agree with you that he probably meant that.

But his snobbishness towards those without a university degree really stands out to me. Terrible ignorance about a huge part of society, lumping them all together like that.

[bertman]

56. No, I'm not irritated by that statement. As an employer, I am appalled

by the number of job applicants who cannot even fill out the simple application form for a job in the building trades. These people are generally physically capable of doing the work, but cannot read and follow written instructions.

I'm sure they wonder why they were not selected for the job.

When they are going up against another person with all other abilities seemingly being equal, the one who can read, write reasonably well, comprehend, and follow instructions, is going to get the job most of the time.

[Prometheus Bound]

83. But you don't necessarily need a HS diploma or college degree to follow written instructions.

This prof lumps all those without a HS diploma together as one big hopeless group, which is nonsense.

[bertman]

98. I agree with your statement that a HS diploma isn't necessary to be

able to follow written instructions, Prometheus Bound. I didn't take the professor's statement to be meant to say that, only to say that many people who do not finish high school will not be prepared for making a decent living.

[liberation]

66. Not really....

... but we get a feeling about where your narrative is going.

Thanks for your "concern."

[Prometheus Bound]

84. Oh dear, another cryptic one-liner.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[Threedifferentones]

95. I know many illegal latino workers, all of them are fully literate in their native tongue.

None of them received the education of a 10th grade dropout here.

His point was that high school dropouts are not synonymous with people who can't read or work.

His point was valid, although I am not sure where the "narrative" was going.

[NashVegas]

97. He's Referring to "Learned Helplessness"

That many people who grow up in impoverished and dysfunctional families fall into.

[Steely_Dan]

13. Social Obligation

Somewhere along the way, we have forgotten that we have an unwritten social obligation...a social contract. It was our way of paying back to our country what they paid to us; the privilege of all the benefits we have taken from our country.

[hfojvt]

14. "they aren't equipped to do their share of the work"?

What a load of crap that is.

I am sure they are just as capable of mopping a floor as I am, even if they don't have a master's degree from the University of Nebraska or even a GED. BTW, you know who has a GED where I work? The building manager, a mere three steps above my University educated a$$. Boy, it sure is a good thing I went to college for 8 years (actually only 7, but I took almost 8 years worth of useless classes) instead of dropping out of high school or something.

The real victims of a swindle? Those who goto college and only get a liberal arts degree instead of some kind of certification.

Well it's my fault too, I could have perhaps worked for NSA (although I think Will summed up how I feel about that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOtVg05JLPc) or I coulda stayed with DOD.

[old mark]

15. ...and another part of the swindle is that education itself has become a for-profit business,

and the real value of your "education" has declined for several decades. Education as far as you can take it should be a right of every person, not a priveledge of the rich. At one time this was a real goal, but...

mark

[seabeyond]

18. listening to npr, taking son to school today. i told him, my yrs were pure bliss, his ....

hopeless hell.

my years, .... drugs, sex, family, food on table, all.... no worries only endless "all is fine".

his? wow. the end of the world as we know it.

[slackmaster]

21. That's a long-winded way of saying the only problem in California is that our taxes are too low

:eyes:

[w4rma]

22. Well somebody's taxes are too low. But, I think its those who are doing quite well right now

during this depression whose taxes are much much too low. If they are able to take more and more and more from the rest of us, during a depression, then their taxes are far too low.

[slackmaster]

27. State revenue depends primarily on personal income tax, which means...

...the most direct way to increase it is to encourage the development of private-sector jobs.

[w4rma]

28. How does one encourage the development of jobs? Get more money to regular people who *live* in the

community and *spend* in the community. Not to the international wealthy who have too much money to spend on "small" communities. They'll just take European vacations and spend it there. Or sock it away in a savings account, that is most likely a tax shelter somewhere.

[slackmaster]

30. The easiest way to "get more money to regular people" is to cut taxes

I don't believe any cuts would be appropriate under the circumstances.

Spending in the community does not create private-sector jobs.

[ProfessorPlum]

32. "spending in the community does not create private-sector jobs"

Please defend this statement. It goes against everything we know about demand-side economics.

"spending in the community" that puts money into peoples' pockets creates jobs because those people then have money to spend . . . on goods and services that are provided by jobs being created to meet that demand.

[slackmaster]

35. Spending money in the community requires having money available to spend

The state is already broke. Are you seriously suggesting that the legislature could spend its way out of the deficit?

"spending in the community" that puts money into peoples' pockets creates jobs because those people then have money to spend . . . on goods and services that are provided by jobs being created to meet that demand.

It depends on what kind of spending you're talking about.

Economic incentives to encourage the development of new technology and new manufacturing can create jobs. Simply handing out cash results in people buying more of whatever stuff is already available, like food and beer.

[jeff47]

49. Um...that is "spending in the community" and it creates jobs

"Simply handing out cash results in people buying more of whatever stuff is already available, like food and beer."

Somebody has to sell the food and beer. When demand goes up, they hire people to sell more food and beer. Those people now have money, and thus can buy their own food and beer. Increasing demand even further.

Now, the real economy isn't restricted to food and beer, but it principle holds - people who get a job buy stuff. That increases demand, leading to more jobs, leading to more people buying stuff. And so on.

Tax breaks are a really, really inefficient way of doing this. You lose a big pile of revenue and then hope that the wealthy folks will spend a buck or two in your jurisdiction. Since we've tried this approach several times, we've been able to measure the efficiency, which is between 40-70% (each dollar of tax cut created 40-70 cents of new revenue. That 70% is an outliers though - it happened when we cut the top marginal income tax rate from 90% to 50%. There's no place left to make cuts anywhere as large.)

It's much, much, much, much more efficient to just hire people in your jurisdiction. They now have jobs, thus they now spend and the local businesses hire more people to meet their needs. This works even if your new hires are paid to dig and then fill in holes in the ground. The last time we seriously tried it (Things like the WPA in the Great Depression), we actually dug ourselves out of a far deeper economic hole...up until the conservatives screwed up the recovery in 1937 by abandoning the effort.

The economy had actually recovered before WWII started - WWII just caused the government to hire a hell of a lot more people, and spend a hell of a lot more money, resulting in a large economic boom.

So yes, it is possible for a government to spend it's way into prosperity. They just can't do it forever. But it's a really, really good idea to do when the economy is in the toilet. They just have to pay off the debt when the economy is good.

[MedicalAdmin]

37. Or perhaps change your tax laws?

Keep in mind that the law is supposed to be a living thing. It is supposed to grow and change over time.

I think it is high time that the rich had some of their wealth returned to the economy in terms of jobs. Given that they have had 30 years to prove their "no tax is good tax" concept works (hint: it doesn't because they are not keeping their end of the bargain) then we are completely justified to go and get that money and capital and put it back to work.

They are nothing but horders, thieves and war profiteers. Time to tighten the noose.

[slackmaster]

39. So the obvious solution is to raise taxes on the rich, and to raise corporate taxes even higher

Yes, that will surely create lots of private-sector jobs. It might even attract businesses from outside of California to move here and enjoy the friendly climate.

[MedicalAdmin]

43. I get what you are saying ...

... but I think we can all agree that the free ride should be over.

Perhaps the changes in the tax laws should be to encourage the re-shoring of jobs to the US with a tax benefit and the elimination of tax breaks to those who offshore jobs. At least that would be a start. At the very least it should be noted that there is more personal wealth on the planet than there was even 30 years ago, but it is all concentrated in a few individuals. Those people need to understand that they hoard at their own risk and some judicious changes in tax laws could be just the ticket to do that. I would like to find a mutually satisfying answer to this problem in order to avoid future bloodshed which is certain if things continue the way they have been.

Howerver you and I disagree philosophically with certain fundamentals of the economy. I support small businesses as they are both the laboratory for future innovation but also the engine of job growth in any economy. I could be wrong, but I think your comments reveal a bias towards corporations as corps are usually the only companies that will move in or out of states due to taxes. Small businesses usually don't.

I do agree that we can't spend our way out of a situation that "we" got into by spending like a drunken sailer on shore leave.

[slackmaster]

44. Pardon me, but I'm still not really clear on who in California is getting a free ride from the state

The uber-rich have no more advantages here than they do in many other states.

[liberation]

68. And that is a short-winded way to intellectual dishonesty.

At least the professor bothered to make his case even if you thought it was overly verbose (not really), you're just being plain lazy (intellectually at least).

[slackmaster]

88. I'm just a little tired of people on both political extremes trying to blame all of CA's...

...money problems on their political opponents.

I'm especially sick of people trying to hang all of the blame on actions taken by my parents' generation (and me BTW), which seemed perfectly reasonable at the time given the unrestrained tax increases that affected the personal budgets of everyone in the state who wasn't homeless or in jail, and in a very regressive way. The solution is not perfect. Certainly it shouldn't be so easy to evade reassessments on commercial properties, but everyone under the age of about 50 and some over that age seem to have no idea of the massively corrupt, dysfunctional system that the current set of tax laws replaced.

My parents always lived frugally, and they taught me to be that way. They weren't responsible for the excessive spending by the state legislature and the counties that was going on then, and continues today in spite of voters' efforts to make their tax increases somewhat predictable. It's not their fault that the present bunch of brain-dead partisan career politicians can't get their shit together and come up with a responsible budget, as my parents always did and taught me to do.

I'm a beneficiary of the "golden age" of education in California. When I enrolled as an undergraduate at UCSD, the resident registration fee was just $158 per quarter - Obviously nowhere near enough to cover the actual administrative costs of creating and maintaining my school records and my share of professor and staff salaries and everything else those fees are supposed to offset. I paid full price out of my own pocket for books and housing. I and most others could have afforded to pay a little more, but I feel that we as a generation have more than made up for our subsidized education by paying high taxes since the day I started working full time. The excellent education certainly created great benefits to the state in the form of high salaries, which have been consistently taxed at some of the highest rates in the country.

The state seems to always go too far from one extreme to another, like a big pendulum that nobody can control. Give people something for "free", then take it away, and they'll scream bloody murder because they will forever feel entitled to whatever it was they were getting once upon a time. The down side of a high-benefit social contract is high cost. I want to see things balanced out and stabilized, and made more predictable for everyone in the present and the future.

[laughingliberal]

23. K & R nt

[Brickbat]

25. Hrm, and here's me thinking he meant the terrible swindle was higher education.

[Jim__]

31. "... they could do even better by walking away from their obligations and spending ..."

How's that workin' out for them - the people who walked away from their obligations?

[Edweird]

38. "they aren’t equipped to do their share of the work"

Wow. That, by the way, is EXACTLY the attitude that engenders such hostility from people that actually DO work for a living.

[av8rdave]

41. I think the point he was trying to make was

that society bears a greater burden created by those who failed at or were failed by the education system. It's another way that the selfishness bred by Reaganomics has ultimately hurt us all.

I feel it supports his broader point pretty well.

Hostility towards the unemployed and underemployed? I don't get it. The vast majority of those in that position aren't there because they're lazy and don't want to work. The ratio of job seekers to available jobs tells that story pretty clearly.

[Edweird]

51. I'm not talking about employed/unemployed.

I'm talking about blue collar/white collar.

[av8rdave]

52. Thanks for the clarification

[xxqqqzme]

40. It was more than 30 years ago

St ronnie was governor ('67-'75) when I was in college. That is when the education cuts started. Those budget cuts, partially, inspired and fueled Prop 13 ('78). (Prop 13 also saddled us w/ the 2/3 vote to raise state and local revenue.) At the time, arguments in opposition to prop 13 pointed out California's education system would suffer because of it.

[Greyhound]

45. K&R for stating the obvious, disappointment for needing to. n/t

[Locrian]

48. a good follow up to this

How Tax Cuts Killed California

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/16/how-tax-cuts-killed-california/

Under Republican Gov. Earl Warren and Democratic Gov. Pat Brown, California epitomized the postwar American dream. Its public schools, from kindergarten through Berkeley and UCLA, were the nation’s finest; its roads and aqueducts the most efficient at moving cars and water — the state’s lifeblood — to their destinations. All this was funded by some of the nation’s highest taxes, which fell in good measure on the state’s flourishing banks and corporations. <...>… With the state sitting on a $5 billion surplus, frustrated Californians grumped to the polls and passed Proposition 13, which rolled back and then froze property taxes — effectively destroying the funding base of local governments and school districts, which thereafter depended largely on Sacramento for their revenue. Ranked fifth among the states in per-pupil spending during the 1950s and ’60s, California sank to Mississippi-like levels — the mid-40s — by the 1990s.

[Arugula Latte]

50. I was a California kid when Prop 13 passed. I was SO pissed off at my parents for voting Yes.

However, I made it through the public school system, including UC Berkeley, while it was still relatively well funded. My college tuition at Cal was still dirt cheap in the mid-80s.

[slackmaster]

101. Did you ever ask your parents WHY they voted yes on 13?

Did they reply with something like "Because we're greedy and selfish and want to keep everything for ourselves, future generations be damned"?

Do you feel that way about them now?

I was 20 years old, and I voted Yes on 13 along with my parents. We saw it as a matter of survival. Our family was being slowly bled to death.

[Wednesdays]

102. I might have been tempted to vote for it, too

After all, it was tax relief.

Problem was, while you got a little relief, the fat cats got away with boatloads.

[slackmaster]

104. The only people getting away with "boatloads" now are public employees and unions

Like the people who spend more than half a billion dollars designing and building ONE SCHOOL Los Angeles recently, or the corrupt managers of Bell and other cities.

People on this forum keep mentioning some shadowy "fat cats" or super-wealthy people who are supposedly draining the state's coffers, but nobody seems to be able to name any specific ones.

We know the source of the budget mess in the city and county of San Diego, but nobody wants to talk about it.

[Arugula Latte]

107. My dad just said: "We need to keep our property taxes down."

My mom kind of went along with my dad.

They both voted for Reagan in '80. My dad voted for him again in '84, but not my mom. By '92, though, they both voted for Clinton. My mom is now registered as a Green and is very liberal (except on immigration). They were both always socially liberal, so my dad finally admitted the Republicans had lost him by being too extreme.

[slackmaster]

109. Did you not agree with his answer about property taxes? Also a correction to my #89...

Do you even know how much money he was talking about? My parents showed me every detail of the family budget. They made a clear and compelling case that rampant property tax increases were busting it.

Not only were they being reassessed every year, the tax rate kept going up with no legal limit to how high the county could raise it. Proposition 13 was the only tool available to get it under control.

I called my mom to get the numbers straight. Regarding reply #89, my parents saw a 400% increase in the assessed value of their home from 1969 to 1976. The property tax rate also doubled, resulting in an 800% increase in the tax during that period. It went from about $700 per year to over $5,500, at a time when my dad's salary was about $37,000 and increasing by just a few percentage points annually.

That's why so many people voted yes on Proposition 13.

[bluestateguy]

54. Prop 13 was the wrong remedy to a real problem

You had people being priced out of their neighborhoods because of escalating property values thereby leading to more property taxes. There were endless sob stories on TV and in the papers (yeah, remember when people used to read those?) about little old ladies on fixed incomes, who lived in modest homes for 40 years being squeezed out by property taxes.

Prop 13 was the wrong rememdy to this legitimate problem. I just can't say that I know what the right remedy should have been. I do think that Prop 13 should be gradually phased out however.

[KamaAina]

59. Many other places simply give tax breaks to elderly homeowners

problem solved.

[slackmaster]

105. The elderly were not the only ones who were getting soaked in the early to mid-1970s

Runaway taxation was hitting the working middle class hard. That's why we passed Prop. 13.

[provis99]

63. yet it didn't do a damned thing for these little old ladies.

It was a corporate welfare plan in sheep's clothing.

[Greyhound]

58. Prop. 13. Using the handy distraction of "little old ladies" to justify a massive

corporate welfare program was one major factor.

In FY 1975-1976 CA state revenues from property taxes was http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3929883/UNDERSTANDING-PROPERTY-TAX-Prior-to-California-derived-up-to-percent">$31.8B. In FY 2006-2007 they were http://reason.com/blog/2009/06/03/has-prop-13-really-robbed-cali">$43.16B.

Does anyone believe that California only experienced a 23% (after accounting for inflation it actually goes negative) rise in costs over those 31 years?

This abomination simply locked the gigantic, immortal corporations into a tax burden that will consistently decrease as a percentage of required revenues. Actual human beings have seen their property taxes continually rise, since any transfer of property allows a reset to current rates, so their costs always rise.

One of the first corporate welfare programs to be 'bought' by the sheeple.

[slackmaster]

89. My working-class parents experienced a 400% increase in their property tax from 1969 - 1976

Does anyone believe their salaries increased enough during that period to cover the increased tax burden?

Yes, it's wrong that commercial properties can be transferred around so as to avoid reassessments. That part can be fixed without messing with peoples' personal home budgets.

[Greyhound]

99. Nobody said it wasn't a problem. What was said then, and has been proved completely

accurate, is that this would fuck up the entire state forever. Your parents (if they still live) are paying even more now than they would have without this corporate loot-fest, they just pay it out in different ways. Meanwhile, the plunderers are paying nothing to extract wealth from the state's resources.

Californians got suckered so well that most still don't know why they are hurting so bad.

[slackmaster]

100. If the state us fucked up "forever", there isn't any point in trying to fix it now

Californians got suckered so well that most still don't know why they are hurting so bad.

I think my life, at this point, is probably better than it would have been had Proposition 13 never come to be. The people who are hurt are ones who are dependent on the state for their well-being.

Meanwhile, the plunderers are paying nothing to extract wealth from the state's resources.

Who is plundering the state's resources right now, besides overpaid and over-pensioned municipal workers and termed-out politicians who are sucking the teat of state commissions?

[madrchsod]

64. california taxpayers have given135billion dollars since 2001 for two wars

econ 101...every 1 dollar invested in the common good returns at least 5

[abelenkpe]

69. Wow. Great letter. nt

[Raksha]

73. K & R, and posted to my Facebook page.

Required reading for all my friends! And YES, I'm in California and my son is a teacher's aide in the California state school system. He'd have a regular teaching position by now if it weren't for budget cuts, and the state skimping on education for 30-40 years.

[Overseas]

74. K&R! //nt

[Blue_Tires]

76. major kick

[deaniac21]

77. I always double my tax payment and I wish I could do more.

[Wednesdays]

103. How do you do that?

Just curious. :shrug:

[deaniac21]

110. Change your w-4 to hold out more and don't file for a refund.

[wiggs]

85. Just returned from Berkeley, dropping my kids off for the semester. Love it up

there. Parks jammed on weekends with people and families, people sitting in cafes, always an event going on, friendly folks...and the quality of faculty and speakers is amazing.

....but after this year we will have put in more than 200,000 dollars....much more than we have saved for retirement. Must be done, but it hurts.

[BrklynLiberal]

96. A very significant piece of writing....should be read by all.

Thank you for posting this.

[newspeak]

108. California and Wisconsin were both progressive states at one time,

especially in education. I was going to college in california when Pete Wilson started attacking the educational system. An asshole repuke who started the decline of education in my mind. I remember my philosophy professor coming to class and he had tears in his eyes. He told the class to not give up on their education, even if they had to work harder to get the money just don't give up. He, along with other professors, waited in the governor's office, to plead with him not to increase expenses where it would be out of reach, especially to lower and middle income students. The governor refused to listen to them. He also apparently, put some of his "friends" on the school board. As you can tell, I have no love for Wilson--I know what he did to education in California.