Today's Arizona Star reports that tuition at the University of Arizona is forecast to increase approximately 31 percent for in-state students in the coming year. The new resident tuition and fees will increase to $8,972. Additionally, out-of-state students would see an increase in the range of 12 percent to $24,931, all seemingly due to a $100 million cutback in their share of state tax money. Interesting enough, the article points out that this increase moves the resident tuition "closer" to the median fees charged by the UA's peer universities, ASU and NAU. The article goes on to state that the UA can absorb $40 million of the cuts but not the $60 million balance. Makes one wonder why they had the $40 million in there in the first place. Interesting also is the fact that only about a third of the students pay the full tuition and fees. There is no breakdown on those that pay the full fare or how out-of-state tuition and fees is factored into the equation. It appears that 17 percent of the increase would be set aside for financial aid since 41.5 percent of students received financial aid that covered their tuition and fees.
There is a little insight in the article from two students of apparent diverse backgrounds. The first, a freshman studying "political science", understands the need for the increase as things are getting more expensive, but she doesn't see it posing much of a hardship for her family. Sounds like "political science" is right up her alley. The second, a UA junior shared the first's sentiments, but did not agree with imposing automatic fees for things that she, or other students, did not use. Specifically she pointed out the automatic imposition of fees for "health services" and the Recreation Center. Looks like she needs to enroll in a "political science" class or two. All I can say is, "WELCOME TO THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM".
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Streetcar Named Desire
Morning headlines of the Arizona Daily Star champion a $64M grant from the federal government to build a 4 mile streetcar route from UMC medical center to somewhere on the west side of the Santa Cruz river. The total costs are approximately $150M and are being funded by a previous federal grant and voter approved funding in 2006. Strange as it may seem the previous federal grant and the voter approved bond issue both came at a "time of plenty" when we were in the midst of the greatest housing boom in history. That same period fostered the greatest financial crisis in the history of the world and we are still trying to figure out ways to dig ourselves out. So, you may ask, what does that have to do with our good fortune in getting a streetcar. One only has to purview the rest of section A to start getting a little uncomfortable with the grant. Towards the end of the article it states that there are not enough funds to complete the project nor are there any funds available for post construction operations. Like everything else they plan on crossing that bridge when they get to it. Sort of Tucson's own little "Streetcar Named Desire". Don't get me wrong, I have ridden the trolley in San Diego and the El in Chicago and find it to be the optimal way of getting around. Both started out as privately constructed and operated and both were bought out by the municipalities they served, with monies approved by the voters. They weren't subsidized by the rest of America and that is what sticks in my craw.
As we continue reading through the pages, one after other, we see that the newly appointed debt-reduction commission probably doesn't stand any more of a chance to be effective than a snowball in hell. This commission was formed by President Obama as a last resort effort to appear as if he was interested in reining in the government debt. This was done only after the Senate, in a rare bi-partisan vote, voted down the same commission as being counter-productive to the good of the country. They further explained that taking steps to curtail spending and balance the budget was within their responsibility and that a third party entity was not needed. Give me a break!!!!
The projected national debt for this fiscal year is projected to reach $9.3T (that's "T" for trillion) and is projected to total almost $14 trillion by 2015 which will equal 72.9 percent of the gross domestic product, the measure of all the nation's goods and services produced annually.
Reading on we find that the current post-collapse housing industry strategy is looking bleak, to say the least. Both the government and the banks were ill prepared to implement the program and as a consequence hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes will hit the market this year, further depressing prices even more. Depressed prices effect tax base values that almost every state relies on for revenue. Simple formula here: lower values equal less revenue equals higher taxes to provide the glut of services we have become accustomed to.
So just where am I going with this you might ask. Good point so I will wrap up by offering for your consideration the following. While Tucson was able to ply $64M from the federal coffers, Phoenix was rejected in their quest for $122M which was what they were seeking to speed up construction of its Sky Harbor people mover that would connect the airport terminals. Think about it for a moment, which of the two projects would actually benefit their respective communities the most? The one that transports millions of airline passengers each year or the one that transports the mostly poverty level constituents from Tucson's west side barrio to tax payer subsidized healthcare at UMC? No, I am not advocating them getting the monies as opposed to Tucson, just pointing out the dichotomy that exists between government spending our money as opposed to us spending it. And let's not forget the on-going operation expense that needs to be funded.
The old adage that "if it's not worth paying for, it's not worth having" seems to fit the bill here. Why should we ask the rest of America to foot the bill for what some of us might want or maybe not want. Why do we continue to spend monies that we don't have, monies that we borrow from the Chinese?
We have to recognize that this is an election year and the political mentality seems to be that as we get closer to that date we need to let the constituents know that we can at least bring home the bacon, otherwise referred to as "pork barrel" politics. The City of Tucson has a population of approximately 550,000 and we see that the $64M equates to about $116 per head. Just as a point of interest we note that Arizona's illegal alien population has grown to 550,000. Think about that for a few moments.
Just food for thought. The current debt of $9,300,000,000,000 equates to $31,000 per citizen, man, woman and child. Employed or not. How do you like those apples?
As we continue reading through the pages, one after other, we see that the newly appointed debt-reduction commission probably doesn't stand any more of a chance to be effective than a snowball in hell. This commission was formed by President Obama as a last resort effort to appear as if he was interested in reining in the government debt. This was done only after the Senate, in a rare bi-partisan vote, voted down the same commission as being counter-productive to the good of the country. They further explained that taking steps to curtail spending and balance the budget was within their responsibility and that a third party entity was not needed. Give me a break!!!!
The projected national debt for this fiscal year is projected to reach $9.3T (that's "T" for trillion) and is projected to total almost $14 trillion by 2015 which will equal 72.9 percent of the gross domestic product, the measure of all the nation's goods and services produced annually.
Reading on we find that the current post-collapse housing industry strategy is looking bleak, to say the least. Both the government and the banks were ill prepared to implement the program and as a consequence hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes will hit the market this year, further depressing prices even more. Depressed prices effect tax base values that almost every state relies on for revenue. Simple formula here: lower values equal less revenue equals higher taxes to provide the glut of services we have become accustomed to.
So just where am I going with this you might ask. Good point so I will wrap up by offering for your consideration the following. While Tucson was able to ply $64M from the federal coffers, Phoenix was rejected in their quest for $122M which was what they were seeking to speed up construction of its Sky Harbor people mover that would connect the airport terminals. Think about it for a moment, which of the two projects would actually benefit their respective communities the most? The one that transports millions of airline passengers each year or the one that transports the mostly poverty level constituents from Tucson's west side barrio to tax payer subsidized healthcare at UMC? No, I am not advocating them getting the monies as opposed to Tucson, just pointing out the dichotomy that exists between government spending our money as opposed to us spending it. And let's not forget the on-going operation expense that needs to be funded.
The old adage that "if it's not worth paying for, it's not worth having" seems to fit the bill here. Why should we ask the rest of America to foot the bill for what some of us might want or maybe not want. Why do we continue to spend monies that we don't have, monies that we borrow from the Chinese?
We have to recognize that this is an election year and the political mentality seems to be that as we get closer to that date we need to let the constituents know that we can at least bring home the bacon, otherwise referred to as "pork barrel" politics. The City of Tucson has a population of approximately 550,000 and we see that the $64M equates to about $116 per head. Just as a point of interest we note that Arizona's illegal alien population has grown to 550,000. Think about that for a few moments.
Just food for thought. The current debt of $9,300,000,000,000 equates to $31,000 per citizen, man, woman and child. Employed or not. How do you like those apples?
Monday, February 15, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Arizona Senate approves higher sales tax for voters approval
I see in the morning paper that in an unusual bipartisan effort, the state Senate is moving ahead with an effort to raise the state sales tax by approximately 18%. Fortunately for us, they have to put it on a ballot and get us, the voters, to approve it. And yes, they say it is only for a 3 year period and it will go away after that. Right!!! We all know that is just theory because the reality of it is that once they have the revenue stream they never cut it off. They create bigger government and then it becomes "Murphy's law" and we all know how that goes. According to Wikipedia; Murphy's law is an adage or epigram that is typically stated as: "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong". So when everything goes wrong they will keep the tax in place to make up for it.
The Senate then goes on to say that "this sales tax increase is preferable to the alternative of cutting spending by $900 million a year". And to that, I say, who says? The housing bubble started this whole thing and as values sky rocketed the tax basis burgeoned. And with that each government entity, from the smallest cities to the biggest county grew disproportionately in size. Each department added layer on top of layer of redundancy. Every department head surmised that if they had more employees, their importance would be elevated. Give me a "few good men", in this case some private accounting people, and let me sit down with the department working stiffs and I can show you how to get back down to fighting weight. No, I didn't say department managers or heads, I said the worker bees because they can point out the waste faster than any manager will. For a manager or department head to identify waste it's like asking the fox to guard the chicken coup. But unfortunately, government will not assent to outside oversight so that is just a dream I have.
I read in the same morning paper that our state lawmakers are taking steps to block a new casino in Glendale by the Tohono O'odham tribe. That got me looking back to the sales tax article and I see a reference to the revenues the State receives from state-approved gambling. Not only will the new casino create "boo-koo" construction jobs, it will create new jobs for casino employees and service entities. The tribe also says they would pay their fair share of the already completed infrastructure which would reimburse the City of Glendale for what they have already placed as a tax burden on the taxpayers. I'll bet that the tribe would even consider a gratuitous sales tax to the city on top of the gaming tax they pay the State. Even if they don't pay the sales tax they will be a premium draw to the area which will benefit from their clientele.
Let me get back to why am I opposed to raising the state sales tax? Reason number one, and the most obvious from my perspective, is that raising the sales tax impacts the poor and impoverished by a disproportionate amount. The most recent statistics rank Arizona's poverty rate as the 13th highest in the nation at 14.7% at year ending 2008. Beyond that one only has to look at what has happened over the past year to reach the conclusion that the rate has gone higher. These people can barely afford the bare essentials as it is, and to thrust an additional tax burden on them is unrealistic. And my second reason Madame Governor and members of the Senate and House, is that you need to find a different solution. I hear you when you say that you have cut everything to the bare bones, but I don't believe you. Turn the clock back a few years and see how you were able to get by then. And of course, you can adjust for any population increase, but only for those mandatory items that are necessary for their safety. Forget the entitlements.
The Senate then goes on to say that "this sales tax increase is preferable to the alternative of cutting spending by $900 million a year". And to that, I say, who says? The housing bubble started this whole thing and as values sky rocketed the tax basis burgeoned. And with that each government entity, from the smallest cities to the biggest county grew disproportionately in size. Each department added layer on top of layer of redundancy. Every department head surmised that if they had more employees, their importance would be elevated. Give me a "few good men", in this case some private accounting people, and let me sit down with the department working stiffs and I can show you how to get back down to fighting weight. No, I didn't say department managers or heads, I said the worker bees because they can point out the waste faster than any manager will. For a manager or department head to identify waste it's like asking the fox to guard the chicken coup. But unfortunately, government will not assent to outside oversight so that is just a dream I have.
I read in the same morning paper that our state lawmakers are taking steps to block a new casino in Glendale by the Tohono O'odham tribe. That got me looking back to the sales tax article and I see a reference to the revenues the State receives from state-approved gambling. Not only will the new casino create "boo-koo" construction jobs, it will create new jobs for casino employees and service entities. The tribe also says they would pay their fair share of the already completed infrastructure which would reimburse the City of Glendale for what they have already placed as a tax burden on the taxpayers. I'll bet that the tribe would even consider a gratuitous sales tax to the city on top of the gaming tax they pay the State. Even if they don't pay the sales tax they will be a premium draw to the area which will benefit from their clientele.
Let me get back to why am I opposed to raising the state sales tax? Reason number one, and the most obvious from my perspective, is that raising the sales tax impacts the poor and impoverished by a disproportionate amount. The most recent statistics rank Arizona's poverty rate as the 13th highest in the nation at 14.7% at year ending 2008. Beyond that one only has to look at what has happened over the past year to reach the conclusion that the rate has gone higher. These people can barely afford the bare essentials as it is, and to thrust an additional tax burden on them is unrealistic. And my second reason Madame Governor and members of the Senate and House, is that you need to find a different solution. I hear you when you say that you have cut everything to the bare bones, but I don't believe you. Turn the clock back a few years and see how you were able to get by then. And of course, you can adjust for any population increase, but only for those mandatory items that are necessary for their safety. Forget the entitlements.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Arizona Republican governor, Jan Brewer, to steal voter approved funds
All of the voters, Republican, Democrat or Independent need to stand up and "scream at the top of your lungs" that "enough is enough." In mid-January the Arizona Governor’s office released a budget plan that proposes to permanently eliminate the department’s voter-approved Heritage Fund and redirect all Arizona State Lottery revenue to the state’s general fund. That proposal has been sent for consideration by the Legislature. I urge all Arizona voters who voted to enact this legislation in 1990 to contact your district representative and tell them that you are opposed to this piracy of funds. Visit the sites included here and get up to speed.
http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/heritage_program.shtml
You can look up your district rep at the following site:
http://www.azleg.gov/alisStaticPages/HowToContactMember.asp
http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/heritage_program.shtml
You can look up your district rep at the following site:
http://www.azleg.gov/alisStaticPages/HowToContactMember.asp
Monday, February 1, 2010
Obama's $1.6 trillion budget
The party's over, or maybe just beginning. Wake up America, before it is too late and we are down the drain. Obamasan has unveiled his budget for $1.6 trillion for the current fiscal year, which in his words is supposed to pull the country out of the Great Recession. In all my life I have been taught that the way to keep your head above financial disaster was to control your spending. But telling that to Obamasan and the Democratic controlled Congress is like pouring gasoline on a fire. This new budget, according to the administration, would increase taxes on the wealthy and impose a spending freeze on many government programs. And he just wants to raise their taxes???? Hell, raising them would be like an ant peeing on a forest fire. Taxing the wealthy looks to be a "day late and a dollar short" according to Forbes magazine which reports that the annual tally of the nation's richest people, has declined, falling $300 billion in the past 12 months from $1.57 trillion to $1.27 trillion.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/30/forbes-400-gates-buffett-wealth-rich-list-09_land.html
What that means folks, is, that if we confiscated all of the wealth of America's richest we still would not be able to cover Obamasan's budget. So just how does he figure raising their taxes is going to help if their total worth is less than his budget?. He also says that they will impose a spending freeze on many government programs. Have you ever in your entire lifetime seen the federal government curtail spending? Give us a break.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/184982-government-spending-freeze-i-m-confused
Or maybe we can just have Obamasan give up his party time in the White House. According to "the Globe", one of those delicious tabloid type magazines, Obamasan and the first lady have hosted a party in the White House every three days at a $10 million dollar taxpayer expense.
http://www.globemagazine.com/
All kidding aside, isn't it time we just said "enough is enough"? And it shouldn't matter whether you are a Republican, Democrat or Independent. This isn't about politics any longer, this is about fiscal responsibilty. This is about sustaining America and our way of life and we can't let let these irresponsible jerks take it away from us.
Contact your Congress person and tell them that "enough is enough"
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/30/forbes-400-gates-buffett-wealth-rich-list-09_land.html
What that means folks, is, that if we confiscated all of the wealth of America's richest we still would not be able to cover Obamasan's budget. So just how does he figure raising their taxes is going to help if their total worth is less than his budget?. He also says that they will impose a spending freeze on many government programs. Have you ever in your entire lifetime seen the federal government curtail spending? Give us a break.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/184982-government-spending-freeze-i-m-confused
Or maybe we can just have Obamasan give up his party time in the White House. According to "the Globe", one of those delicious tabloid type magazines, Obamasan and the first lady have hosted a party in the White House every three days at a $10 million dollar taxpayer expense.
http://www.globemagazine.com/
All kidding aside, isn't it time we just said "enough is enough"? And it shouldn't matter whether you are a Republican, Democrat or Independent. This isn't about politics any longer, this is about fiscal responsibilty. This is about sustaining America and our way of life and we can't let let these irresponsible jerks take it away from us.
Contact your Congress person and tell them that "enough is enough"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)