The University of California faces a $200 million state funding cut this year if voters do not approve Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed tax increases in November, according to Brown’s January budget plan announced Thursday.
Brown anticipates that California will face a $9.2 billion deficit through June 2013 in the state’s general fund. In order to help mitigate the deficit, he hopes to raise the sales tax and certain income taxes through putting a nearly $7 billion ballot initiative before voters.
Should the November ballot initiative fail, the plan’s $200 million cut to the UC would follow a year in which the system saw its budget hammered by $750 million in state budget cuts. But the plan provides an ongoing $90 million General Fund increase to the UC for base operating costs — funding which the plan states could be used for retirement program contributions.
Patrick Lenz, the university’s vice president for budget and capital resources, lauded the operating cost increase in a statement Thursday.
“We applaud the governor’s willingness to grant UC leadership maximum flexibility in navigating these fiscal times,” Lenz said in the statement. “The administration’s focus on protecting higher education from further budget reductions is a welcome relief, and the governor’s stated desire for a long-term state investment is encouraging.”
Lenz said in the statement that the university will continue to use administrative efficiencies to cut down on costs and is currently seeking alternate sources of revenue to bolster its income. He added that the university intends to work with Brown and the state legislature on developing a long-term plan “that would give the university much-needed financial stability.”
Have a question for Gov. Brown or Lenz? Ask anyone a question via Your Direct Line.
UC Student Association President Claudia Magana said in a statement that despite the funding increase, higher education in California remains “grossly underfunded” and the governor’s plan does not go far enough to fund the state’s needs.
“The state immediately needs more revenue to ensure that we do not balance the budget on students and the poor,” Magana said. “This budget only further reinforces the need for greater taxes on big businesses and the wealthiest Californians to help restore our future.”
In the past, the university has relied on large tuition increases to offset the impact of cuts from the state.
But UC spokesperson Steve Montiel said in an email that it is “too early to speculate” whether the university would see tuition increases should the cuts occur.
Though Brown’s office had originally intended to release the budget Jan. 10, he held a press conference Thursday after the budget was erroneously published on the Department of Finance’s website, according to major media outlets.
“I’m not saying (the budget plan) is perfect, I’m just saying this is the best that our finance department and myself could come up with,” Brown said at the press conference.
The plan also proposes that both the UC and California State University — which would also be cut $200 million under the plan if voters do not approve the ballot initiative to raise taxes — begin budgeting for capital improvement projects as part of their overall fiscal plans. State appropriations for such projects were formerly budgeted and adjusted for separately.
Additionally, various budgetary set-asides for specific UC programs and purposes such as AIDS research and the Summer School for Mathematics and Sciences are removed in Brown’s budget plan.
The plan calls for $4.2 billion in base-level state cuts, including reductions in welfare and child care services. If voters reject the tax increases, state K-12 schools and community colleges would be cut $4.8 billion.
“I can tell you that the best thinking from the executive branch is this budget is a good road map to get us through a solid fiscal program we can live with,” Brown said. “If there’s a better way to do it, I’m totally open to it.”
Alisha Azevedo of The Daily Californian contributed to this report.
J.D. Morris is the university news editor.
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.
Jerry Brown did a great deal to create the tangled mass of government when he callously passed the original determinate sentencing laws that ultimately destroyed our state. Such a destructive, useless law threw us out of balance, overcrowded the prisons and caused education and human services budgets to be siphoned off to the point of the current fiscal disaster. Brown is using law enforcement jobs as an industry and working hard to create more poverty so that more people can be sent to prison. That’s because he is very proud of having a police state instead of a well-educated one. He will continue this destruction every single day that we as citizens allow him to sit in power. Please support the campaign Liberals to Recall Jerry Brown, http://www.facebook.com/LiberalsToRecallJerryBrown
[If you honestly believe that a CEO who probably started out as a VP because his rich daddy gave him the job]
Your ignorance about how the business world works is quite apparent. Large publicly traded corporations have boards of directors elected by the stockholders, who in turn select and make offers for chief officers of corporations, including the president and CEO. You would be quite aware of this fact if you had ever held a job at some level of responsibility in the private sector. The fact that you would make such a silly remark indicates that you either unemployable or work for some level of government. As a professional and a former stockholder/employee of more than one Fortune 500 corporation, I have plenty of disagreements with some of the processes and priorities with the executive selection process, but no board of directors is going to nominate somebody as CEO merely because they are a family member. Get real.
If the state has enough money to pay for illegal aliens’ college tuition, then it has enough money to fund the UC.
I will vote no on all tax increases as long as the DREAM act is in effect.
fire tedford
I will be voting NO on any tax increases.
Brown has not made his case as to why he needs more money. Especially when he and the Legislature continue to add terrible programs like the Dream Act which will cost $65 million.
That is 32% of the possible budget cut to the UC.
But go ahead and cut the UC’s budget. They have the ability to easily overcome it by raising tuition.
Great, more money for executive bonuses!
You silly remark must be based on your ignorance on how the real world works. In the private sector, executive bonuses are paid for by company earnings, not taxpayer dollars. What compensation companies choose to pay their executives is the decision of the company officers and/or board of directors. Maybe you will learn that someday if you ever grow up and get a real job.
Yes, they are payed by earnings. Except for when the companies are bailed out by the fed (taxpayer money), subsidized (taxpayer money), cut tax breaks (taxpayer money), and offered incentives (taxpayer money). Need I go on? If companies want capitalism, they can have it. Without the people’s help.
So because some companies received special treatment and bailouts (which I oppose, BTW) all companies are equally wrong? How silly.
It doesn’t matter so much how many companies get is as how much money is spent on it. And if it doesn’t come from the taxpayer, it still comes straight out of the consumer’s pockets…we buy their product and line the CEO’s pockets to obscenity. Why don’t we stop buying their products? I’d love to buy a car from a democratically run company where the CEO makes maybe 2-3x more than a mid-level employee (and actually works), but THEY DON’T EXIST. Why not? Because fair isn’t cheap, and cheap is the name of the game in capitalism.
[I'd love to buy a car from a democratically run company where the CEO
makes maybe 2-3x more than a mid-level employee (and actually works),
but THEY DON'T EXIST.]
Why do you suppose that is? Ever consider that someone who has the ability to command an executive salary isn’t interested in working for 2-3x prevailing wage? You’re clueless…
If you honestly believe that a CEO who probably started out as a VP because his rich daddy gave him the job really needs 500x the salary of his employees to be “motivated”, I’m not sure if you just can’t imagine anything different than the way it is now, or you’re blinded by the hope that some day you will be making that much. Yes, people are motivated by money (some people exclusively, sadly), but don’t stand there and tell me that our society would cease to function if the richest 1/100th of Americans couldn’t control 40% of its assets. How about you and 98 of your friends split $10,000 with me? Oh wait, I get $4,000 of it and the rest of you get $60.60 each. But it’s OK, because even if it’s not fair, at least you’re motivated to work even harder for me now!
I’m not even sure why it is that you think that a democratically run company would collapse. It would have nothing to do with the potential CEO’s not wanting the job…hell, practically anyone would want a promotion to 3x the pay and an executive position. And remember, all CEO’s were once employees (except for the ones mentioned above, whom I’m sure are just as incapable of anyone else), so it’s not like an employee wouldn’t be “smart” enough to run the company or something (plus if it’s a democracy, the CEO would coordinate peoples’ activities, not order them to do what the shareholders wanted). The REAL reason why such companies are not prevalent is as I said: it’s more expensive to be fair (to each other and to our environment), and our economic system chucks morals and fair out the window in exchange for money (profit motive; get the money is priority #1). Oh, and also, if you were making 500x more than your worker I doubt that you’d just give up 497x of that just to be fair. I probably wouldn’t either, and that’s why there needs to be laws controlling this type of thing to keep things from getting out of hand.
Executive salaries aren’t about “motivation”, they’re about supply and demand. There are a very small number of people with the skills to be effective CEOs, so they get paid a lot of money. If you offered one of them 2x a factory worker salary, they would not be interested because another company would be more than willing to pay them what they’re worth.
Life is not fair, which is a leftie term subjectively determined by other leftists. The top 1% earners pay 37% of all income taxes. Is that fair?
QED
The document you link (on page 3) mentions a $90-million increase (over 2011-2012) in the UC general fund for 2012-2013, then a $200-million reduction if the tax measure doesn’t pass. Therefore, the net cut if the measure doesn’t pass will be $110-milllion (90-200), is that correct?
I will be voting NO on jerry brown’s tax hikes.
More taxes is not the answer. All budding Cal kiddies read below for a clue as to what the real problem is.
(Fresno Bee) Doctors say Marco Antonio Fuentes is well enough to go home today. At last. He has spent a little more than 1 year in a Fresno hospital where he had 12 surgeries.
He thanks God — and doctors and nurses — he’s alive, and the hospital for his care, he said. Fuentes, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, has no health insurance.
On Tuesday, the final cost of Fuentes’ care was not available. Much of it will be taken on by the hospital as charity care. This means you and I will pay.
Do you ever wonder why California is turning into a third world state? More reasona at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286354/vandalized-valley-victor-davis-hanson
I will be voting with my feet when I move out of state later this year…
Join the net out migration of taxpayers. In a few years, Cali will be populated by the Hollywood Clueless lefties, Cheech and Chon types and illegals. Then the band will stop playing.
At least we’ll have a sweet train.
Yep, one that goes from nowhere. People who compare California HSL to Japan’s Shinkansen (Bullet Train) neglect the fact that work and planning actually started DECADES before the first line (Tokaido Shinkansen) opened between Tokyo and Osaka in 1964. Not only were the destination points the 2 most populous cities in Japan at the time, but the interim stops (Odawara, Mishima, Shizuoka, Nagoya, Kyoto) each served a metropolitan area of at least 1 million people. OTOH, the Cal HSR people are talking about starting in CORCORAN? I have nothing against the concept of high speed rail where it makes SENSE, and in fact have been a regular user of Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor/Acela service out of Washington DC as well as both the Tokaido and Nagano Shinkansens on JR when traveling on business in Japan, but anyone who thinks that Cal HSR makes sense from either an economic or environmental perspective is clueless…