Kansas budget means $3.3M less in state funding for Wichita State

[CBB_Fan]

Link

Not sure how anyone in the Wichita area could approve this. Yeah, it might be able to lower taxes some, but the colleges will just have to raise their tuition prices. Cuts will be even worse at other schools. We'll be cutting payroll by nearly $1 million next year.

What do you guys think? Do you think this will impact the athletic department or disrupt plans to expand the student body?

[WuDrWu]

No impact on the Athletic Department.

Trust me, there's 3.3M in non-productive professorial fat that be trimmed, easily, at any University.

[CBB_Fan]

No impact on the Athletic Department.

Trust me, there's 3.3M in non-productive professorial fat that be trimmed, easily, at any University.

And we should all know that those cuts won't easily be made. Instead, they'll fire some professors and raise tuition. Besides which, I have a hard time being okay with this type of large-scale cuts to our public education system. In general taxpayers pay the same amount or even more for a worse product. There are a lot of things that could be more easily cut.

[DUShock]

It won't be professor's getting the ax but rather secretaries and other non-classified employees.

[WSUwatcher]

And we should all know that those cuts won't easily be made. Instead, they'll fire some professors and raise tuition. Besides which, I have a hard time being okay with this type of large-scale cuts to our public education system. In general taxpayers pay the same amount or even more for a worse product. There are a lot of things that could be more easily cut.

You're missing the point, CBB. Listen to Doc -- less money, especially at the margins like a $3.3 million hit to WSU's budget -- doesn't necessarily equal a worse product, just a more economical one. Real businesses that get their money from customers, not partly or largely from taxpayers, do this kind of thing all the time. Universities just aren't used to doing it.

Besides, is it even really less money? I'd have to look it up: is Kansas on a zero-based budget, or does the state use a current baseline model like they do in Washington so the vote buyers who get elected can scream loudly about "Draconian cuts" when actually all that's happening is that their budgets aren't growing as fast as was originally planned?

[CBB_Fan]

You're missing the point, CBB. Listen to Doc -- less money, especially at the margins like a $3.3 million hit to WSU's budget -- doesn't necessarily equal a worse product, just a more economical one. Real businesses that get their money from customers, not partly or largely from taxpayers, do this kind of thing all the time. Universities just aren't used to doing it.

Besides, is it even really less money? I'd have to look it up: is Kansas on a zero-based budget, or does the state use a current baseline model like they do in Washington so the vote buyers who get elected can scream loudly about "Draconian cuts" when actually all that's happening is that their budgets aren't growing as fast as was originally planned?

$3.3 million is a lot of money for any university, and is certainly enough to affect the quality of the education. Besides which, the entire premise of cutting education is flawed, and is the main reason I detest Brownback as a governor. I understand wanting to have a fiscally responsible education system, but this will not cut down on waste. It will simply mean that the university will make the quickest and easiest cuts and raise money in the quickest and easiest ways, and that means raising tuition and laying off staff.

None of this helps the tax-payer, because it simply redistributes the burden from taxes to tuition. The money for the "waste" projects still gets spent, it just gets redistributed onto the students and their parents instead of the entire population. That is the problem with these cuts. They do little to make the programs more efficient by cutting waste and increases the burden of economic burden of college.

Besides which, there are plenty of government programs that are more wasteful than public education.

[wu_shizzle]

$3.3 million is a lot of money for any university, and is certainly enough to affect the quality of the education. Besides which, the entire premise of cutting education is flawed, and is the main reason I detest Brownback as a governor. I understand wanting to have a fiscally responsible education system, but this will not cut down on waste. It will simply mean that the university will make the quickest and easiest cuts and raise money in the quickest and easiest ways, and that means raising tuition and laying off staff.

None of this helps the tax-payer, because it simply redistributes the burden from taxes to tuition. The money for the "waste" projects still gets spent, it just gets redistributed onto the students and their parents instead of the entire population. That is the problem with these cuts. They do little to make the programs more efficient by cutting waste and increases the burden of economic burden of college.

Besides which, there are plenty of government programs that are more wasteful than public education.

Go watch "The Cartel" http://www.thecartelmovie.com/ and tell me if you still believe all that propaganda.

[CBB_Fan]

Go watch "The Cartel" http://www.thecartelmovie.com/ and tell me if you still believe all that propaganda.

I did not say that schools and universities don't waste any money. I said this does nothing to stop that waste. Simply cutting funds does not get rid of waste or corruption, nor does it stop the source of that waste. It just redistributes the cost to the students and their parents instead of all the taxpayers. That waste is generally something that is, almost by definition hard to cut, but it is easy to layoff employees and raise tuition.

[wu_shizzle]

I did not say that schools and universities don't waste any money. I said this does nothing to stop that waste. Simply cutting funds does not get rid of waste or corruption, nor does it stop the source of that waste. It just redistributes the cost to the students and their parents instead of all the taxpayers. That waste is generally something that is, almost by definition hard to cut, but it is easy to layoff employees and raise tuition.

So then the people in charge are terrible managers? Then tell me why should we give them more money.

[CBB_Fan]

So then the people in charge are terrible managers? Then tell me why should we give them more money.

Not necessarily. But simple budget cuts are not an answer, for the reasons I have already stated.

[wu_shizzle]

Not necessarily. But simple budget cuts are not an answer, for the reasons I have already stated.

What's the difference between a "simple" budget cut and a "nuanced" or "complex" budget cut?

[shox1989]

No impact on the Athletic Department.

Trust me, there's 3.3M in non-productive professorial fat that be trimmed, easily, at any University.

I agree with Doc on this one. I am not really concerned about the cuts that the universities took. I think they can handle them. I do have some concerns about the cuts to the Dept. of Corrections and cuts to services for DD kids.

The Dept. of Corrections is saying that they will have to lay off a bunch of parole officers. Having a bunch of ex-cons in the area with less supervision does concern me.

[ABC]

Not necessarily. But simple budget cuts are not an answer, for the reasons I have already stated.

What are your ideas to root out waste in higher ed?

It is long past the time that higher ed had the microscope that it starting to get. Tuition goes up not b/c of a lack of state funding in my view, but b/c the inefficiencies and lack of accountability are increasing.

[GoShockers89]

.

[The Coach]

Efficiency isn't the problem - if that's the goal.

If there's anyone out there who truly believes that Brownback, from his office at 37th and Oliver in Wichita, and his minions have anything other in mind than eliminating taxes for the rich in Kansas, you're not paying attention.

These destructive tax cuts, which will destroy the Kansas economy and hamper our ability to compete with our peer states, are little more than an escalation of the redistribution of wealth upward in Kansas. There will be a price to paid by the GOP at the polls in 2014. In Kansas, remarkable as that may be.