The financial situation of higher education in the state of Colorado appears to be one of the worst in the country. This is even easier to believe if you live and attend school in the state. However, there are some answers to the state’s money woes for education. It is simply a question as to whether or not voters and legislators choose to take advantage of the options put in front of them.
The first option is the well-publicized Proposition 103. Through this measure, income and sales tax would be raised miniscule amounts. However, over the next five years an additional $3.9 billion would be added to the general education fund for the state of Colorado. After this five year period tax rates would return to current levels.
The main benefit with Proposition 103 is that it allows a five-year period for legislators, citizens, and education administrators to work on a long-term solution that addresses the dire funding situation that education is experiencing. One of the big arguments is that tax rates will be increased in an economic time in which individuals are already struggling. However, tax rates are actually being returned to higher rates that were in place in the late 1980’s and 1990’s, through which the state and its citizens prospered. The jobs that vanished with the start of this recession are not the jobs that will return when the economy recovers. New jobs that require specific skills and advanced training will surface. Additional money for education will ensure that the state of Colorado is able to produce individuals that are qualified to accept these jobs.
A second option to increase funding was introduced in mid-October by Colorado’s Third District Congressman Scott Tipton. The bill, The Education and Energy Act of 2011, would dedicate 33 percent of revenues produced by new oil and gas drilling to fund education. States that choose to develop domestic mineral resources on federal lands would be the beneficiaries of this bill. Additionally, 17 percent of new revenues from energy development would be distributed to all states.
This bill could bring about positive change on various levels. First, it includes the obvious benefits of applying revenues directly to an education fund. Just as importantly, the bill comes about in a time when we are desperately attempting to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and increase our efforts to find energy solutions at home. This bill definitely addresses each of these issues.
Each of the scenarios listed above describe attempts to positively affect the higher education funding crisis. While Proposition 103 and The Education and Energy Act of 2011 are not perfect or long term solutions to our problems, they do offer immediate funds that would buy time to work toward a more permanent resolution. I will definitely support both proposals, as it is necessary to properly fund education to continue to increase education levels in this state and country. The positives with either proposal outweigh possible negatives.
Both of these opportunities seem to be double-edged swords. Proposition 103 returns tax rates to what they were when the economy was booming -- right before it tanked in 1987 (think Black Monday, October 19, 1987, when the New York stock exchange dropped 22.6% in one day). Today's economy is anything but booming, therefore it is going to be a hard sell to ask people to voluntarily raise taxes on everything from toilet paper to automobiles. Proposition 103 is, unfortunately, just another 5-year band-aid to follow in the footsteps of Amendment 23 and Referendum C. That said, I can not imagine what life in higher education would be today if Referendum C had not passed. The extra funds that were available for three of the five years in which it was in effect probably saved thousands of jobs in the higher education sector in Colorado.
ReplyDeleteAs for the oil and gas industry funding education, that could be viewed in two ways. First, those industries employ many highly educated engineers, scientists, and others so it is in the best interest of their industry to help develop those future employees. On the other side of the argument, it seems a bit like bribing the State of Colorado in return for possibly damaging and/or permanently contaminating wide swaths of land to access fuel that we should be trying to replace instead. It is like we are being asked to choose: Which is more important? Your education or your environment?
Both the blog and comment raise good questions and thoughts. But I have to agree with Robyn and the idea of a double-edged sword. Prop 103 is simply a band-aid for 5 years and I have to ask what if legislators do not figure something out in those 5 years. I am challenged by wanting to support education (what I believe in) and life costing more and more and as a citizen using the same pay scale from when the economy was booming.
ReplyDeleteIt is a hard time and we are asking to do more with less how does a band - aid help us? I think we need to give serious thought systemic changes and move past band-aids that give us the options of picking the lesser of two evils - so to speak.
We do need systemic change, and we also need to get out of this hole. In the last 5 months (I have a 5 month old baby), I've thought a lot more about the long term future of our economic state. My parents' generation did a nice job of taking what they want now, and charging the future. I'd like for us to do the opposite. Let's increase taxes and make budget cuts now (I agree, it's no fun) so that the next generation can inherit a balanced budget.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your straightforward explanation of prop 103. I've heard a lot about it from the K-12 lens (my husband is a teacher and the CEA is sending marketing materials to our house like nothing I've ever seen...). They have a cool little calculator on their website (http://voteyeson103.com/what-will-proposition-103-cost-you) that shows you aproxx. how much additional tax you'll pay if 103 passes. I was already in support of 103, but once I plugged in my salary and saw how little it really would cost me if Prop 103 passes, it was a no brainer. Granted, I realize that I approach any tax increase from a relative place of privilege, in that the amount raised on my taxes won't break me.
ReplyDeleteSure- an immediate long-term solution would be ideal, but given that we don't have anything of the sort on the table, Prop 103 is an important measure in the interim.
Jill, thank you for your post. I had really hoped that prop 103 would pass, but the reports
ReplyDeleteare in and it has failed. It blows my mind that tax payers (again we are supposed to be one of the most educated states in the country) failed to pass proposition 103. Was it the lack of democrat and liberal voters or are Coloradans really not willing to increase their tax contribution in order to better fund higher education and K-12?
Even in Boulder, where liberal are far more prevalent, prop 103 was only ahead (the last I looked) by 1800 or so votes. It is amazing that as of 9:00 PM, 11/01/11, almost 65% of the voters are against the small increase.
What is next for the future of higher education and K-12 in Colorado? It was just announced today that the governor is calling for a 29.1 million dollar cut to higher education. Does that equal another tuition increase for Colorado students? My guess, it would be yes.