The Wake

Gov. Tim Pawlenty is not the sole villain responsible for continued tuition hikes at the University of Minnesota, but he definitely set the trend of this downward spiral. The higher education system of our state is facing a $170 million cut in the 2003-2004 biennium thanks to Pawlenty’s tax policies. He refuses to raise taxes even while his massive spending cuts are still not enough to keep Minnesota in the black.

Pawlenty attributes the state’s economic turmoil to a spending problem. Examining the statistics reveals that there may be another side to the story. While in recent years, Minnesota has only increased spending slightly over the national average, Pawlenty’s tax cuts have given Minnesota the title of the largest percentage of tax cuts in the union. It appears the governor’s infatuation with tax cuts may be the real budget problem, not overspending.

Facing the $4.2 billion deficit created by this situation, Pawlenty decided not to repeal the tax cuts, but to ravage social programs and tap into the budget reserve and the tobacco settlement fund. Draining these resources is not only a one-time deal, but also sets the state on a course to future deficits and ultimately higher tuition fees.

The damage to the state’s economic well-being through these backward policies has led a major bond house to downgrade Minnesota’s borrowing status. This will greatly affect interest rates on future loans to the state. The change could cost millions and further compound the budget problem.

Cutting taxes is an ineffectual way to keep citizens and businesses in Minnesota, especially when the cuts come with sacrificing the multitude of social programs that make Minnesota one of the most livable states in the country. Minnesota has a long standing of generous support for public schools and other valuable services that help create the well-educated work force that many businesses come here to employ. These programs are under attack by Pawlenty, and without them we are likely to encounter greater problems than we are facing right now.

The Board of Regents is in fact the group who decided how to deal with the insufficient funds allocated by the state, but they are in that position by the governor’s policies. It is no surprise that the Regents must pass the burden on to students in the form of tuition hikes. In fact, if one examines the minutes of the Regents’ meetings, it becomes obvious that increasing tuition is their primary method of dealing with budget shortages.

Other options are equally bleak, like delaying aspirations and investments while eliminating faculty hires, or reducing administration overhead. These options are just as detrimental to students and the academic process as tuition increases. When the Regents face these dire circumstances, there is little hope for a positive resolution.

With all the Regents’ methods for facing budget woes being so negative, it’s only fair to place some of the blame on Pawlenty and his policies, particularly when the slogans of greater “government responsibility” and “matching accountability and responsibility” are splashed over his official Web site.

Why are Pawlenty and the Regents so quick to pass budget problems on to students? The answer may have something to do with Wake writer Eric Magnuson’s article “A Battle Cry Against Tuition Hikes: Reflections on the Student Protest Paradox,” last month. We as a student community are not too inclined to stand up for ourselves. Whether it is a lack of time and organization, or simply indifference, there are an insufficient number of students willing to challenge those who enact these bunk policies.

A lesson can be taken from English University students who nearly forced

Prime Minister Tony Blair to resign after proposing an increase in variable tuition fees (or Top-Up Fees) to £3,000.

The students invited Blair to discuss the issue on a live television broadcast. Blair accepted, and faced the panel of irate students. During the course of the program, he was thoroughly chastised for the predicted effects of his proposed fees. The students articulated their views in a constructive manner that brought out potential flaws in the plan. They went on to explain how the increased fees would restrict the field of potential university students simply because of monetary concerns.

This broadcast, and several other large protests, caused many in Blair’s Labour party constituency (which holds a majority in Parliament by nearly 180 votes) to defect from party lines. Even with such a large constituency, the Top-Up Fees passed by only a margin of 5 votes. This issue almost knocked the Prime Minister of 6 years out of office. It just goes to show the impact of political activism by students, and the effects it can produce if government officials are held accountable for, and made responsible to, the will of the people.