My name is Nadesan Permaul. I teach as adjunct faculty in rhetoric and political science and until last year was a career administrator at UC Berkeley. Iarrived on the campus in the fall of 1967 as a freshman and have been privileged to be part of this community since then. I am writing to urge all students on campus to be sure to vote on Proposition 30 in the coming election. Why?
My students have told me that there is significant cynicism about elections because of the distortions of candidates and their short-term interest in the electorate that fades the moment the election is over. But in this election, you will be voting on an issue that directly impacts your education and will affect you within weeks of the election. If Gov. Jerry Brown’s initiative to address the systemic budget shortfalls for the next seven years fails, the University of California’s budget will be reduced by $250 million dollars, and tuition could rise immediately, midyear, and beyond.
The measure is a public policy with a limited lifespan: a four-year increase in the state sales tax of .25 percent of one cent and a seven-year increase in taxes on personal income for annual incomes more than $250,000. A description of the initiative’s provisions aims at accountability and transparency:
“Allocates temporary tax revenues 89 percent to K–12 schools and 11 percent to community colleges.
Bars use of funds for administrative costs, but provides local school governing boards discretion to decide, in open meetings and subject to annual audit, how funds are to be spent.
Guarantees funding for public safety services realigned from state to local governments.”
You can also see the argument for the return on the investment from these crucial funds to the state of California.
Conservatives and progressives can argue ceaselessly about the whether taxes are good public policy or not. There are thoughtful positions on each side regarding short-term and long-term consequences. But there is no other short-term measure to preserve the quality of higher education in California from reductions if new revenue is not found to address overall state budget shortfalls. The governor has proposed serious reductions to spending already, and no doubt more will be forthcoming. But for each of you, the rise in tuition and the loss of services will be palpable unless you act. There are an estimated 36,000 students at UC Berkeley and a total of 234,000 in 2011 data across the UC system. That does not include 132,000 faculty and staff at all of the campuses.
Together, we are a formidable voting constituency. Around the world, there are millions of persons who would be grateful to be able to vote resources toward education and their future livelihoods if they could. We are fortunate to have that opportunity. Whether out of self-interest or on behalf of your citizens, I urge you to vote “yes” on Prop. 30. Talk to your fellow students, to staff and to faculty about its importance. It may be the most direct impact you will make on your future in the near term.
Nadesan Permaul is a UC Berkeley alum and teaches in rhetoric and political Science. He was also the former director of the ASUC Auxiliary.
Contact the opinion desk at [email protected]
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.
Vote yes on Prop 30, so you too can pay for people like Nadesan to have jobs.
Robert Meister, president of the Council of UC Faculty Associations, calls the California legislature’s use of Prop 30 “budgetary terrorism”. Nadesan’s opinion piece above sounds like the desperate pleas of a hostage facing a midnight deadline. Nadesan does not cover any of the flaws in Prop 30, does not want to draw attention to the way Prop 30 revenue can be diverted to public employee union (including prison guards) pensions, and does not even question why trigger cuts only target education and not, say, public employee pensions. He is right that there is no other short-term protection from fee increases, but what he doesn’t mention is just how short that term is. As early as the 2013 – 2014 academic year the UC regents may have to raise tuition again. The Regents are meeting this week at UCSF to discuss tuition hikes for 2013 – 2014.
Regent Gavin Newsom, the progressive former mayor of San Francisco, has reiterated many times that Governor Brown is misleading UC students about Prop 30. Most Cal students probably don’t listen to KGO, but in an interview Regent Newsom said many times that the Regents are already considering tuition hikes regardless of whether Prop 30 passes or not because there would STILL be unfunded liabilities even with passage of this particular tax hike. Why? Because the state does not hide the fact that it is already $400 million behind in expected tax revenue for this year.
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/10/gavin-newsom-criticizes-jerry-brown-in-kgo-radio-interview.html
Instead of believing what I say or what Nadesan Permaul says, I encourage student voters to actually read Prop 30 and keep in mind several questions:
1. Which public institutions are mentioned as beneficiaries? K-12, community colleges, CSU, UC, or prisons? Search for the phrase “Guarantees funding” and see which organizations show up. Search for “paying other state debts”.
2. Of the beneficiaries, what percentage goes into direct services for students, and what goes into benefits, pensions, prison guards, or administration costs? Is that breakdown even mentioned?
3. Does Prop 30 promise that UC will not face budget cuts? Does it require a certain percentage of state tax revenue to go towards UC just as Prop 98 did for K-12 schools? Does it even mention UC at all?
4. Though Prop 30 tax hikes expire in four years, it does make changes to California’s constitution as well. What gets changed? What does this change have to do with education?
http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/30-title-summ-analysis.pdf
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text_of_California_Proposition_30_%28November_2012%29#SEC._4.
lol are you serious? The ultra-liberal Newsom is saying negative things about Prop 30? Won’t that damage his liberal reputation in his goo-goo world?
Newsom still supports the tax hike because he is a Regent and he still is a liberal after all. However, at least he had the integrity to warn UC students that tuition may still go up next year regardless of what happens to Prop 30 because Prop 30 is not a bill to fund UC, it is a bill to appease California’s legislature so it won’t cut UC funds this year.
I voted NO on Prop. 30. The governor and legislature’s attempt to hold students hostage should not be rewarded. He could have cut funds for his bullet train project but he chose instead to be put together a fiscally irresponsible budget. Don’t fall for Brown’s nasty behavior toward students and higher education. Vote NO on Prop. 30.
The bullet train project is funded by bonds approved by the voters four years ago. Are you saying the Governor should not respect the result of past referenda, and redirect funds approved for a specific purpose only to other purposes?
I am grateful for interest in my opinion piece, though saddened by this response to it. It seems to presuppose that one constituency has more value than another, and continues the fragmentation and polarization we see in state, local and national politics, rather than embracing a broader sense of public good. I certainly support fiscal responsibility, but to punish higher education as a kind of principled position seems self-defeating. Education benefits all constituencies.
Why should Brown’s willingness to hold students hostage be rewarded? You should be blaming the California legislature and Brown when state funds to UCs and CSUs are slashed when voters reject Prop. 30 on November 6. They could have cut funds to the bullet train project and the ballooning pensions. Instead, they chose to foist everything onto college students, many of whom are naive enough to fall for his ploy.
Wow, I’m speaking sense for once, and not peddling the grievance cr*p I learned in ethnic studies courses. I’m thinking for myself now!
Prop. 30 is extortion against students. Vote NO on Moonbeam’s tax measure.
You should be glad about the response. It shows that students are thinking critically. You mention above about how the funds for the proposition will be spread 89% to K-12 and 11% for community colleges. How do you not see this as a bold face lie? Cal is not K-12 nor is it a community college. If all of Prop. 30′s money went where it was supposed to go, then Cal wouldn’t get any money. This is a simple shell game, where Prop. 30 money goes to K-12 and community colleges, and money that was originally supposed to go to those areas is not diverted to other areas. Initially, Cal gets some, but that will only happen to pay off the extortion that Brown and the legislature are using against us.
As a faculty member in Poli Sci, I don’t know why you are ignoring the fact that the proposition names a third recipient of Prop. 30 funds, and that is public safety. The legislature can easily use Prop. 30 funds to help pay for prisons instead of education. This is going to be just like the lottery. We get promises of money for education, but the truth is that the money will soon all be diverted to other areas, and education will still lag behind most other states. I would have no problem supporting the proposition, if it didn’t have so many loopholes.
Moonbeam is running an extortion racket with his SACTO cabal. He puts a gun to education and says vote my way or else. He knows Californians value education so he exploits his max leverage.
Hey Moonbeam, how about the hundreds of boards and Comissions you reward your cronies with and pay them big money. How about the illegals collecting hundreds of millions in state benefits. Cut elsewhere, not education.