direct aid to Rutgers cut in Christie's budget
- Thread starter retired711
- Start date
Rutgers' budget for this year is approximately $3.7B. It is reasonable to expect it to increase next year. If direct state appropriations to Rutgers decrease to $394M, then state apprpriations will be close to only about 10% of Rutgers' budget. That is getting close to the range where you have to question whether there is any benefit to state interference at all.
Pitiful. Pols are killing the middle class by failing to adequately fund public higher education. The poor will get aid, the rich don't need it and the middle class will be told go to junior college. it's a far cry from where it was when I graduated in 1985.
Every right wing gov "running" for President has attacked their higher education system. Look at the cuts for Wisconsin and LSU.
It's an ideological attack on higher education. RU needs to fight this tooth and nail.
Christie cannot be indicted soon enough. He is easily the most corrupt NJ governor of the modern era.
It's an ideological attack on higher education. RU needs to fight this tooth and nail.
Christie cannot be indicted soon enough. He is easily the most corrupt NJ governor of the modern era.
Notice in particular the form of this cut.
Fringe benefits are going up, so the state is just going to take that amount and cut it from what they give the schools. So not only do they get to cut the budgets of the schools, but they also get to set the schools increasingly against the unions who negotiated those benefits in the first place.
If RU has 55,000 students, and is only getting $394 m from the state, thats only an increase of $7000 per student to completely get rid of the states share. Thats obviously alot - but it would still make RU one of the cheaper private schools out there. Of course the battle over the land/buildings etc would be intense - maybe make a deal to let the state keep Newark, Camden, and Cook/Douglas in exchange for CAC/Busch/Livingston including the NB/P portions of UMDNJ.
This post was edited on 2/27 10:56 AM by derleider
I don't see a full departure from state status and 10% is still a substantial sum to make up. The issues related to land and sattelite campuses is also very complex considering the programs/schools of great value that exist on those campuses.
But what Rutgers should be doing is talking about increased autonomy. The drastic reduction in funding is a very strong case for more Rutgers control over tuition, governance, etc. And I'm sure Rutgers has had those discussions internally and probably even a rough proposal on how to take on a more independent role and still be the state university. Unfortunately our Senate President has way too many lackeys bought and sold in the legislature to let any reasonable discussion happen.
The fundamental issue IMO is that we need to have state funded higher ed.
This is basically not only attack on higher ed but an attack on the middle class- who is going to be farked here? The rich can afford private schools, poor will qualify for certain aid.
A little over a decade ago when I started at RU, tuition and board was around 15k, and it was at TCNJ as well. Certainly no bargain but not what this budget aims for.
Backing out of the state funding lets the far right win- their ultimate goal is no funding for higher education.
What needs to happen is the moderate Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature getting together and standing for the middle class instead of their pet clients. In the end an uneducated NJ workforce, and NJ's best and brightest fleeing the state at 18 with no reasonably priced higher ed, will hurt their big business donors.
That, and Prosecutor Fishman needs to move along his indictment of this thug of a governor we have. The idea that he is sitting at CPAC saying the media blasts him for his "accomplishments," which are exactly zero unless you count no job growth and 8 credit downgrades and millions wasted on using the PA as a slush fund, is abhorrent. Even the far right will come to realize the emperor has no clothes.
This is basically not only attack on higher ed but an attack on the middle class- who is going to be farked here? The rich can afford private schools, poor will qualify for certain aid.
A little over a decade ago when I started at RU, tuition and board was around 15k, and it was at TCNJ as well. Certainly no bargain but not what this budget aims for.
Backing out of the state funding lets the far right win- their ultimate goal is no funding for higher education.
What needs to happen is the moderate Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature getting together and standing for the middle class instead of their pet clients. In the end an uneducated NJ workforce, and NJ's best and brightest fleeing the state at 18 with no reasonably priced higher ed, will hurt their big business donors.
That, and Prosecutor Fishman needs to move along his indictment of this thug of a governor we have. The idea that he is sitting at CPAC saying the media blasts him for his "accomplishments," which are exactly zero unless you count no job growth and 8 credit downgrades and millions wasted on using the PA as a slush fund, is abhorrent. Even the far right will come to realize the emperor has no clothes.
That's pitiful but not surprising. We need more autonomy because I doubt we'd go private, but if we did, then we have to keep all NB/P campuses, including C/D, & divest Newark & Camden (law schools too).
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Naah - spin off C/D. Make IT NJ State. Its the part that has the most historical ties to the state school, and its location is the most isolated.
Anyway - this is all fantasy land talk. RU isnt going private. Its going to fight for every last dollar until the state contribution is down to a few percent.
Not like this. This budget, like everything that comes out of the Christie administration that isn't a giveback to his supporters, is a vicious, personal attack on enemies. The enemy of the right wing right now is higher education,
NJ needs a robust state funded higher education system. Divesting N & C actualy furthers that goal because it would allow them to do their own thing and serve more people while RU aims for elite status,
Just google what Walker is trying to do to UW, and what Jindal is doing to LSU, which is now has to drastically raise tuition. What Brownback did in Kansas. It's resdistribution of wealth from the middle class to the 1%, and an ideological attack on the perception that universities are liberal- and the fact that the more degrees you have, the more liberal you are.
The sad part is Christie is doing this on top of not fixing the worst roads and bridges in America AND not paying pension obligations...its all to cut taxes for the rich.
Sweeney's ultimate goal there was just control, I don't think he cares about the RU name or not on it.
But he has cooled it, for obvious reasons. Once Christie is indicted, if Guadagno goes too, Sweeney will be the governor- and on the off chance Christie is allowed to finish his term, Sweeney will run.
If he expects to compete with Fulop he better have some accomplishments other than being Norcross' lap dog. JC unemployment and economic growth crushes the NJ average. We have a lot of great accomplishments up here that will appeal to voters a lot more than trying to pack the RU BOG.
But he has cooled it, for obvious reasons. Once Christie is indicted, if Guadagno goes too, Sweeney will be the governor- and on the off chance Christie is allowed to finish his term, Sweeney will run.
If he expects to compete with Fulop he better have some accomplishments other than being Norcross' lap dog. JC unemployment and economic growth crushes the NJ average. We have a lot of great accomplishments up here that will appeal to voters a lot more than trying to pack the RU BOG.
Alleging that "right wing Republican" governors are slashing spending on higher education to punish liberal professors is pure hogwash and political rhetoric.
The fact is that total higher education costs have increased much faster than the rate of inflation. Governors from both parties are holding state aid steady in part to force universities to economize. This is similar to the argument about the cost of health care. As long as the user of health care is insulated from the true cost (through insurance), there is little incentive for the consumer to shop for the best price or to force the provider to reduce costs and fees. More state aid doesn't necessarily equate to lower tuition. I think if you survey governors of both parties, they will all say that public college costs are too damn high and that it impacts the middle class and economic opportunity the most. As a former RU student, you probably saw a dozen ways that RU was inefficient in its spending. Giving them unlimited resources does nothing to resolve that.
Another reason why state aid is staying flat is because the states are forced to cover the exorbitant cost of entitlements (Medicaid, for example) and employee pension costs. Those cost increases are generally out of the hands of state budgeters, so cuts must be made elsewhere. Now, I understand that you're a Democrat, so obviously your solution is to raise taxes - especially on the wealthy. Of course, the wealthy (and the upper middle class) can usually afford to vote with their feet if taxes become too high. I am not sure the state of NJ wants to give yet another reason to send the wealthy and their businesses to other states where taxes and associated costs are lower, which would ultimately shift the tax burden to the middle class.
Finally, for all the Christie bashing, do not forget that without him, RU would not have ever gotten its medical school back. Other governors tried, but never had the political will to get it done. So, to suggest that the governor doesn't understand the value of a major research university on the economy of the state is foolish.
The fact is that total higher education costs have increased much faster than the rate of inflation. Governors from both parties are holding state aid steady in part to force universities to economize. This is similar to the argument about the cost of health care. As long as the user of health care is insulated from the true cost (through insurance), there is little incentive for the consumer to shop for the best price or to force the provider to reduce costs and fees. More state aid doesn't necessarily equate to lower tuition. I think if you survey governors of both parties, they will all say that public college costs are too damn high and that it impacts the middle class and economic opportunity the most. As a former RU student, you probably saw a dozen ways that RU was inefficient in its spending. Giving them unlimited resources does nothing to resolve that.
Another reason why state aid is staying flat is because the states are forced to cover the exorbitant cost of entitlements (Medicaid, for example) and employee pension costs. Those cost increases are generally out of the hands of state budgeters, so cuts must be made elsewhere. Now, I understand that you're a Democrat, so obviously your solution is to raise taxes - especially on the wealthy. Of course, the wealthy (and the upper middle class) can usually afford to vote with their feet if taxes become too high. I am not sure the state of NJ wants to give yet another reason to send the wealthy and their businesses to other states where taxes and associated costs are lower, which would ultimately shift the tax burden to the middle class.
Finally, for all the Christie bashing, do not forget that without him, RU would not have ever gotten its medical school back. Other governors tried, but never had the political will to get it done. So, to suggest that the governor doesn't understand the value of a major research university on the economy of the state is foolish.
Private schools have increased by as much if not more - so the inefficient state spending bit doesnt fly. Its clear that supply and demand are key here. Demand has gone up alot as (per conservative economic doctrine) labor intensive jobs have moved offshore, leaving good jobs mostly for those with higher education. Meanwhile supply, particularly of elite degrees hasnt kept pace. Hence - supply and demand.
Spending isnt flat - inflation adjusted its half of what it was 25 years ago.
As for the wealthy. Where are they getting their money. Most of them aren't old money in NJ. They are people who make alot of money working in NYC or having worked there. Those that USED to make money will likely move to somewhere without any taxes - which won't be NJ. That goes for rich and middle class. Its not only millionaires that retire to Florida
But for every current millionaire who decides to flee high tax NJ for Florida, there is going to be someone to take his place in that high end job. NYC is in many ways a captive market. There are certain classes of jobs and certain experiences that you really cant get anywhere else. Same thing with other major markets in other industries (oil in Houston, entertainment in LA, tech in SF, government and defense in DC, biotech in Boston, etc). It would be fiscally irresponsible to punish middle class pensioners and lower class sick people when you have such a captive market.
Of course you are right - nationally we do face a dual problem - the rich have enough power that we cant tax the hell out of them (not because I think they would flee en masse, but simply because they have managed to use their wealth to increasingly rig the system in their favor, as their relative wealth has increased) and at the same time, we are overinvested in stuff that benefits older people (for obvious reasons - there are a lot of them).
Spending isnt flat - inflation adjusted its half of what it was 25 years ago.
As for the wealthy. Where are they getting their money. Most of them aren't old money in NJ. They are people who make alot of money working in NYC or having worked there. Those that USED to make money will likely move to somewhere without any taxes - which won't be NJ. That goes for rich and middle class. Its not only millionaires that retire to Florida
But for every current millionaire who decides to flee high tax NJ for Florida, there is going to be someone to take his place in that high end job. NYC is in many ways a captive market. There are certain classes of jobs and certain experiences that you really cant get anywhere else. Same thing with other major markets in other industries (oil in Houston, entertainment in LA, tech in SF, government and defense in DC, biotech in Boston, etc). It would be fiscally irresponsible to punish middle class pensioners and lower class sick people when you have such a captive market.
Of course you are right - nationally we do face a dual problem - the rich have enough power that we cant tax the hell out of them (not because I think they would flee en masse, but simply because they have managed to use their wealth to increasingly rig the system in their favor, as their relative wealth has increased) and at the same time, we are overinvested in stuff that benefits older people (for obvious reasons - there are a lot of them).
New Jersey is similar to most states in that the creeping but sustained disinvestment of public higher education has been going on for a long time and has bipartisan, if not support, acquiescence.
NJ has been a leader in not funding higher ed for a long time while being at the top of the states in funding K-12. The "we just don't have the money" argument doesn't ring true. Again this year the public schools are facing a much smaller real cut in state support than higher ed. That has been the case for many years.
The amount of money put forward for the colleges to bond for capital improvement recently is a fraction of what the State has delivered to build new k-12 schools over the last couple decades through the School Development Authority and its predecessors.
Don't forget UConn alone got $4.5 billion for capital improvement from the State of CT during the same period Rutgers got $410 million.
NJ has been a leader in not funding higher ed for a long time while being at the top of the states in funding K-12. The "we just don't have the money" argument doesn't ring true. Again this year the public schools are facing a much smaller real cut in state support than higher ed. That has been the case for many years.
The amount of money put forward for the colleges to bond for capital improvement recently is a fraction of what the State has delivered to build new k-12 schools over the last couple decades through the School Development Authority and its predecessors.
Don't forget UConn alone got $4.5 billion for capital improvement from the State of CT during the same period Rutgers got $410 million.
Baloney.
It's just a coincidence that Scott Walker, a college dropout, tried to change the mission statement of the University of Wisconsin? Was the previous mission statement too expensive?
The President of LSU half threatened to take the "S" off the helmet because of the disastrous cuts he's facing.
The University of Texas had a board packing scandal similar to the one we did, except the protagonists had a clear, right wing political goal and were backed by Perry.
It's all coincidence though that all those guys are running for President, I guess...
In the University of California system, they actually sought to keep costs down by taking more OOS students. See the difference? One thing benefits the school, the other is a savage attack on the mission.
And dearest Christie, in his latest scandal, took pennies on the dollar in a "settlement" from ExxonMobil on what a judge was about to award the state. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that 1) ExxonMobil is a huge RGA donor and 2) that the state is going bankrupt and had its debt downgraded 8 times and had the chance at easy money....
Christie runs NJ like that dad that says the family is saving money because it stopped paying its mortgage.
Which leads us back to the only reasons UMDNJ was merged in- so we would take its debt, and to scratch Sweeney's back.
And it was McCormick's idea and he was talking about it before Christie turned the state into Greece on the Hudson.
The people of NJ were promised clean moderate government and what they got was the most corrupt regime in modern times with a side of tea party BS.
His financial improprieties will hurt RU and NJ for years to come. He is one of the most indefensible politicians of our time which is saying something. He did not one good thing and NJ ranks no more than 48th in every qualification of economic health in a state that's top 5 in personal wealth.
It's just a coincidence that Scott Walker, a college dropout, tried to change the mission statement of the University of Wisconsin? Was the previous mission statement too expensive?
The President of LSU half threatened to take the "S" off the helmet because of the disastrous cuts he's facing.
The University of Texas had a board packing scandal similar to the one we did, except the protagonists had a clear, right wing political goal and were backed by Perry.
It's all coincidence though that all those guys are running for President, I guess...
In the University of California system, they actually sought to keep costs down by taking more OOS students. See the difference? One thing benefits the school, the other is a savage attack on the mission.
And dearest Christie, in his latest scandal, took pennies on the dollar in a "settlement" from ExxonMobil on what a judge was about to award the state. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that 1) ExxonMobil is a huge RGA donor and 2) that the state is going bankrupt and had its debt downgraded 8 times and had the chance at easy money....
Christie runs NJ like that dad that says the family is saving money because it stopped paying its mortgage.
Which leads us back to the only reasons UMDNJ was merged in- so we would take its debt, and to scratch Sweeney's back.
And it was McCormick's idea and he was talking about it before Christie turned the state into Greece on the Hudson.
The people of NJ were promised clean moderate government and what they got was the most corrupt regime in modern times with a side of tea party BS.
His financial improprieties will hurt RU and NJ for years to come. He is one of the most indefensible politicians of our time which is saying something. He did not one good thing and NJ ranks no more than 48th in every qualification of economic health in a state that's top 5 in personal wealth.
Similar threads
