I had known for a long time that it was a possibility, but I also knew my daughter and knew that the information would only cause anxiety and change nothing.
And then a few days ago she came home distraught. Her complaint - her mother informed her that the University of California was cutting enrollment for freshman. I had asked her mother not to tell her because I knew what the results would be - stress, stress, stress and then anxiety, anxiety, anxiety and for a young woman who was born stressed (ADHD), it was not a good idea.
She has already been accepted to UC Riverside, San Diego State and Cal Poly, but her dream is to go to Santa Barbara. When her friends would ask her where she would go do if she didn't get into UCSB, her answer was, "I'm not thinking about that." She has been planning this since her sophomore year when she decided that she would major in zoology. We have visited the campus several times since she decided that was where she wanted to go. She says that she just feels very comfortable when she is there. We have been saving, saving, saving and she has been planning, planning, planning. She has even worked out exactly how much it was going to cost and she has been keeping track of how much we have saved. She has the grades, the test scores and the desire. This is no idle wish.
So, why would anyone care about my daughter's dream to go to UCSB? Many students would be glad to be able to go anywhere. Well, the state of California had already cut enrollment to California State Universities and now they were cutting enrollment by 2300 to the University of California system. She is just one of many who may be denied admission. There is also no guarantee that her acceptance won't be rescinded.
So while on Meet the Press (Sunday January 18, 2009) Rahm Emanuel reminds David Gregory of the need for giving access to a college education to more students.
Well, I'm--David, I'm surprised that you would say that about college education, in this sense: you wouldn't be here and I wouldn't be here if a college education was not provided to us. And the Pell Grants, one of the things that--the largest one you pointed to, helps people go to college. Now, is more--is it--important as it is to build our roads and bridges, our electric grid, our new health care IT so we can control costs, the ability to provide people the, the opportunity to go to college in a era where you earned what you learn is human capital investment. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
And then he reiterates the need to invest in critical areas:
For too long critical investments in this country, both physical and human, have been denied. And the things that were pointed there, I do believe investing in our basic science research is good economic competitiveness and does create jobs today and lays the foundation for competitiveness. Investing in people, in their college education in a era where you're competing against people in China, India, money well spent. And those are critical areas. We hope everybody will go through it, identify things, will--as the president said, "I welcome ideas, but what I will not challenge is the ability to produce three and a half million jobs." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
At a time when the President is calling for investing in people by investing in their education, California decides that now is the time to cut enrollment, to refuse to invest in human capital, our greatest resource, and to threaten the future competitiveness of the nation. The result will be a nation even worse prepared to compete in a world that demands a more educated population.
Simply put - this is the most insane violation of the most basic economic principle. This is absolutely the wrong time to be cutting back on government spending especially spending on education. So when we need to educate more students so that in the future they can contribute more to sciences, and the arts, and thus to the economic health of the country, we cut back on education and increase the cost for those lucky enough to get in. The single area where people can lift themselves up out of poverty is made less affordable and more restrictive. This is also happening at a time when scholarships and loans are drying up. The picture is dismal. The dream is not just being deferred, it is being decimated.
This is one part of an even bigger problem. Denying the students entrance into the colleges and universities is just another symptom of an action that is streaking across this country. The action - cutbacks, especially government cutbacks.
When people are losing jobs and spending and purchasing power is diminishing, it is counterproductive, cruel, and clearly insane to put more people out of work. It only hampers the economic recovery more. More unemployed people just puts more stress on government funds because now there will be more people getting government unemployment, food subsidies and medicaid assistance. Hospitals will have to absorb more costs because people can't afford to pay their bills and then costs rise again and more hospital personnel are let go. Less money goes into retirement funds that invest in the financial sector. Etc. Etc. Etc. The spiral will quickly become uncontrollable.
The private sector cannot make money when no one is buying their goods and services. To survive they must cut back and that means a loss of jobs and huge losses for small businesses that will be forced out of business. The only avenue that is left to the U.S. economy is government spending. All government agencies, federal, state and local, should be looking to hire more people in all areas - especially areas that provide services and monitor adherence to regulations. Educational institutions should be trying to expand enrollment. Regulation and education is a better use of government funds money than shoving it into the pockets of the already richly employed financial sector.
Is there a way out? Absolutely! And it is an easy way out, but it is unpopular with a certain segment of the population. Raise taxes on the wealthy. They are the only ones who can afford it, and they are the only ones with enough money to make a dent. (See my post on Toasters, the Titanic, and Cow Tipping: They Make More Sense than Derivatives ) It's time for them to help. But how to make that happen is the issue. It is time to find out if wealthy people have a better nature and then to appeal to it. While some of us resent the degree of avarice and opulence that many wealthy people display, a confrontational approach has failed to excite congress and other government agencies to act. (It would also be nice to see members of congress, especially the wealthy ones, take a pay cut.) The President, governors, congress members should publicly appeal to them to not just accept an income tax increase but to encourage the government and their friends to immediately implement it. Appealing to us to serve our country by giving our time is fine, but it doesn't do much to help the economy. We need a source of income and there is a readily available one, and I think that many of them would respond. They're not bad people, just rich. We should also appeal to Americans to buy government bonds, notes, etc. It is better that we own our own debt.
California's crisis could be averted by raising taxes on the wealthiest residents with little or no ill effect on its economy. Of course, to raise income taxes in California, two thirds of the legislature must pass it, and then the terminator must sign. That's unlikely to happen unless their better, more generous nature is revived. It is time for all of those Christian protestations of generosity to find the light and give. It is time for the "thousand points of light" to come up with some cash and not just slogans. It's amazing how the drum beat of patriotism has become so loud at the same time that the willingness to financially support it has become so quiet.
So, I will have a talk with my daughter when the time is right, and I will tell her once again about her grandmother who desperately wanted to go to college. Luckily she lived in California. She went to Pasadena City College for two years, and then with a bus ticket and five dollars, she set off for Berkley. She stayed at the "Y" until she found a job. She worked at a low paying job and still went to one of the finest universities in the world. She had to borrow books from friends because she could not afford them. She graduated with honors. And then she could only get a job as a secretary. She joined the Army during WWII and still could only get a job as a secretary until - she became a teacher, a great teacher. She taught elementary and special education until she was seventy-five. She gave a lot of herself to her students and finds enough money to give to charities and to help others receive an education. She'll be ninety next month and will be a reminder to my daughter of compassion and perseverance.
I will also tell my daughter that during a more generous era with a less selfish wealthy population that my mother didn't have to pay tuition. I will also tell her that I went to junior college first and then to a four year college and then graduate school. I will also tell her that other than room and food and books the only thing that I had to pay for my undergraduate education was student body fees of $58 a semester. But that was in a more generous era and a more civic minded era. They were the times of the working generations, not the wealthy, recreation generations.
I can hear my daughter singing. It's her form of meditation. I love to hear her voice. I think I'll go put my ear to her door.