Gov. Jerry Brown’s revised state budget shows increased cuts to higher education

5149983456_9eb81a1a09_z
Jerry Brown/Courtesy

Related Posts

Gov. Jerry Brown released the revised state budget Monday, which predicts and prepares for cuts to primary, secondary and higher education, among other items pertaining to state funding.

In a press conference Monday morning, Brown talked about the cuts that reflect state revenues that were lower than anticipated. The plan is contingent on whether the state legislature votes to pass the budget when it meets next month.

“It’s a difficult budget, and it reflects the fact that revenues were lower than expected,” said Brown at the press conference Monday morning. “We have a more difficult problem, and we’re going to have to cut deeper. But cutting alone really doesn’t do it.”

The UC Board of Regents will discuss a potential 6 percent fee hike for students — as a result of cuts in state funding — at their meeting Wednesday in Sacramento. Further hikes will likely be implemented if Brown’s tax initiative on the November ballot does not pass.

“Higher education, while avoiding most of the significant cuts, has a lot to lose if the Governor’s tax measure doesn’t pass,” said Steve Boilard, director of higher education for the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Despite the cuts to funding, the budget proposes a total funding of $22.5 billion for higher education for 2012-13, which is $367.5 million more than was allocated to higher education last year.

In a statement released Monday in response to the budget, UC spokesperson Steve Montiel said the budget shows that Brown considers public higher education a priority for the state.

“His proposal is part of a long process, so at this point it would be premature to predict what the impact of the final 2012-13 state budget will be on the University of California,” Montiel said in the statement. “We will continue to seek a long-term funding agreement with the state that will provide the stable fiscal footing needed to preserve the University’s quality, access and affordability.”

Read the text of the higher education portion of the budget below:


Anjuli Sastry is an assistant news editor.

Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comment policy
  • Guest

    We’re in this mess because of Bush and Arnold. Blaming Brown for this is like blaming the clean up crew for the elephant poop in the town square after the circus leaves town.

    That being said, Brown has done his level best to make UC students pay for the sins of the 1%’rs. Instead of forcing the issue of raising taxes on the 1% by making cuts so abhorrent  that voters would have no choice, he’s making students — the least able to fight — bear the brunt.

    That’s appalling and we can look forward to the time when he is no longer making decisions. The dude is too old  to fight or, apparently, to reason. He’s lost his moral compass and he belongs in a windowless old folks home, not the Governor’s office. A windowless old folks home devastated by budget cuts.

    •  [We’re in this mess because of Bush and Arnold.]

      George Bush was never a resident of the state of California, much less governor. Neither Bush nor Obama are responsible for California’s fiscal irresponsibility…

    • Calipenguin

      We are in this mess because overzealous liberals in California have chased away manufacturers and skilled workers while welcoming illegal aliens and public unions.  Proposition 13 passed a decade before the Dot Com bubble started, but liberals ignored the dangers of raising public union pay and pensions to unsustainable levels and have the nerve to blame a tax bill that preceded their irresponsible generosity to unions.  Even if Bush caused some of our pain the rest of the country is recovering, but California faces deeper cuts and is doing its best to chase away even more businesses. 

      • Matthew Weber

         A decade?  More like 15-20 years.

      • Matthew Weber

         Also : the issue is that we have been facing deficits for a long time, and the state legislature has consistently refused to plan ahead for the eventuality we now face.  Instead, they continued to borrow money and keep the machine running as usual.  Our current situation is a result of putting the problem off for so long that the problem is now unmanageable.

        What do we pay the Assembly for?  Good question.

  • Stan De San Diego

    > Marx said just that.

    And if you’re stupid enough to believe his economic model, you really have no clue.

  • Calipenguin

    Brown said “revenues were lower than expected”.  After three years of low revenues, you’d think the highly paid consultants providing numbers to Brown would be a little more accurate with their guesses.  Brown’s proposal is to do exactly what liberals always do: raise taxes.  This will drive businesses out of California, prevent manufacturers from moving here, and guarantee further cuts at UC when next year’s revenues are “lower than expected” again.  The rest of America is recovering from the recession but California is stuck, and Brown’s taxes (if passed) are guaranteed to keep California in a rut. 

    http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/california-116078-last-chief.html

    • guest2

      It is pretty frightening that their revenue projections were so far off that it resulted in the deficit to increase from $9 billion in January to $16 billion today. Can’t blame the consultants entirely as they rely on numbers provided by Brown and his staff. I wonder how much of these lower than expected revenues were a result of companies and individuals moving out of CA? Should Brown’s tax initiative pass in Nov., it will only provide a temporary relief as it doesn’t address the ongoing problems of this state.

      • Matthew Weber

         News flash : economics is not and has never been a science. 

  • Current student

    and yet we somehow still have plenty of money to fund scholarships for illegal aliens.

    Vote NO on all tax increases until the dream act is repealed.

    • libsrclowns

      How about all the over 100 special Boards and Comissions that Moonbeam uses to appoint his crony Lib buddies to.

      Snip, snip…

  • libsrclowns

    A sales tax is very regressive hurting poor people most. Nice Lib solution, Moonbeam.

  • libsrclowns

    Typical Lib. What makes you think Moonbeam’s tax increases will be “temporary”?

    • Guest

       What makes you think that higher taxes somehow won’t raise state revenues? What makes you think that raising student tuitions is a good thing? What makes you think that it is fair that 40% of the wealth in the country belongs to 1% of it? How much longer will you sacrifice your freedom and self-determination to pander to the rich?

      Taxes for the rich…NOW. It’s us who makes the jobs, they’re just the ones to profit off of our labor. Be a REAL advocate for democracy and see that it is applied to the economy.

      • LAWLS

        It’s because he’s an extremist asshole (this holds true for both extreme libs and cons). As soon as you become unable to civilly discuss issues with the other side IMO you should be unable to participate in the political process. The point of democracy is NOT to have a bunch of people on each side going NA-NA-NA-NA-NA IM RIGHT AND YOU’RE WRONG I’M NOT LISTENING TO YOU LALALALALAA. Which is exactly what libsrclowns encourages.

        • libsrclowns

          I just asked a question, that makes me extreme? Lame.

          • Matthew Weber

             Please don’t be disingenuous.  You have a long history of behavior on this site.

        • Stan De San Diego

           > It’s because he’s an extremist asshole
          > (this holds true for both extreme
          libs
          > and cons). As soon as you become
          > unable to civilly discuss issues
          with
          > the other side IMO you should be unable
          > to participate in the
          political process.

          Well, that would certainly exclude you, wouldn’t it?

      • I_h8_disqus

        The top 1% earn around 18% of the income, but they pay 28% of the federal tax.  Their percentage of the state tax would be similar or higher.  The bottom 50% pay about 3% of the federal tax.

        The jobs are made by the rich.  They fund the development of technology.  They fund the companies who will hire you.  They gave us Cal.  Cal would not exist if not for the wealthy people of our past who made the efforts to create and sustain the university.  The wealthy founded this country.  I am not saying that you need to pander to the wealthy, but you should respect what they have done for you and your family.

        The enemy is the legislature.  They took all the revenue that everyone paid in taxes over the last several decades and spent it recklessly.  Even while revenues in the state grew, they were cutting spending on education.  While we were going through an economic boom in California a decade ago, California schools were still becoming worse than the schools of most states, because our funding was being cut and because our schools were teaching poorly.

        • Guestabc

          Well said.  I graduated from Cal, and now my wife and I would be considered in the top few percent (not the 1%, but maybe 3 or 4%).  Given that, we pay a lot in taxes that certainly covers the infrastructure we utilize plus a whole lot more.  We’ve paid far more in taxes than we ever received in educational subsidies by going to a public school.

          If you want to raise taxes to pay for things, fine, but also raise them for the lower middle class family as an example, the one that utilizes public services far more than we do.

        • Guest

           “The top 1% earn around 18% of the income, but they pay 28% of the
          federal tax.  Their percentage of the state tax would be similar or
          higher.  The bottom 50% pay about 3% of the federal tax.”

          Income is different than wealth. Thus with your numbers the wealthy are actually paying LESS than they’re making, which is making the wealth gap even wider. Let me just leave you with the numbers:

          -Between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an
          average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in
          the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%.

          -Since 1979
          the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has
          decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000,
          as federal taxation became less progressive.

          -From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income
          increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.

          -In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.

          -In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the
          country’s total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20%
          of Americans owned 85% of the country’s wealth and the bottom 80% of the
          population owned 15%.

          -Financial inequality was greater than inequality
          in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the
          next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%. However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of
          the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20%
          of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%.

          http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

          This is just wrong. And to address the “they worked hard” argument: NO ONE ever made that much money working themselves…you NEED to OWN something to make that kind of money, meaning that other people working under you are contributing to your wealth as you benefit directly from their labor (instead of equally sharing the profits throughout the business).

          “The jobs are made by the rich.  They fund the development of technology.
           They fund the companies who will hire you.  They gave us Cal.  Cal
          would not exist if not for the wealthy people of our past who made the
          efforts to create and sustain the university.  The wealthy founded this
          country.  I am not saying that you need to pander to the wealthy, but
          you should respect what they have done for you and your family.”

          No one is arguing with this; it’s true. The problem is that it’s not democratic to have 1% of the population have a chokehold on the entire economy. When you say that “The wealthy founded this country”, you sum it up perfectly; this country’s economy and politics were not necessarily made for the majority of its people (i.e. not democracy).

          “The enemy is the legislature.  They took all the revenue that everyone
          paid in taxes over the last several decades and spent it recklessly.
           Even while revenues in the state grew, they were cutting spending on
          education.  While we were going through an economic boom in California a
          decade ago, California schools were still becoming worse than the
          schools of most states, because our funding was being cut and because
          our schools were teaching poorly.”

          Again, totally true. For instance, the federal budget for our military is $1.4 trillion annually (10x more than the world’s #2 top spender, China). We spend $200 million a DAY in Afghanistan. Oil companies receive $80 billion annually in oil subsidies, farms, $40 billion. $700 billion plus was spent giving money to rich people who had goofed up. Basically, a lot of our tax money goes to fund the military-industrial complex or big oil/agribusiness/financial institutions, where then execs, and not employees, can scoop up most of the benefits (as you see from the litany of stats given above about the widening wealth gap).

          • I_h8_disqus

            So the wealthy own, and the rest of us rent.  How is someone being wealthy hurting the rest of us?  Would you demand that profits in a company be spread out to the workers instead of paying the stock holders who invested in the company?  When someone like Trump builds a tower, would you require that the lease revenue go to the builders instead of Trump who risked the millions required to build the tower?  I think the problem is that we have people wanting to be millionaires for just doing their normal jobs.  You know what is going to happen?  The UC custodians are going to demand pay raises that match the wealth they have around them.  So our student fees will now be as high as private schools and beyond, because the custodians are paid based on the wealth of the UC instead of the value of their jobs.  So your tuition will be based on the wealth of the UC instead of the value of your subsidized education.

            And all this wealth that you took from the wealthy is no longer being used to fund new investment and growth.  It is sitting with us, and we don’t know squat about doing anything with our wealth.  So nothing new gets built or developed, because the wealthy no longer have the wealth to invest in things that once created jobs.

          • Guest

             “So
            the wealthy own, and the rest of us rent.”

            Marx said just that.

             “How is someone being wealthy
            hurting the rest of us?”

            46 million Americans living in poverty. That’s 15%. Middle class real wages staying stagnant while costs for everything from medical insurance to college rise. $700 billion payed by the taxpayers to private financeers. (That’s an average of about $2000 per taxpayer). $1.4 trillion payed to the military industry per year to support wars to support US economic interests overseas (average $4000 per taxpayer per year).

             “Would you demand that profits in a company be
            spread out to the workers instead of paying the stock holders who
            invested in the company?”

            Yes. Taking “risks” with your already enormous amounts of money made by underpaying workers and then taking the extra profits is no comparison to working 8 hours a day 5 days a week, making something REAL. The fact that you can now make 100x more money just by having it than actually making it in the first place is ludicrous and needs to stop.

            “When someone like Trump builds a tower, would
            you require that the lease revenue go to the builders instead of Trump
            who risked the millions required to build the tower?”

            Trump owns about $2.9 billion in wealth. “Risking” a couple million won’t kill him. Plus, risk and luck is what made him as rich as he is today (plus having a million-dollar daddy doesn’t hurt), so if he loses, then that’s the game he’s playing. Nowadays, these people expect to sweep up the profits when they win, and get bailed out by the people when they fail. Instead of Trump insuring against his losses by punishing the builders, he should have to ACTUALLY take a risk.

            “I think the
            problem is that we have people wanting to be millionaires for just doing
            their normal jobs.  You know what is going to happen?  The UC
            custodians are going to demand pay raises that match the wealth they
            have around them.  So our student fees will now be as high as private
            schools and beyond, because the custodians are paid based on the wealth
            of the UC instead of the value of their jobs.  So your tuition will be
            based on the wealth of the UC instead of the value of your subsidized
            education.”

            Custodians should be paid based on the value of their work, and not the value of their surroundings, just like anyone else. Take a stock broker out of the NYSE and put him in Cambodia and he becomes useless. Custodial jobs are difficult and in general suck, but they are completely necessary. Therefore, they should make a salary to account for that…at least enough to live off of. Your “slippery slope” assumes that someone would take a janitor seriously if they asked for a million-dollar salary. Come on.

            “And all this wealth that you took from the wealthy is no longer being
            used to fund new investment and growth.  It is sitting with us, and we
            don’t know squat about doing anything with our wealth.  So nothing new
            gets built or developed, because the wealthy no longer have the wealth
            to invest in things that once created jobs.”

            Hence, we tax people, consolidate capital in the government, and then the people as a whole vote on what to spend it on. It takes the power away from a very few individuals with a vast amount of wealth (the “1%”), and puts it in the hands of EVERYONE. This is the difference between plutocracy and democracy.

          • I_h8_disqus

            Guest, Marx and I may have said the same thing, but I know there is a better way to handle things.  His ideas have been proven to be ineffective in too many real life situations.

            Americans in poverty are not the fault of the wealthy.  The wealthy are the only ones using what they have to make jobs.  The poor exist, because the rest of us are too inept and lazy to create jobs for the 46 million poor, and the government has shown over the recent decades that they are horrible at job creation for worth while things.

            I know a few 1% people.  None of them work less than 80 hours a week.  And they all make something real.  One works in venture capital, and he has funded companies that have gone on to build incredible products that make the world better and provide thousands of jobs.  And none of the people working in those companies is under paid.  US companies that are funded by the wealthy investor pay pretty good.  The wealthy don’t tend to work with employers who take advantage of their workers.  It is bad business.

            Now your whole complaint about the wealthy collapses when you finish off by saying that we should rely on the government and the vote of the people about what to do with capital.  Business is developed and grown by people with a very special talent.  The voting public does not have that talent.  Government workers don’t have that talent.  Politicians, who are mostly lawyers, don’t have that talent.  The government and the people would be as ineffective at creating businesses and jobs as every communist government that has ever existed.  The wealthy or the soon to be wealthy are the only ones with the skill and drive to create jobs and businesses.  You remove them from the equation, and the US collapses.  They simply go to another country that appreciates them, and they make that country the super power.  It is stupid to tax the rich if you think the government can do a better job with the money.  We should do like Stanford and Harvard did in the last decade.  Instead of taxing the rich.  They asked for donations.  Both schools generated over $1 billion in donations, and that is guaranteed money.  It can’t be stolen by the legislature like the tax initiative money will.

          • Stan De San Diego

             > Income is different than wealth.

            It certainly is, and when taxes become punitive, the wealth deal with it by having no income – in other words, not working. They don’t invest or get involved in job-creating opportunities, and instead go on vacation or otherwise sit on their money.

            This will come as a shock to you, but most people who became wealthy didn’t get there by being stupid. They know how to handle money, and in fact are far smarter than you are. Stop trying to punish success if you want the economy to improve.

          • Matthew Weber

             Punishing success?  Do the wealthy not have plenty and more left over after taxes?  Are there not a multitude of tax loopholes they regularly take advantage of?

      • Guestabc

        You fail to recognize that a lot of wealthy individuals work ridiculously hard for their profits.  “Old money” entitlements aren’t as prevalent as you’d like to think.

        Don’t punish those trying their best to succeed.

      • Stan De San Diego

         > What makes you think that higher taxes
        > somehow won’t raise state revenues?

        You won’t raise revenues if the people you targeted move out of state to escape what they consider to be punitive treatment.

        > Taxes for the rich…NOW. It’s us who makes
        > the jobs, they’re just the ones to profit off
        > of our labor.

        The rich provide the capital necessary to create the types of jobs worth having. Google “investment” and you might learn something.

      • libsrclowns

        Sales taxes are regressive and hurt the poor most. Nice Lib solution by Moonbeam.NOT