The Wake

While dining on my roast beast over the holiday break, I took time to read over the December issue of The Wake in its entirety. I came across a column that didn’t have kind words for the governor of our state, Tim Pawlenty. The author of the piece (“A Battle Cry Against Tuition Hikes: Reflections on the Student Protest Paradox”), Eric Magnuson, opinionated that the majority of blame for consistent tuition hikes the University of Minnesota implements should rest with our governor. Although Magnuson acknowledged the Board of Regents does make the ultimate decision on tuition increases, Pawlenty is the villainous, yuppie-loving, discriminatory politician who recommended that the University receive a $170 million cut for the 2004-05 biennium, right?

Well, Pawlenty did recommend the cut, yes, but the critical thinking skills learned in our K-12 education are needed to fully understand the situation at hand. I’m glad I sat in the same seat and location in the classroom every school day back then, because that taught discipline and consistency, and with that, sound reasoning. So pick a seat, stick with it, and read on my fellow columnist – you just might learn something.

Pawlenty pledged not to raise state taxes, attempting to keep businesses and citizens from leaving our state. Having to make due with the current tax brackets forced all recipients of state funds to prioritize their money and use it more efficiently. Minnesota encountered a revenue problem in which the state simply could not collect enough revenue to keep up with spending demands.

As long as the economy grows, revenue will also, and we can spend, spend and spend some more. But when the economy falls from its apogee, spending needs to be modified. For example, from 2001 to 2002, state tax revenues decreased 4.4 percent. And the forecast for fiscal year 2004-2005 has revenues down $407 million! Pawlenty’s recommendations were in the best interests for the long term of our state because they were focused on getting revenue growing.

So what other alternative is there to decreasing spending? I suppose the governor should have adapted the Minnesota Democrats plan to just raise taxes on the very wealthy. That’s just what we need. Let’s accelerate the emigration of more of our businesses and residents to South Dakota. Minnesotans already pay 38 percent more per capita in state taxes than the national average, and South Dakotans pay 34 percent fewer than the country’s average. Minnesota currently has the fifth highest taxed citizens in the country and lost 64,000 jobs between February 2001 and June 2003. The Democratic platform would really help increase our state revenue and jobs growth by providing an environment conducive to business attraction, wouldn’t it?

In his operating budget recommendations for 2004-2005, Pawlenty said in his operating budget document when referring to the University: “…calls upon the Board of Regents to closely examine the operations and business processes…in order to find ways to reduce duplication among its programs and reallocate funds to protect its priorities before resorting to increases in tuition.”

Instead of prioritizing its spending, the Regents decided on tuition increases. Instead of cutting some of the 30,900-plus faculty and staff (which is a student to administrator ratio of nearly 2:1), students felt the burden. Instead of carefully researching to anticipate economic woes, the Regents approved renovating Coffman Union and Walter Library, and the construction of the Molecular and Cellular Biology building, which carried prices of $71.47 million, $55.9 million and $79 million, respectively. Were those upgrades necessary amongst the current economic conditions? Could they have been postponed a few years?

University President Robert Bruinicks had the courage to stand by a wage freeze and deserves praise for that. The private jobs sector suffered plenty and it is only fair that public sector employees accepted a modest pay cut in critical times.

The Taxpayers League of Minnesota coined a phrase called “bureaucratic blackmail,” which they define as: “…budget cuts are legislatively mandated but do not specify that essential… programs…are not to be affected. Bureaucrats then cut back these programs…and blame legislative action for the cuts.” Bureaucratic blackmail seems to be the definition of the situation at hand, don’t you think?

Tuition increases are not permanent and could be alleviated and reduced in the future if Minnesota’s economy is stimulated, which is definitely a priority in the administration. Until then, if we want a college degree we have to work for one and take out loans if need be. We have to make sacrifices in our own lives by not living above our means financially. The true governor of all citizens is the economy and we all have to adapt to it even under the most devastating of circumstances. You may be mad at tuition hikes like me, Eric, but don’t just regurgitate what you hear from angry liberal professors – it’s just politics meant to confuse you.