Valley View vs. Greenville
Cars and Parts Springfield Swap Meet
Carroll Commencement
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2011 > May > 29
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Editorial: Tuition hikes can have tax-like effects
It comes as no surprise to anybody that Ohio’s public colleges are talking about tuition increases. With the state budget under duress and the governor refusing tax increases, this had to happen.
School leaders at Wright State University are looking for a 3.5- percent increase, the limit proposed by the state. That would bring tuition to just over $8,000. Grad students and medical students would see increases of 4.5 percent and 5 percent, respectively, and there’d be increases for housing, meals and fees.
Meanwhile, Sinclair Community College is joining with other community colleges in seeking an exception to the cap, because 3.5 percent would bring in much less per student for them than for higher-tuition places. They want a $200 cap.
Higher education Chancellor Jim Petro favors giving them that option. It makes sense given the problems the state budget is causing. (Sinclair faces the double whammy of being dependent on shrinking real estate taxes.)
But the community colleges need to be very careful about making use of the option, given that hard times have sent people who don’t have much money back to those schools.
As for the state universities, Ohio already ranks relatively high in tuition levels. It’s also low in state support and low in percentage of people with college degrees.
And Gov. John Kasich wants to do a trade-off: reduce regulations governing them while also reducing their dependence on state money. That clearly raises the prospect of still higher tuition.
Meanwhile he doesn’t want to raise taxes. Certainly that is understandable. But tuition increases can have an effect much like the effects of a tax. The governor is fond of noting that raising the price of anything is not the way to sell more of it.
And yet, shouldn’t Ohio be trying to sell more education? Might not the state be better off to spread the burden of paying for higher education, so that not so much of it falls on students and their families, so as to make college more affordable?
The administration of Gov. Ted Strickland saw high tuition rates as a problem for the state. Eric Fingerhut, then chancellor of higher ed, bragged that, because of a tuition freeze, tuition rates actually dropped on his watch, when adjusted for inflation.
Meanwhile, he said, enrollment in the state’s public schools grew by 15 percent. But even under Strickland, Ohio’s spending per student was below average.
The proposed Kasich budget for higher education is not as hard on the colleges as some school officials had feared. State appropriations would drop by 11.4 percent in the first year of the budget and rise by 3.5 percent in the second.
But this would be happening as federal stimulus money disappears. The stimulus money was designed to partially make up for the loss of revenue resulting from the collapse of the economy in 2008. Now there’s nothing to do that.
There’s no painless way to face up to the budgetary problems of higher ed, any more than the problems of K-12 education or local governments.
Moreover, the universities should be thankful that, unlike lower-level schools, they don’t have to ask permission from taxpayers. They can raise their rates and see how their customers respond.
But the state has an interest in encouraging people to go to college. Keeping down tuition is a way to do that, a way that needs more attention than it’s getting.
TweetGo to our facebook page and Like us to comment.
Martin Gottlieb: New York race worth look for Turner and his foes
New York’s 26th Congressional District has certain things in common with Ohio’s 3rd, represented by Mike Turner, R-Centerville.
The 26th is one that got national attention when a Democrat upset the norm last Tuesday, May 24, and won a congressional seat in a special election.
This led to the usual spinfest
about what caused the outcome. Democrats said it was a reaction to the new Republican plan to replace Medicare. Republicans said it was mainly about a third candidate messing things up, the weakness of the Republican candidate and other factors.
Give House Speaker John Boehner credit. He granted that the Medicare issue was a part, if only a “small part,” of the explanation for his party’s loss. It’s a pretty important concession, given that 40 Senate Republicans just joined nearly all their House colleagues in voting for the idea.
The easiest, best way to get a feel for the political nature of a congressional district is to look at its presidential votes. The 26th, which stretches from the suburbs of Buffalo to the suburbs of Rochester, went for John McCain in 2008 by six percentage points. It went for George W. Bush by 12 in 2004 and seven in 2000. Political analyst Charles Cook says that, all other things being equal, a Republican has a six-point advantage there.
The Cook number for Ohio’s 3rd District, held comfortably by Turner for almost a decade, is five points. The 3rd went for McCain by four points.
So we’re talking about two districts that are Republican, but not all that Republican. So if you’re Turner, you might take note of what happened in New York.
After all, Turner voted for the proposal to replace Medicare.
He also supports repealing the Barack Obama health care program. Of the three candidates in the New York race, the only one who opposed repealing the Obama plan was the winner.
So is Turner in trouble in 2012? Most likely not. There was no incumbent running in the 26th. And Turner has special political strengths, having been the Republican mayor of the Democratic core city in his district (Dayton), besides being very popular with Republicans.
Moreover, it’s hard to see who the Democrats might challenge him with.
And the district is likely to be more Republican after redistricting, a process in the works.
And yet, Democratic Party leaders — national, state and local — would be seriously remiss if they don’t look especially hard for a credible candidate to take him on. In the past, that’s hardly been worthwhile.
The politicians in both parties saw that. To beat an incumbent, you need to find a special problem for him, something that resonates not just with your own party, but with independents. An issue. A scandal. Old age. Something.
There’s hasn’t been anything. Turner’s been skillful, energetic, attendant to local interests, and successful at shaping a reputation of relative moderation.
But now?
Beside Medicare, there’s the General Motors thing.
Obama seems to have simply saved GM and Chrysler, that is, most of the American auto industry. The companies are profitable and paying back their debt.
(In fact, helped by Toyota’s blunders and the Japanese earthquake/tsunami, GM is once again the biggest auto company in the world in sales.)
Lots of people were ready to simply write GM off, to let it go bankrupt and let whatever happened happen, including to the company’s suppliers all around the Midwest. Turner opposed using federal bailout money on the auto companies.
And he went further. He was so appalled by what Obama did — taking majority ownership of GM for a while — that he put forth a constitutional amendment to prevent future presidents from doing anything like that.
What might be the political fallout from that. Well, obviously Dayton is no longer a GM town in the way it once was. But there are still some connections.
Another possible issue: Turner voted for a budget bill that was even more conservative than one promoted by Boehner and the Republican leadership. He supported Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Urbana, in his call for steeper cuts. Even Rep. Steve Austria, R-Beavercreek, about whom the word moderate isn’t used, opposed that.
Still, Turner may not be beatable in anything but a huge Democratic year nationally. And even if that kind of year happens, not just anybody would be able to beat him.
But the Democrats do have more going for them than ever.
TweetGo to our facebook page and Like us to comment.
