Thaks, wife. As for Asimov, I recall something a staffer in UCOP said to me: we should be thankful for Nanette; she's so dumb and lazy that she only goes after the obvious and obviously inaccurate stuff, whereas a talented reporter might dig and find some real problems.

Yes, Yudof was very against this--especially the part about Cal and UCLA having their own Regents; it would greatly diminish the power of UCOP. In my view, campuses like Merced, Santa Cruz, and Riverside would actual benefit from this model, because they could compete for students on the basis of differential tuition.

BeggarEd;841912984 said:

---

Maybe the regents shouldn't operate with unfunded pensions for over a decade. The UC issues are largely a self-inflicted would IMO.

---

Yeah right. UC's problems have nothing to do with the fact that the state has decided to fund Prisons and not to fund public education.
What part of "public" education don't you understand.
How would your company survive if it lost 80% of its income.

FingeroftheBear;841913335 said:

---

Personally my mother has benefited from Prop 13 protection on the house but that's not what the loophole is trying to close. Stuffed inside Prop 13 is a corporate tax loophole that should be shut down.

---

Bingo!
Most people do not realize that this was the reason for all the $$$$ that supported and supports any opposition to changing Prop 13. The talk is all about protecting grandma from being put on the street. But in reality it is all about reducing taxes of wealthy corporations. Smoke and Mirrors.

Prop 13 was and remains the poster child for what is wrong with our initiative system. Even assuming well meaning proponents, they took an issue (old folks losing their homes from escalating property taxes) and wrote an initiative that didn't think through the issues. Obviously, corporate owners of RE got the benefit of the value and that horribly skewed the level of predictable taxes. While I understand Wife's point, the fact is many tenants do not pay a CAM (common area maintenance) charge and so are not faced with rising taxes if the RE taxes go up. Certainly, residential tenants don't (but there is a risk at tenants roll over, rents go up). Unfortunately, they took the market out of the equation and froze taxes (in other words, when faced with a rising tax burden, RE owners would have to weigh passing through taxes v. losing tenants if the rent is too high). There were many ways this could have been thoughtfully done, such as freezing only for residential property, or giving commercial properties limited freezes subject to reassessment over longer periods. Ironically, as properties flip, the taxes are caught up, so it is really long time property owners of commercial RE (a significant portion of which have no right to pass through taxes, since they're typically smaller tenants) who get the benefit.

Btw, I'm not necessarily advocating for a tax increase (a liberal position) so much as p*ssed that our legislature repeatedly passes the buck and doesn't deal with issues, instead intending to let initiatives do it without flushing out the details. Other examples abound (deregulation of utilities comes to mind). And the fact that legislature is prohibited from raising taxes without getting a vote basically handcuffs us more.

California is a microcasm of the national politics. NO one is guilt free. Liberals and conservatives each have their cronies, and too often people are more concerned about dogma than reality.

BeggarEd;841912984 said:

---

Maybe the regents shouldn't operate with unfunded pensions for over a decade. The UC issues are largely a self-inflicted would IMO.

---

Except the UC doesn't operate unfunded pensions and pensions aren't even a significant cost to the UC.

Great way to do your homework.

FingeroftheBear;841913335 said:

---

Personally my mother has benefited from Prop 13 protection on the house but that's not what the loophole is trying to close. Stuffed inside Prop 13 is a corporate tax loophole that should be shut down.

---

I'm all for closing that loophole for corporations as well as pension reform big time....some states the pension is now taking over 25% of the general funds and getting worse all the time. Do it all.

71Bear;841913317 said:

---

It is time to take a long, hard look at the University's business model. Why are there nine campuses that are basically redundant? Why not specialize each campus?

Berkeley and UCLA should focus their attention exclusively on graduate programs. The next tier, Davis, Irvine, San Diego, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz, should focus on undergrads with each campus emphasizing a specific curiculum. Merced and Riverside should be closed.

It is time to take a radical approach to the state's educational structure. It is time for some serious deliberation regarding the future. The current course of action, watching the University being slowly bled to death, is the alternative.

---

This is nonsensical to me.

1) The differentiation between education missions is accomplished via the UC - CSU - community college system. All the UCs were designated as research institutes. It makes no sense to divide the UC up this way.

2) The problem with the UC is not due to oversupply and limited demand. In fact, the demand by undergraduate students for the UC continues to increase. It makes no sense to cut back the UC.

3) The UC does not benefit from economies of scale in the manner you have described. Administrative functions, institutional subscriptions to research journals, yes. Overlapping teaching? No. The University doesn't save any costs by consolidating undergraduate teaching or graduate teaching -- whether there are 25000 or 40000 students, the cost per student stays relatively the same because of the maintenance of faculty:student ratio.

Bear_Territory;841913056 said:

---

But but...Bush

---

Started two wars, cut taxes, and presides over a collapse of the banking system during a period when the global economy melted down.


Why the hell hasn't Obama fixed that in 3.5 years? What an inept dumbass!


I find it interesting that my biggest concern about Obama was foreign policy and he (and credit to Hilary, too) has been awesome in that regard. He really elevated US standing in the international community and helped kill both Osama and Gadhafi. That must just infuriate Repubs.

cubzwin;841913100 said:

---

Remember how Ronald Reagan spent his first term blaming the bad economy on Jimmy Carter? Oh, wait he didn't.

---

He just embarked on a massive spending spree the country couldn't afford and is still paying the penalty for.

68great;841913381 said:

---

Bingo!
Most people do not realize that this was the reason for all the $$$$ that supported and supports any opposition to changing Prop 13. The talk is all about protecting grandma from being put on the street. But in reality it is all about reducing taxes of wealthy corporations. Smoke and Mirrors.

---

Most of them are fleeing California as it is. Eliminate the benefit and many more will leave. You know, those evil corporations that employ people and pay payroll taxes.

BearEatsTacos;841913401 said:

---

This is nonsensical to me.
2) The problem with the UC is not due to oversupply and limited demand. In fact, the demand by undergraduate students for the UC continues to increase. It makes no sense to cut back the UC.

---

UC demand is increasing *at current tuition*. Raise tuition until supply meets demand.

dimitrig;841913624 said:

---

Started two wars, cut taxes, and presides over a collapse of the banking system during a period when the global economy melted down.

Why the hell hasn't Obama fixed that in 3.5 years? What an inept dumbass!

---

"Cut taxes" ... The nerve of that guy! More money in your paycheck is just an added stress, and frankly, I'm a Cal fan so I don't need the stress.

AU_Bears;841913632 said:

---

"Cut taxes" ... The nerve of that guy! More money in your paycheck is just an added stress, and frankly, I'm a Cal fan so I don't need the stress.

---

Because the country is solvent... what do we need tax revenues for?


I am not saying he should have raised them, but why *cut* them during a time of economic prosperity? We almost balanced the budget until the Smirking Chimp decided to raid the treasury.

UCSF is planning to weaken its ties to the UC mother ship:

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/UCSF-seeks-to-ease-ties-with-UC-2643208.php

Its appropriate for each campus to evaluate whether traditional practices make sense, or if changes are required.

GoCal80;841913643 said:

---

UCSF is planning to weaken its ties to the UC mother ship:

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/UCSF-seeks-to-ease-ties-with-UC-2643208.php

Its appropriate for each campus to evaluate whether traditional practices make sense, or if changes are required.

---

I'm glad this is getting traction. Along with the Anderson model, Berkeley needs to be allowed to change the game. No one else is going to sustain what has been built here.

Ralph Nader's solution to our country's ills:

The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That's hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don't get away with no taxation. The Citizens for Tax Justice put out a report recently. They had 12 major corporations, like Honeywell, Verizon, General Electric, and in three years, Amy, they made $167 billionwith a "B" dollars in profit, paid zero tax, and got two-and-a-half billion dollars back from the Treasury. So you can see, if you return the tax rates and the effective tax payments back to the prosperous 1960 level, there would be hundreds of billions of dollars. You get out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, stop being engaged in these criminal wars of aggression, and get out of Iraq, you'll save another $150 billion. So, there are a lot of ways. Cutting the huge amount of redundancy and waste and out-of-date weapons programs in the Pentagon, again, another one. Bringing back the soldiers from Europe and East Asia, 65 years after World War II. What are they doing? Defending prosperous countries, like England and Germany and Italy and Japan, against what? Inner Mongolia or Moldova?"
*
*

dimitrig;841913627 said:

---

Most of them are fleeing California as it is. Eliminate the benefit and many more will leave. You know, those evil corporations that employ people and pay payroll taxes.

---

Give me a break telling us how great these companies are.
They come to CA to make money. Not to do some charitable work. Many would abuse the employees as much as they can get away with.
If they can make more money elsewhere they would go there. But there is a lot of money to be made in CA. That is why they are here. Why is there a lot of money to be made.
Because of the infrastructure and education paid for by prior generations Because people are paid well and have a lot of disposable income. And because there are a lot of people.
I do a lot of work with banks. They all want to be in CA. this is where the money is.
So if some companies don't want to be here, let them go.
But don't whine to me how grateful we should be to them for graciously giving us a chance for a job.

bearister;841913646 said:

---

Ralph Nader's solution to our country's ills:

The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That's hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don't get away with no taxation. The Citizens for Tax Justice put out a report recently. They had 12 major corporations, like Honeywell, Verizon, General Electric, and in three years, Amy, they made $167 billionwith a "B" dollars in profit, paid zero tax, and got two-and-a-half billion dollars back from the Treasury. So you can see, if you return the tax rates and the effective tax payments back to the prosperous 1960 level, there would be hundreds of billions of dollars. You get out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, stop being engaged in these criminal wars of aggression, and get out of Iraq, you'll save another $150 billion. So, there are a lot of ways. Cutting the huge amount of redundancy and waste and out-of-date weapons programs in the Pentagon, again, another one. Bringing back the soldiers from Europe and East Asia, 65 years after World War II. What are they doing? Defending prosperous countries, like England and Germany and Italy and Japan, against what? Inner Mongolia or Moldova?"
*
*

---

You've woken them up, and they will be coming for you. I like your thinking, and I'm watching you with both eyes.

I recently completed a survey of Cal alumni on the future of the system and the only two alternatives offered for funding were increase tax revenue or charge students more.

Narrow thinking.

Alternative funding sources public and private grants and donations. The boat being missed is at least partially due to sloppy or lazy efforts. For example I have been a frequent and regular donor to Cal and never donated to Syracuse where I did my graduate work. Every time I moved and notified Cal of my change of address and they lost me. I never notified Syracuse of my move and they always found me.

Go Bears!

Number 031343;841913663 said:

---

You've woken them up, and they will be coming for you. I like your thinking, and I'm watching you with both eyes.

---

Great post bearister! That is the best explanation of why I and all others were able to attend Cal in the '60's at an affordable cost, while many students and their families of today have to go in hock to attend.

brobrobro;841913674 said:

---

I recently completed a survey of Cal alumni on the future of the system and the only two alternatives offered for funding were increase tax revenue or charge students more.

Narrow thinking.

Alternative funding sources public and private grants and donations. The boat being missed is at least partially due to sloppy or lazy efforts. For example I have been a frequent and regular donor to Cal and never donated to Syracuse where I did my graduate work. Every time I moved and notified Cal of my change of address and they lost me. I never notified Syracuse of my move and they always found me.

Go Bears!

---

Maybe Cal has not heard of the internet. Someone should tell them about googling to find somneone.

dimitrig;841913635 said:

---

We almost balanced the budget until the Smirking Chimp decided to raid the treasury.

---

Annnnnd here comes the name calling...

AU_Bears;841913791 said:

---

Annnnnd here comes the name calling...

---

A rose by any other Name would smell as sweet.

+1

Educational mediums are changing and will continue to evolve in this technological age. UOP is not the model, just an early version less interested in education than the bottom line.

All of the will and power are now on the side of the "haves" in the USA. Meanwhile, the overall financials don't add up - any kind of marking to market (ever since the massive crash during the Bush years) would reveal massive deficits and bankruptcies, formerly on the private side, but now shifted (in the form of lower taxes for corporations and the wealthy and no decrease in spending) to the public side. The result will be (or already is) that this vast debt falls upon the shoulders of the un-rich, which includes public institutions that serve average people, and the retirement age will climb and people will carry more personal debt. Wealth-building by average Joes will contrinue to shrink. Even as the middle class continues to disappear and quality of life for those who can't afford the very best falls, simplistic economic/behavioral models will convince many that it is the fault of the individuals themselves, and the abundance of quick entertainment (TV, movies, the Internet) will lull people away from doing anything about it. We live in a winner-take-all, devil-take-the-hindmost society. If that's you're thing - a society in which the super lucky and the legacies (and a few successful hard-working and ambitious people; just enough to be trotted out as examples) lead a country club existence, while the masses scrape by under a pile of debt - then great. Gated communities for the few, and potholes for the masses. The word that no American can gainsay (and is always a rallying cry for those abusing power) is "freedom". It's become the freedom of the rich and powerful to bend the legal and tax system to benefit themselves. I guess it was a dream that some of us were lucky to grown up in and live through - a country with a strong middle class from the 50s to the recent present - partly permitted by a growing population and booming post-war economy, and now fallen victim to the (inevitable?) concentration and abuse of power.

YLS Bear;841914266 said:

---

All of the will and power are now on the side of the "haves" in the USA. Meanwhile, the overall financials don't add up - any kind of marking to market (ever since the massive crash during the Bush years) would reveal massive deficits and bankruptcies, formerly on the private side, but now shifted (in the form of lower taxes for corporations and the wealthy and no decrease in spending) to the public side. The result will be (or already is) that this vast debt falls upon the shoulders of the un-rich, which includes public institutions that serve average people, and the retirement age will climb and people will carry more personal debt. Wealth-building by average Joes will contrinue to shrink. Even as the middle class continues to disappear and quality of life for those who can't afford the very best falls, simplistic economic/behavioral models will convince many that it is the fault of the individuals themselves, and the abundance of quick entertainment (TV, movies, the Internet) will lull people away from doing anything about it. We live in a winner-take-all, devil-take-the-hindmost society. If that's you're thing - a society in which the super lucky and the legacies (and a few successful hard-working and ambitious people; just enough to be trotted out as examples) lead a country club existence, while the masses scrape by under a pile of debt - then great. Gated communities for the few, and potholes for the masses. The word that no American can gainsay (and is always a rallying cry for those abusing power) is "freedom". It's become the freedom of the rich and powerful to bend the legal and tax system to benefit themselves. I guess it was a dream that some of us were lucky to grown up in and live through - a country with a strong middle class from the 50s to the recent present - partly permitted by a growing population and booming post-war economy, and now fallen victim to the (inevitable?) concentration and abuse of power.

---

Yes, we were VERY lucky and my kids grew up hoping those structures would continue - as they find the "middle class" a dark and dangerous place for anyone left out now..Come on trickle down!!

YLS Bear;841914266 said:

---

All of the will and power are now on the side of the "haves" in the USA. Meanwhile, the overall financials don't add up - any kind of marking to market (ever since the massive crash during the Bush years) would reveal massive deficits and bankruptcies, formerly on the private side, but now shifted (in the form of lower taxes for corporations and the wealthy and no decrease in spending) to the public side. The result will be (or already is) that this vast debt falls upon the shoulders of the un-rich, which includes public institutions that serve average people, and the retirement age will climb and people will carry more personal debt. Wealth-building by average Joes will contrinue to shrink. Even as the middle class continues to disappear and quality of life for those who can't afford the very best falls, simplistic economic/behavioral models will convince many that it is the fault of the individuals themselves, and the abundance of quick entertainment (TV, movies, the Internet) will lull people away from doing anything about it. We live in a winner-take-all, devil-take-the-hindmost society. If that's you're thing - a society in which the super lucky and the legacies (and a few successful hard-working and ambitious people; just enough to be trotted out as examples) lead a country club existence, while the masses scrape by under a pile of debt - then great. Gated communities for the few, and potholes for the masses. The word that no American can gainsay (and is always a rallying cry for those abusing power) is "freedom". It's become the freedom of the rich and powerful to bend the legal and tax system to benefit themselves. I guess it was a dream that some of us were lucky to grown up in and live through - a country with a strong middle class from the 50s to the recent present - partly permitted by a growing population and booming post-war economy, and now fallen victim to the (inevitable?) concentration and abuse of power.

---

I agree. Unfortunately many American's would call you a socialist or marxist.

(Apostrophe is intentional. In fact, if you did not notice the apostrophe then I'd bet you are more likely to call YLS bear a Marxist or socialist)

BobbyGBear;841914294 said:

---

I agree. Unfortunately many American's would call you a socialist or marxist.

(Apostrophe is intentional. In fact, if you did not notice the apostrophe then I'd bet you are more likely to call YLS bear a Marxist or socialist)

---

Not clever.

Thank you YLS BEAR!!!

If we do not address the issues you and bearister (through Ralph Nader) raised in your posts it will be difficult for many of us, present and future, to enjoy the true wonders of our United States of America.

Bear Balls;841914295 said:

---

Not clever.

---

Truth isn't supposed to be clever.

YLS Bear;841914266 said:

---

...... We live in a winner-take-all, devil-take-the-hindmost society. If that's you're thing - a society in which the super lucky and the legacies (and a few successful hard-working and ambitious people; just enough to be trotted out as examples) lead a country club existence, while the masses scrape by under a pile of debt .... It's become the freedom of the rich and powerful to bend the legal and tax system to benefit themselves. I guess it was a dream that some of us were lucky to grown up in and live through - a country with a strong middle class from the 50s to the recent present - partly permitted by a growing population and booming post-war economy, and now fallen victim to the (inevitable?) concentration and abuse of power.

---

History indicates that this is not a sustainable business model over the long haul.

The trouble is we went from budget surpluses and a possible elimination of the debt in a decade or so to the crisis we are in now. We should have kept the same tax structure we had in the Clinton years. Bush, who I even voted for in 2000, blew it big time.