Foothill College facing 'unprecedented cuts' Schools & Kids, posted by Editor, Mountain View Voice Online, on Nov 18, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Community colleges have not been immune to the state's slashes to educational funding, said Foothill College president Judy Miner in a talk to Mountain View community leaders last week — these days, in fact, even tenured faculty face the ax.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, November 18, 2009, 12:56 PM
Posted by kanank, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Very tragic indeed. I hope the corporations in Mountain view will support this community in this time of real need to keep the community vibrant with all these programs. Hello Google, Are you listening?
Posted by CC, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Where did all the tax money go?
CA had already issed more bonds and raised more taxes!!
Lots of tax payer money get wasted because the state and city officials did not run the government efficiently. Many programs has little benifit to the public, and they should be stopped. Cut! Cut! Cut!....
Posted by Todd, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2009 at 5:15 pm
@Pat katey - The funds for recent improvements at Foothill from Measures C & E are only available for capital projects. Even if you consider the expenditures "irresponsible" (they weren't, and both had overwhelming voter support), those funds would not be available to close the budge gap due to state underfunding.
Posted by ted, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Nov 18, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Redistribute some of my tax dollars from government employees who receive an overly generous "guaranteed" pension and spend them on education of those who will support us in the future, such as those who need an education to compete in the "world economy".
Posted by Sad, a resident of another community, on Nov 19, 2009 at 6:43 am
Well, I agree with Pat Katey. You see the district spend so much money on certain improvements when peoples' jobs are on the line. I work for the City of Mountain View and I was told that my position and twelve others that provided services to the city will be cut in June. It is really annoying considering you see the city purchasing land, holding reserve funds, fully funding benefits when they don't need to (Yeah like everyone is going to use all the employees are going to use their vacation and sick leave all together...come on) and funding programs that only assist a handful of people.
I thought the way out to same this down turn was to the govenment including (Local) was to assist in keeping people employed. Where is FDR when you need him?
Posted by Steve Nelson, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Kanank & others,
Google may be listening - put certainly not paying any property taxes toward Foothill. As part of the Shoreline Community district - all the new Google developments only pay property taxes to the city. Contact former Foothill-De Anza district trustee Paul Fong (now Assemblyman) if you think that district should be legally phased out. He is the only politician who can do it!
Posted by Ben, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Bank robber robe bank because there is where the money is. California should tax the filthy rich more because there is where the money is. (The money supply is increasing so someone has accumulated most of the most by avoiding tax increases like the big SUV and Hummer vehicles.)
Posted by USA, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Nov 19, 2009 at 4:46 pm USA is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online
The CA state budget has doubled in the last 10 years.
Ten years ago, despite spending only half of what we do now, we had more affordable education in the community colleges and universities. The parks were not closed. The government workers did not have furlough days. The Bay Bridge could go more than a week without falling apart.
The situation we are in today is a direct result of unchecked spending. Every time some cause pops into the heads in Sacramento, they spend money on it. The problem is that every dollar you spend in one place is a dollar less that can be spent elsewhere.
So Liberals, was it worth? Was whatever you got worth the damage to Foothill and the 30% increase in fees at UCLA?
Posted by close reader, a resident of another community, on Nov 20, 2009 at 10:49 am
"So Liberals, was it worth [it]? Was whatever you got worth the damage to Foothill and the 30% increase in fees at UCLA?"
USA's attempt at goading "liberals" by blaming them for "unchecked spending" (he is presumably a "conservative") is childish and ignores the facts. This country was buried financially by a "conservative" president and Congress, both of whom made wild-eyed spending their unofficial motto. It took nearly a decade (and a global recession) for Americans to come to their senses and evict these wastrels.
Here in California, state legislators followed a pattern seen in nearly every state in the Union, regardless of what party was in charge: selfish, dim-witted and/or unqualified legislators thought the high times would never end, and spent accordingly. When the real estate bubble finally burst, dragging the rest of the economy with it, those states riding highest, esp. on real estate (such as Dem-led CA or GOP-led FLA) fell farthest.
For USA to now blame all of our ills (including the Bay Bridge??) on "liberals" tells us a lot more about his lack of character than it does about this state's problems.
Posted by eric, a resident of another community, on Nov 20, 2009 at 1:25 pm
USA, you know as well as I that you are using a whitewash description of why the state's spending has gone through the roof. Bond measures are a significant part of the problem, and those are hardly 'liberal' items. Bonds have historically recieved bipartisan support, and a sizable percentage have been construction-related.
A combination of population growth and CPI increases account for a good part of the growth-- 7.5% annual growth would lead to doubling in a decade. Modest inflation coupled with modest population growth cover pretty much all of the 75% increase (thats the real figure, with most of the increase in federal, not state funds) in spending (and, since I know your next data point, USA, undocumented population growth has likely exceeded the overall growth rate of the state, but its not nearly enough to account for an explosive growth in the state budjet. Its not nothing, but its far from the biggest issue)
Our schools are poorly funded compared to national averages, so theres no great liberal poondoggle at work there. I will concede that there may be some liberal spending in the category of health and human services, but I do not believe that spending growth there has outstripped the overall state budget. Next on the list is prison and public safety spending.
So, which "liberal" programs specific to California are the problem, USA?
As anyone that has been awake for the past few years knows, California revenue is very tightly tied to economic conditions of the moment, not so much population growth as you'd see in most states. So, revenue growth is not a straight line, but spending pretty much is. So, where does the problem lie?