UC budget slashed by $100 million

Gov. Jerry Brown slashed the University of California’s budget by $100 million Tuesday, bringing the total budget reductions for the system to $750 million for the current fiscal year.

Since state revenues fell more than $2.2 billion short of projections, Brown was forced to initiate “trigger cuts” to education and social services, based on the state budget enacted in June. Both the UC and CSU systems will lose $100 million as a result of the cuts.

The cuts to the UC, however, will not be passed on to individual campuses and will be absorbed by the UC Office of the President, according to UC spokesperson Steve Montiel.

“We’re using short term bridging strategies — asset management,” Montiel said. “We’re taking certain steps in the short-term basis to move funds from one pool to another.”

In order to avoid a mid-year tuition hike, the university will look to reserves from its employee health care services. The UC will begin to draw from its employee health care reserve fund — which is used to provide for a possible substantial increase in the cost of health care — to account for the cuts, according to Montiel.

While these cuts are not permanent, Brown said that his budget proposal for next year will also include more cuts which will be premised on how the public votes on an initiative he has proposed that would raise taxes. If these trigger cuts become permanent, then the UC will have to consider tuition hikes for the next academic year, according to Montiel.

Because the state revenue shortfall was lower than expected, the state’s K-12 education system will be spared from deeper cuts that would reduce the school year by seven days.

“These cuts, they’re not good,” Brown said in a press conference. “This is not the way we’d like to run California, but we have to live within our means.”

Brown frequently made allusions to Europe’s economic status as a warning of what California would look like if it did not “exercise fiscal discipline.”

Curan Mehra covers higher education.

Comment Policy

Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.

Comments

comments

120

Archived Comments (120)

  1. CalKid says:

    Boy it sure would be nice if the staff of the Daily Cal bothered to moderate their discussion forums at all.

  2. Stan De San Diego says:

    The solution is obvious.  Cut the useless departments that are of no use to humanity, arts and science, or learning in general.  Things like the UCPD, the top paid athletics department people, UC Capital Projects, anyone with the words “executive” “vice” “provost” “chancellor” etc in their title and most of their staff.  

  3. josh says:

    Simple answer to all this: Tax the 700,000  Californians with more than 1
    million in fluid assets (not houses) 10,000 each  – that means leave
    them 990,000 in fluid assets – that solves nearly all the budget
    problems, and goes a small but important way to returning some of the
    funds that the state has used to sponsor the asset accumulation of these
    folks. 

    union bosses are a ridiculous category to critique given that they are hardly existent and, for the most part, hardly wealthy – the significant numbers come from folks like the WalMArt family whose 6 children collectively own the same amount of wealth as the bottom 30% of the US – look it up, the concentration of wealth is mind boggling.

    • Tony M says:

      Raising taxes won’t solve the problem, that’s like giving an alcoholic more booze. The problem is that we have allowed the UC system to grow into a big and bloated bureaucracy with no insistence that they manage their finances effectively. When the administration pushed to award scholarships to people who aren’t even in the country legally, they proved that they have no regard for the taxpaying public. Fire ‘em all and replace them with people who know how to balance a budget.

      • Stan De San Diego says:

        Yeah!  Find every illegal kid in our schools and fire them all.  Their burning bodies will be a bright beacon to their parents to stop freeloading off the taxpaying hard working non-kooky non-liberal Stans.  

        • CalKid says:

          When you fire someone, they don’t actually burst into flame.

          • Tony M says:

            Word up: the person who posted the comment you are replying to is not me. It’s the work of a troll whose nutty comments earned him open ridicule on this site, so he has taken to hijacking other people’s handles and posting nonsense in on order to create confusion and get people banned whose genuine opinions he disagrees with, but can not refute. The solution to this problem might be to link a single handle to a single IP address, but his type is most likely unemployed and would probably spend all day trying to work a hack around it.

          • Stan De San Diego says:

            DON’T CALL ME A TROLL I’M NOT A TROLL

            UR A TROLL!!!11!1!!!

          • Tony M says:

            You’re obsessed with Stan, aren’t you? Are you in love with him or what?

          • Tony M says:

            Nope, just anyone that takes the internet too seriously

          • Stan De San Diego says:

            CalKid offers a FACT as part of a reasoned discussion, rather than just calling someone a “troll”.  To rebut CalKid, bursting into flames clearly can happen if accelerants are used, as in Buddhist monk self-immolations during the Vietnam War.  

  4. Anonymous says:

    Okay, have it your way, you’re exploiting a vulnerability in the system which is not unlike what the 1% do to shelter their wealth from unfair taxes.  However, when you post as someone else within the SAME conversation it gets confusing.

    • Stan De San Diego says:

      “Okay, have it your way, you’re exploiting a vulnerability in the system
      which is not unlike what the 1% do to shelter their wealth from unfair
      taxes. ”

      I exploit this vulnerability in an attempt to remedy reactionary comments rather than sensible conversation.  They exploit this vulnerability for the own benefit at the expense of the people and country that make this wealth possible.  Not all exploitations of system vulnerabilities are created equal. 

      “However, when you post as someone else within the SAME conversation it gets confusing.”  Point taken. 

  5. Stan De San Diego says:

    I like cheese.

  6. Stan De San Diego says:

    TO THE CHILD WHO HIJACKS OTHER POSTER’S HANDLES: Sane, rational, intelligent people don’t need to misrepresent the positions of others to win an argument. The fact that you have resorted to this tactic is merely proof that you’re such a joke that nobody takes you seriously when you post under your own nom de plume.

    • Calipenguin says:

      I find sometimes that when it’s hard to tell who is posting which comments, people are more likely to take seriously the arguments contained within those posts, rather than trolling and name-calling.  I’m less interested in my positions being attached to my name than the merits of my arguments (and those who disagree with me) being considered by those reading.  People who support Occupy as as guilty as those who don’t of posting ridiculous things every time Calipenguin or you post something. 

      I don’t understand why you spend more time chastizing me for my avatar than engaging with my arguments.

      • Stan De San Diego says:

        yes, i agree, i’m a joke

        • Stan De San Diego says:

          In other words, you admit you can’t win the argument under your own name, based on your own logic, so you play games. Yawn.

          • Stan De San Diego says:

            I’m confused. Why am I talking to myself?

          • Stan De San Diego says:

            Can someone please 5150 me?  I’m confused. 

          • wawaweewa says:

            Actually, if you’d read my post, you’d see it’s the opposite.  I don’t want people to agree with me just because of my handle just like I don’t want people to disagree with you just beacuse of your handle.  On rare occasion, you and Calipenguin make reasonable points, and I see no reason why liberals should dismiss you just because you often make silly points, just as I see no reason why conservatives should dismiss me simply because of my handle.

            I think everyone would agree that your ad hominem attacks detract from your credibility far more than my attempts to raise the level of discourse a bit.

          • CalKid says:

            Hijacking other people’s account names to post idiotic drivel doesn’t raise the discourse at all.

            In fact, it does the exact opposite.

  7. Anonymous says:

    On the same day this cut of $100 million was announced UC also announced fat pay increases to unionized employees for the next five years in a row, regardless of whether UC loses funding from the state in those five years.

    http://www.dailycal.org/2011/12/13/uc-reaches-wages-benefits-agreement-with-employee-union/

    When will the Occupy student members realize that their real enemies are the parasitic labor unions and not the banks?  When student fees go up again next summer they can thank the unions.

    • Stan De San Diego says:

      The Occupy types are academia’s equivalent of Stalin’s “useful idiots”. They are more interested in feeding their narcissistic need for constant attention than taking any type of critical look at the budget and trying to identify waste that could be cut to minimize or even eliminate the same student tuition increases that  allegedly got them worked up in the first place.

    • Stan De San Diego says:

      A “fat” pay increase?  3%/year for the next several years, which will both keep up with inflation and make up for the lack of inflation-tracked pay increases in previous years?  This at a time when UC executives have received something on the order of $15 million in “retention bonuses” and raises over the last two years?  This at a time when UC is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on construction projects?  This at a time when UC spend $6 million on an online education pilot that has consistently failed at other universities?  This at a time when UC executives last year asked for increases in their pensions to total between $150,000-$200,000 year after retirement?  These are pay increases to keep up with the cost of living who make the day to day operations of the university run.  I think it’s more than reasonable for people to ask the university to give them pay increases concomitant with increases in the cost of living.  These are not the people who “bankrupted” the university.  Those are the banks, which bankrupted the state.  The Regents and the UC executives should be going after the State legislature to pass increased income taxes on portions of income over $1 million.  This would generate  about $6 billion in revenue for the state.  The only reason that these people have millions of dollars in the first place is by putting directly into their pockets the profit created by the people who work for them. 

    • josh says:

      Simple answer to all this: Tax the 700,000  Californians with more than 1 million in fluid assets (not houses) 10,000 each  – that means leave them 990,000 in fluid assets – that solves nearly all the budget problems, and goes a small but important way to returning some of the funds that the state has used to sponsor the asset accumulation of these folks.

      • Stan De San Diego says:

        I’m all for raising taxes but I don’t like this much.  Having a million dollars in the bank is much, much different than raking in a million dollars a year.  There are people with a million in the bank who are using that as their sole means of retirement income.  If you’re 65 and have a million in the bank, and you live 25 more years, that’s just $40,000/year to live on.  And nursing homes are hella expensive and often not covered by insurance. 

        I’d much rather have taxes on income over $1m that would raise even more money than that.  That’s what http://www.makebankspaycalifornia.com/ is all about. 

      • Anonymous says:

        There’s an easy way for millionaires to avoid this tax.  Simply buy investment property, precious metals, or treasuries until the bank or money market balance falls under $1 million.  Billionaires can simply change their permanent address to a cheap foreclosed condo in Las Vegas and then “vacation” in California.

  8. Guest says:

    Cut retirement benefits for unionized staff employees.  Easy way to balance the UC budget.

    • UCB Alum says:

      Unfortunately, it is illegal to cut retirement benefits that are already earned.  In fact, it is unconstitutional under the contracts clause of the federal constitution.  Some kind of pension reform is needed, but the state is caught between a rock and a hard place.  Even though it wouldn’t help the problem in any meaningful way, there should certainly be put in place a cap on pension sizes for future employees.  

      • Anonymous says:

        Even if no new public employees are hired the existing group of unionized public employees will bankrupt California when they start drawing on their pensions.  The only way out is to oppose tax hikes of any kind until governments run out of money to fund the pensions.

        • Calipenguin says:

          You’re kidding me, right?  State employees have a contract with government saying that we will work for less wages now, provided that we have pensions that will be enough to support us after retirement.  Often the wages state employees currently receive are barely enough to support their families, and they’ve done a pretty awful job keeping up with inflation.  So you’re saying that government should just do nothing to honor these contracts?  The people who are “greedy” are not state employees, they are UC executives — 36 executives who currently make over $300,000 a year spent their time last year lobbying to have THEIR pensions raised, in some cases to nearly $200,000/year after retirement!  

          It is NOT the unions that are bankrupting Californians.  It’s the state legislature which said, sure, we’ll give you enough to retire on, but then did nothing on the revenue side to ensure they had the money.  If that’s not breach of contract, I don’t know what is.  

    • consrcunts says:

      Go fuck yourself.  I’m not getting any “retirement benefits” that I’m not having to pay for.

      • Stan De San Diego says:

        Thanks for that civilized and reasoned reply. People like you are the reason that workers in the private sector are fed up with government employees.

        • consrcunts says:

          And people like you are the reason I have my handle. 

          • Stan De San Diego says:

            And opinions that you can’t handle are the reason you threaten others, right?

          • Stan De San Diego says:

            I want the TRUTH. 

          • Stan De San Diego says:

            Stan, YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH.  You want me on the Internet.  You need me on the Internet.  You eat breakfast 500 yards from a whole bunch of illegals who want to also eat breakfast.  

          • consrcunts says:

            A wish that someone punch you in the mouth is not a threat. 

            Unless you’re a hypomanic conservative whose anxiety-meter is pinging at the steady erosion of his privilege.

          • Tony M says:

            Come on, a-hole. You know damn well that if someone with a conservative point of view directed that comment to you, then you would be running in your wetted panties to report them as abusive and get them banned for “hate speech”. One reason most sensible people hate sniveling left-wingers like you is because you are hypocrites who have one standard of behavior for people you agree with, and one for those you do not. Your dishonesty is readily apparent…

          • consrcunts says:

            You’re just pissed off because I owned your sock-puppet. 

            Do you really think someone with a handle like “consrcunts” is going to blanch at rough discourse from anyone?  At your best, you’re a pissy little nancy who thinks referring to someone as  “child” is a devastating insult.  But please, by all means, keep hopping around in impotent rage, Rumpelstiltskin–it’s very entertaining!

          • Tony M says:

            You’re one tough talker for an admin clerk at Berkeley.

          • consrcunts says:

            Yeah, and you’re a pussy.

          • Tony M says:

            Yep, I’d like to agree with your statement.

        • Stan De San Diego says:

          Well said Stan!  Some of us have real jobs and real responsibilities in the private sector!  Dull hollow thud. 

      • Guest says:

         Translation:  Go **** yourself, I got mine and I ain’t giving it back, state bankruptcy be ****ed

  9. Anonymous says:

    A study issued by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), a non-partisan think-tank, just confirmed that during the 2009-2010 recessions, every income bracket in California lost income faster than the rest of the United States. But even more disturbing, all but the top 25% of earners now make less than equivalent income classes in other states. Once known as a job magnet for its sunny climate, world-class universities, and burgeoning high-tech opportunities, California has been transformed into a toxic anti-business state that works hard at drive businesses away.

    From 2007 when the recession began through its end in 2009, family incomes across all income classes dropped by over 5%. But instead of going back up during the recovery, they continued to plummet by another 6% in 2010. The declines weren’t spread evenly across the income classes. Families with incomes in the top 10% saw their family incomes decline 5%, but the bottom 10% of California’s poorest families saw their incomes plummet by 21%.
    In surveys, business executives regularly call California one of the country’s most toxic business environments and one of the least likely places to open or expand a new company. Many firms still headquartered in California consciously refuse to expand their workforce. Brutalized by the bursting of the housing bubble and currently suffering an unemployment rate of 11.7%, 3% above the national average, California family incomes continue to rapidly lose ground.
    Already boasting the lowest credit rating of any state in the nation, State Controller John Chiang just released his monthly financial report covering California’s cash balance, receipts and disbursements for November that demonstrates the state’s grim economic circumstances:
    After accounting for November revenues, total year-to-date general fund revenues are now behind the budget’s estimates by $1 billion, but expenditures for the year are over projections by $1.95 billion… The combined current year cash deficit stands at $21.5 billion.
    The resolve to turn California against business started with Governor Jerry Brown in 1974. Brown saw government’s job as restraining growth, limiting development, and expanding environmental regulations. In 1977, Time Magazine declared “the California of the ’60s, a mystical land of abundance and affluence, vanished sometime in the 70s.” Fifteen years later Gray Davis, Brown’s chief of staff during the 1970s, became Governor in 1999. Davis signed 33 bills that the state’s Chamber of Commerce called “job killers.” Perhaps the most devastating was a restructure of worker’s compensation, which drove an increase in payments per worker from $2.30 per $100 of payroll to $6.44; tripling the annual employment costs to business from $9 billion to $25 billion. Three years later, voters recalled Davis and elected Arnold Schwarzenegger. Unfortunately, in 2006 the “Governator” signed the Global Warming Solutions Act that critics mourn will raise electricity rates in California by another 20%.
    In a 2011 poll of various California business groups, 82 percent of executives and owners said that if they weren’t already in the state, they wouldn’t consider starting up there, and 64 percent said that the main reason they stayed in California was that it was tough to relocate their particular kind of business. For several years in a row, California has ranked dead last in the Chief Executive’s poll about the business environment of states in the U.S.
    Limousine liberals, rich environmentalists, union bosses, and their pet politicians that comprise much of the top 25% of income earners in California have not suffered devastating income declines in the recent recession. Responding to the Chief Executive poll, Steve Smith of the Labor Federation of California charged that it represented “little more than corporate honchos throwing around their weight to try to further strip working people of important protections that improve lives.” But for the 75% of Californians not at the top income levels; California’s anti-business environment continues to inflict real pain on the lives of workers and their families.

  10. Justsaying says:

    Governor Browns comparisons of Europe’s economic woes and warnings to Californian’s to ‘exercise fiscal discipline’ seems to be understood by the 99%.   Perhaps his message  should be spoken in the language of fatcat so the 1% can understand, too.

    • Guest says:

      What in the world are you even talking about?

      Do you even go to college?

      These “99%” messages are getting more and more vague.

      • Why are there always trolls on comment pages? I mean, they don’t feel they can say 90% of shit like this to anyone’s face, in the public sphere, but on the internet they suddenly feel like big men. Freakin trolls.

        • Stan De San Diego says:

          Guest’s point is well made. The blathering about the 99% is simply the refuge of people who can’t think for themselves or support their own ideas, so they need to identify with some supposed super-majority that doesn’t really exist. In reality, the political split in this country is more along the lines of the 53% that pay some semblance of state and/or federal income taxes, and the 47% who pay NO net income taxes. That’s certainly closer to the self-identification of “liberals” and “conservatives” in this country than this concocted idea of the 99% vs. the 1% that the lefties peddle.

        • Stan De San Diego says:

          Welcome to the internet, there are trolls. The end.

  11. Cream Get_the_UC says:

    http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/minutes/2011/comp1.pdf

    Wilton receives $375,000 base salary from UC.
    (18% above market median)
    His immediate predecessor was paid $283,100.