antipattern;842372339 said:
I just wanted to let SCT and mike know how excited I am to not participate in this conversation, and express my eagerness to non-contribute to it in any way I cannot.
antipattern;842372339 said:
I just wanted to let SCT and mike know how excited I am to not participate in this conversation, and express my eagerness to non-contribute to it in any way I cannot.
calumnus;842372433 said:
Yep, this morning I had written out a lengthy post, looked at it, thought about it then just deleted it.
Back to the Monster class!
socaltownie;842372306 said:
OK...I just CAN"T let this pass.....
A) California is NOT a low tax right-wing haven. We have a badly designed and poorly implemented way of financing K-12 education (Thank you Serrano, Jarvis and Gann) but Prop 13 has much less dramatic impact on state programs like UC. In respect to tax burden OTHER than property tax we are right up there with the highest taxed states on really any measure you want to look at.
B) There are both inputs and outflow issues at UC that bear a much more complex understanding. At least SOME of the input issues are that as an aging state, one with a LARGE percentage of residents in poverty and the ever escalating health care cost problem the state budget is squeezed on mediCal. We then need to add in the sins of BOTH parties in creating a huge prison/criminal justice system that played on people's fears and which eats up a good chunk of the state's budget. On the outflow issue lets not forget UC's near criminal underfunding of its pension and retire health care obligations. Now the SCT family is EXCITED that you are paying for GOLD PLATED health care to SCT's Mom and widow of a 30+ year UCB faculty member but he also gets why that is a cost issue for the system and how it puts pressure on tuition.
Fixing the problem with UC will be difficult and complex. Demonizing the political party that has been out of power in Sacramento for 2 generations is probably not the first place to start.
mikecohen;842372273 said:
To me, the answer could be (or should be, or used to be) profound. The University of California was founded and maintained (at least until Reagan) as the crowning jewel of the ideal of public education, i.e., unlimited education for anybody to the limit of their abilities and character - regardless of race, creed, religion, color, gender, national origin, ethnicity, OR ability to pay. It is this ideal which has defined the ethos of this place for its close to 150 years of existence (having been founded, I think not un-coincidentally, just following the conclusion of the American Civil War). However, this ideal has become threatened by the rise of right wing anti-government, anti-tax (and, indeed, anti-education) ideology which is directly responsible for the more-than-exponential rise in tuition and other expenses, which has in turn resulted in a dramatic rise in (a) the percentage of students from families who can afford to pay (for many of whom, especially in the top 1%, even the out-of-state tuition here is not a big deal), and (b) the necessary percentage of private contributions, to take up the slack for what government can no longer afford, either or both fiscally and/or politically. In other words, our pride in our public university is in the triumph of democratic, egalitarian ideals, which are threatened by the political and economic circumstances which have resulted in the diminution of public funding, and the consequent rise in private funding. One might even think of making the case that it may be coming to pass that the ideals of encouraging achievement/merit/talent over legacy may even be more well served these days by the large (at least mostly) private institutions with endowments so huge that "ability to pay" need never block any student qualified to attend from matriculating there, because there is sufficient scholarship availability. I do think the situation (like most of life) is highly dynamic (no absolutes here). But I did want to say a word for the ideals, and for us standing up for them.
OdontoBear66;842372455 said:
"(and, indeed, anti-education) ideology"----I cannot let this one slip by. I do not know anyone right of center who is "anti-education"----not one person. It is all how it is presented, delivered, and forced upon a population that is objected to, not education at all. Matter of fact, I believe those right of center are much more helpful in supporting vouchers for underserved individuals (usually in poor areas) with cr*ppy schools. But no sez the left, support your local union. Wrong.
mikecohen;842372469 said:
OK; I'll bite. PUBLIC education has (predictably) suffered massively as the result of Prop. 13, and the wave of anti-tax strategies that swept the country, none of which, I believe, can be attributed to anyone anywhere near the left. I can't believe you mean it this way, but the language "forced upon a population that is objectected to", and "vouchers" usually indicates playing to "social" resentments re "forced busing" and the long memory associations with "states rights", "judicial activism", "activist judges", taxing us to pay for them, etc. - with, especially as to vouchers, an admixture of Milton Friedman, who was gleefully and enthusiastically inimical to public education, arguing without reservation that education should be privatized; and I finally must advocate that "vouchers" are an obvious and well-known joke, in that all they do is raise the price of the more desired and advanced education beyond what the voucher recipients can afford, thus strengthening and re-establishing the class system, and its waste of human potential, which the radical Republican governments of this state (up to at least Hiram Johnson, if not Earl Warren) sought to ameliorate by the ideal of public education, and which imbalance in our society has been climbing inexorably, at least since Prop. 13, although, maybe since the oil shocks of the early 1970s (which is another political can of worms which I imagine we can all agree to pass on here).
OdontoBear66;842372495 said:
You and I, both being Cal fans (I assume) have that in common. The rest of what you write is beyond response, whether it be that I disagree with it or that you present what you believe with such a prejudicial bias. No need to continue any conversation, as none would be beneficial to either of us. I agree but to disagree with most all of what you say. Cheers, and go Bears
concordtom;842372152 said:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3770[/ATTACH]
shocky, can you ID this clubhouse?
2nd question: In terms of the pure education received and the value of diploma in the marketplace, why should it matter where the university funding comes from?
mikecohen;842372498 said:
GO BEARS! Any bear fan is a friend of mine (if they want to be)
Shocky1;842372545 said:
walked 36 holes today at wine valley near walla walla, washington which like rustic canyon is southern california is one of the best affordable public golf courses in the nation...lots of cougars fans (wore my cal cap) & they all wished the bears good luck on saturday & don't even get me started on the beverage cart girl (i shamelessly flirted with her by doing a headstand after she presumptively & incorrectly stated that was not possible in golf spikes, she's a yoga girl)
CalBearsWinNC;842372448 said:
Actually what he said is true, up until last year the state required 2/3 majority in order to pass a budget, so technically even the republican party was outnumbered in the state legislature they could block any piece of legislation tied to the budget. Reagan's view f the UC system especially with some of the guest speakers and teachers...........he thought it was a system to bring on communism. Hell he thought Medicare and Social Security would bring on a socialist tidal wave that would be so vast it would spread across the country at Mach speed.
mikecohen;842372469 said:
OK; I'll bite. PUBLIC education has (predictably) suffered massively as the result of Prop. 13, and the wave of anti-tax strategies that swept the country, none of which, I believe, can be attributed to anyone anywhere near the left. I can't believe you mean it this way, but the language "forced upon a population that is objectected to", and "vouchers" usually indicates playing to "social" resentments re "forced busing" and the long memory associations with "states rights", "judicial activism", "activist judges", taxing us to pay for them, etc. - with, especially as to vouchers, an admixture of Milton Friedman, who was gleefully and enthusiastically inimical to public education, arguing without reservation that education should be privatized; and I finally must advocate that "vouchers" are an obvious and well-known joke, in that all they do is raise the price of the more desired and advanced education beyond what the voucher recipients can afford, thus strengthening and re-establishing the class system, and its waste of human potential, which the radical Republican governments of this state (up to at least Hiram Johnson, if not Earl Warren) sought to ameliorate by the ideal of public education, and which imbalance in our society has been climbing inexorably, at least since Prop. 13, although, maybe since the oil shocks of the early 1970s (which is another political can of worms which I imagine we can all agree to pass on here).
Shocky1;842372540 said:
tom, that's the clubhouse at congressional country club near washington, d.c....i finished my 1st united states top 100 list at congressional & actually got kinda emotional going down the 18th fairway with the american flag waving in the winds in the background
socaltownie;842372859 said:
EXCEPT that if they don't pass the budget the state shuts down and that has real consequences for a state (rather than the feds). The deadlocks have resulted in a few months of IOUs but then the big 5 cut a deal and it usually ISN'T one that results in deep cuts. Taxes require a super majority but even then we ended up with relatively high personal income and sales taxes. It just hasn't been a low tax state.
socaltownie;842372863 said:
Great book on Prop 13 is Issac Martin's The Permanent Tax Revolt: How the Property Tax Transformed American Politics. Complicated argument but it isn't only (or mostly) about anti-tax libertarian zealots. As Martin points out, SOMETHING was going to break in the early 1970s as a variety of changes in law, technology and the professionalization of assessors removed the prior informal way that property tax payers had been sheltered by elected assessors from property value rises. As counties refused to ajust the mil rate down (cause government LOVES revenue) a revolt was almost inevitable. Now I also like Fischel (the on Prop 13 as well (I think they can both be right) and his The Homevoter Hypothesis. He argues that Serrano broke the connection between property tax payers and schools.....why support high taxes in your community if the state is going to redistribute revenue to lower property tax districts? The rational thing is to opt out - especially in a state where the economic fortunes of LA are pretty weakly felt for example by the Bay area.
Anyway, we are going to not talk politics - or at least we can take this to the non sports boards..
SFCityBear;842372912 said:
Congressional was the scene of one of the greatest and most emotional US Open victory in history in 1964. In those days, the Open featured playing the 3rd and 4th rounds on Saturday, and in '64, the oppressive heat and humidity took its toll on the players. After the 3rd round, San Francisco's Ken Venturi was suffering from intense dehydration and was advised by his doctors to withdraw. At one point, he was so exhausted, he walked right by his wife in the gallery, looked at her, but didn't even recognize her. He was treated with tea and salt pills, and continued on, shooting 70 in the final round to win by 4 shots.
mikecohen;842372924 said:
Much to remember about Ken Venturi - an extraordinarily heroic figure, especially for such an un-prepossessing guy.
mikecohen;842372922 said:
I apologize if I have offended anyone.
bar20;842372977 said:
No, you're just wrong! The California State Legislature dragged their feet about doing any kind of legislation to change the tax basis. They loved all that extra money coming in. Prop 13 put a definite structure in how property taxes would be assessed. Sure there were some bad aspects of the initiative but it put a kabash on the free spending by the legislature.
Shocky1;842372540 said:
tom, that's the clubhouse at congressional country club near washington, d.c....i finished my 1st united states top 100 list at congressional & actually got kinda emotional going down the 18th fairway with the american flag waving in the winds in the background
mikecohen;842374595 said:
Isn't it true that none of the property taxes affected by Prop. 13 went to the state, but went to the counties where the property was?, and that, after Prop. 13, the state had to step in with other taxes it could collect in order to plug (to whatever extent it could get away with) the gaps created by the de-funding of local governments by Prop. 13? The open question about that in my mind is the DEGREE to which the Serrano decision actually changed that, before Prop. 13. I imagine someone on this Board knows the details on that; and that may change the political equation a lot.
bearmanpg;842375136 said:
Shocky....I hate to say this but if this thread continues down the political path it may be time to close up shop and move on....please say it's not true!!!
