Jolt
Students. Fail.
Today's Loser: Students
The house voted to approve Rep. Reuven Carlyle's (D-36, Queen Anne, Ballard) higher education legislation this afternoon, 79-17, granting tuition-setting authority to the universities themselves. Student groups, like the Associated Students of the University of Washington, have largely been opposed to the legislation allowing the board of regents to set rates, arguing that legislators are more accountable because students can vote them out. Regents on the other hand, serve six year terms and are appointed by the governor.
Logically, ASUW has sought to amend the bill to include an increase in the number of student regents, from one to three. Rep. Derek Stanford (D-1, Bothell) submitted an amendment including that provision late last week. Double whammy: Today he withdrew the amendment before the house could vote on it.
Andrew Lewis, Assistant Director of ASUW's Office of Governmental Relations told PubliCola this afternoon that he understood "we came in with the regent idea late" but that the fact that the amendment was even submitted played well for the proposal during the next session. [pullquote]ASUW lobbyist Andrew Lewis said Carlyle's bill would put the university on a "slippery slope to privatization" and allows the legislature to "abdicate its public responsibility" of providing quality and affordable access to higher education.[/pullquote]
Speaking before the bill's final passage today, Carlyle told legislators "there's no joy and there is no victory in rising tuition," but noted "we are elevating our investment in financial aid substantially." Carlyle's bill includes a $100 million to the state need grant over the next biennium, an expansion of financial aid eligibility (to 150 percent of median family income), and requires universities to issue more financial aid to accompany tuition increases.
On the bill as a whole, Lewis said today that ASUW's support was "contingent on [the regent amendment] passing." He said Carlyle's bill would put the university on a "slippery slope to privatization" and allows the legislature to "abdicate its public responsibility" of providing quality and affordable access to higher education.
The UW is set to lose $189 to $246 million in funding over the next biennium, and could hand students a tuition increase of up to 16 percent. UW already raised tuition 14 percent during each of the last two years to offset a $132 million drop in funding.
Today's Winner: State Sen. Derek Kilmer's proposal to tighten the debt limit
The debate over a tighter debt service limit on the capital budget in Olympia (the senate wants to tighten the limit from nine to seven percent of the general fund, the house thinks it'll crimp job creation) has come down to warring, and circular soundbites.
The senate says the increasing debt service, $2 billion, is crowding out general budget spending, concluding: What's the good of building schools when you can't pay teachers to teach in them?
The house shoots back that you can't hire teachers if you don't have schools for them to teach in.
However, their more potent argument (and house capital budget chair, Rep. Hans Dunshee, D-44, Snohomish, laid it out in a Seattle Times guest op/ed last week ) is this: capital budget spending creates more jobs per dollar then general fund spending. They even have a study—produced by the American Institute of Architects—that says so.
Unfortunately, the senate staff took a look at that study and points out some real basic math screw ups. For example, on page seven, a chart showing that higher bonding will result in more jobs by comparing spending between two biennium, argues that the higher spend will create a 1.4 percent increase in employment by simply calculating the employment based on the higher number, rather than calculating the impact on employment based on the difference between the two numbers. The actual percent increase is .3 percent.
That might seem like an okay increase for employment in a recession, but you have to buy the notion that the spending is actually creating new jobs—not just moving a part timer to full time or transitioning one worker from one construction projection to another.
In a similarly sophomoric mess up on page five, a chart derives employment numbers from two base numbers, the initial budget and the supplemental budget, rather than—correctly—tweaking the supplemental budget numbers based on the slight difference from the initial budget numbers.
That wouldn't be so egregious—if the chart was taking each column in isolation. But an accompanying graph implies that each spend is providing the higher number of jobs, failing to be honest about the fact that the jobs are spread out over a four-year period.
The house voted to approve Rep. Reuven Carlyle's (D-36, Queen Anne, Ballard) higher education legislation this afternoon, 79-17, granting tuition-setting authority to the universities themselves. Student groups, like the Associated Students of the University of Washington, have largely been opposed to the legislation allowing the board of regents to set rates, arguing that legislators are more accountable because students can vote them out. Regents on the other hand, serve six year terms and are appointed by the governor.
Logically, ASUW has sought to amend the bill to include an increase in the number of student regents, from one to three. Rep. Derek Stanford (D-1, Bothell) submitted an amendment including that provision late last week. Double whammy: Today he withdrew the amendment before the house could vote on it.
Andrew Lewis, Assistant Director of ASUW's Office of Governmental Relations told PubliCola this afternoon that he understood "we came in with the regent idea late" but that the fact that the amendment was even submitted played well for the proposal during the next session. [pullquote]ASUW lobbyist Andrew Lewis said Carlyle's bill would put the university on a "slippery slope to privatization" and allows the legislature to "abdicate its public responsibility" of providing quality and affordable access to higher education.[/pullquote]
Speaking before the bill's final passage today, Carlyle told legislators "there's no joy and there is no victory in rising tuition," but noted "we are elevating our investment in financial aid substantially." Carlyle's bill includes a $100 million to the state need grant over the next biennium, an expansion of financial aid eligibility (to 150 percent of median family income), and requires universities to issue more financial aid to accompany tuition increases.
On the bill as a whole, Lewis said today that ASUW's support was "contingent on [the regent amendment] passing." He said Carlyle's bill would put the university on a "slippery slope to privatization" and allows the legislature to "abdicate its public responsibility" of providing quality and affordable access to higher education.
The UW is set to lose $189 to $246 million in funding over the next biennium, and could hand students a tuition increase of up to 16 percent. UW already raised tuition 14 percent during each of the last two years to offset a $132 million drop in funding.
Today's Winner: State Sen. Derek Kilmer's proposal to tighten the debt limit
The debate over a tighter debt service limit on the capital budget in Olympia (the senate wants to tighten the limit from nine to seven percent of the general fund, the house thinks it'll crimp job creation) has come down to warring, and circular soundbites.
The senate says the increasing debt service, $2 billion, is crowding out general budget spending, concluding: What's the good of building schools when you can't pay teachers to teach in them?
The house shoots back that you can't hire teachers if you don't have schools for them to teach in.
However, their more potent argument (and house capital budget chair, Rep. Hans Dunshee, D-44, Snohomish, laid it out in a Seattle Times guest op/ed last week ) is this: capital budget spending creates more jobs per dollar then general fund spending. They even have a study—produced by the American Institute of Architects—that says so.
Unfortunately, the senate staff took a look at that study and points out some real basic math screw ups. For example, on page seven, a chart showing that higher bonding will result in more jobs by comparing spending between two biennium, argues that the higher spend will create a 1.4 percent increase in employment by simply calculating the employment based on the higher number, rather than calculating the impact on employment based on the difference between the two numbers. The actual percent increase is .3 percent.
That might seem like an okay increase for employment in a recession, but you have to buy the notion that the spending is actually creating new jobs—not just moving a part timer to full time or transitioning one worker from one construction projection to another.
In a similarly sophomoric mess up on page five, a chart derives employment numbers from two base numbers, the initial budget and the supplemental budget, rather than—correctly—tweaking the supplemental budget numbers based on the slight difference from the initial budget numbers.
That wouldn't be so egregious—if the chart was taking each column in isolation. But an accompanying graph implies that each spend is providing the higher number of jobs, failing to be honest about the fact that the jobs are spread out over a four-year period.
