Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blindsided by a Devastating Veto, Alaska University System Pleads for Lifeline

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 96 posts

Re: Blindsided by a Devastating Veto, Alaska University System Pleads for Lifeline

#31

Post by bunnyrooroo »

Hello,

I actually live in Alaska. I'm quite concerned about how the NY Times portrayed this.

While I don't agree with all of the cuts to the University or the budget as a whole, the way this is being portrayed is interesting.

If veto holds, and the cuts to the University take effect, Alaska will still spend 3 times as much per student than the average state. Yes, you heard that correct, Alaska will still contribute 3 times as much in state funding, per student, to their college students than the average state in the lower 48. Going to college for in state residents is one of the lowest tuition rates in the nation for a state school.

Secondly, it didn't get mentioned that Alaska has one University system. There are an amazing amount of redundancies in the system that could eliminated for greater efficiencies and savings.

Lastly, it rarely gets mentioned that the UA system has a huge amount of administrative overhead costs. I attended the UA system and there always seems to be quadruple the administrative staff to actually teaching/research going on.

The last thing I would say is that the State legislatures did a very poor job of overspending while oil prices were good and then when the price of oil dropped, boom!, we had a deficit.

Better fiscal restraint and spending prior to the price of oil dropping would have saved a lot of his heartache.

Not to mention that Alaska is dependent on oil for its current existence and once fossil fuel use is eliminated, this state will lose 75% of its residents.

Just my two cents.

Re: Blindsided by a Devastating Veto, Alaska University System Pleads for Lifeline

#32

Post by RaptorJ »

fwip wrote: post #21
agarden wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You talk as if this were an unforeseen consequence of the way our legislature is set up. It is not. Giving the people who live in sparsely populated areas an equal voice with those who live in densely populated areas is the whole point of the Senate. It was designed to work this way and it is doing exactly what it was meant to do.

Sure, but it's a bad design.

Well its a great design if your goal is to make sure agrarian slave-state get to keep their slaves. Less so in a country with ideologically coherent (as opposed to regional) parties that control all branches of govt.

Re: Blindsided by a Devastating Veto, Alaska University System Pleads for Lifeline

#33

Post by toss1 »

agarden wrote: post #15
hedora wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On problem with saying “that red state asked for it; let them see how they like it when their kids are starving on the streets (since they will also vote against welfare)” is that the US counts votes in a way that means, as more people flee your conservative hell-hole to find work, the remaining people’s votes count more and more. Demographic projections say that the senate will be controlled by Make no mistake about…

You talk as if this were an unforeseen consequence of the way our legislature is set up. It is not. Giving the people who live in sparsely populated areas an equal voice with those who live in densely populated areas is the whole point of the Senate. It was designed to work this way and it is doing exactly what it was meant to do.

Clearly this is the result, and I've heard this argument before, yet I haven't seen any solid references that this was an explicit design choice by the founders to balance interests of sparse/rural states against dense/urban states.

Can anyone point to any particular references in founders' documents or authoritative historians showing how this was designed as a specific feature and not a side-effect, e.g., of simply trying to treat states equally at a time when they may not have been as dissimilar (e.g., seems that having fewer people in the entire state of WY than in a single borough of NYC is far more imbalanced than the 1780s)?

Re: Blindsided by a Devastating Veto, Alaska University System Pleads for Lifeline

#34

Post by mooon »

agarden wrote: post #15
hedora wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On problem with saying “that red state asked for it; let them see how they like it when their kids are starving on the streets (since they will also vote against welfare)” is that the US counts votes in a way that means, as more people flee your conservative hell-hole to find work, the remaining people’s votes count more and more. Demographic projections say that the senate will be controlled by Make no mistake about…

You talk as if this were an unforeseen consequence of the way our legislature is set up. It is not. Giving the people who live in sparsely populated areas an equal voice with those who live in densely populated areas is the whole point of the Senate. It was designed to work this way and it is doing exactly what it was meant to do.

Your comments contain truth but no wisdom. "Works as originally designed" is not the same as achieving either the desired goals (either for the past or for today).

But you know that. You have a history of being an intellectually dishonest little troll. So just fuck off.

Re: Blindsided by a Devastating Veto, Alaska University System Pleads for Lifeline

#35

Post by bencpeters »

jupiter90000 wrote: post #29
hedora wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On problem with saying “that red state asked for it; let them see how they like it when their kids are starving on the streets (since they will also vote against welfare)” is that the US counts votes in a way that means, as more people flee your conservative hell-hole to find work, the remaining people’s votes count more and more. Demographic projections say that the senate will be controlled by Make no mistake about…

The ironic thing here is the presumedly Republican majority (of voters) voting for a guy promising what amounts to a monetary handout. But are typically vehemently opposed to government handouts?

I feel like this irony is at the core of the modern Republican party (witness the fact that more ideologically consistent libertarian types have basically found themselves ignored in the post-Trump era).

The cynical way of looking at this (and IMO supported by the popularity of Trump's rhetoric) is that most on-the-ground Republicans aren't actually opposed to government handouts, they're just worried that government handouts are mostly going to the wrong people - groups outside of their circle of empathy. Unfortunately, this often seems to be largely defined by race...

Re: Blindsided by a Devastating Veto, Alaska University System Pleads for Lifeline

#36

Post by save_ferris »

pbreit wrote: post #27

Unpopular opinion: there's probably a lot of fat to be cut and this is possibly the only way to do it. Prediction: The most customer-unfriendly trimming will come first.

Cutting the budget by 41% just isn't responsible, no matter how you slice it.

The governor is explicitly making this cut in order to increase the oil revenue dividend for residents to $3K per year.

Re: Blindsided by a Devastating Veto, Alaska University System Pleads for Lifeline

#37

Post by rayiner »

pbreit wrote: post #27

Unpopular opinion: there's probably a lot of fat to be cut and this is possibly the only way to do it. Prediction: The most customer-unfriendly trimming will come first.

There is a lot of fat to cut. The US spends almost twice as much per student on tertiary education per student, and about 2.6% of GDP in tertiary education, compared to the OECD average of 1.5%.

Not to mention that tertiary education funding is regressive. It tends to help those who are already relatively well off.

Re: Blindsided by a Devastating Veto, Alaska University System Pleads for Lifeline

#38

Post by uptown »

pbreit wrote: post #27

Unpopular opinion: there's probably a lot of fat to be cut and this is possibly the only way to do it. Prediction: The most customer-unfriendly trimming will come first.

"Unpopular opinion: there's probably a lot of fat to be cut and this is possibly the only way to do it."

What makes that an opinion? Seems like conjecture more than anything.

Re: Blindsided by a Devastating Veto, Alaska University System Pleads for Lifeline

#39

Post by bunnyrooroo »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #18
agarden wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You talk as if this were an unforeseen consequence of the way our legislature is set up. It is not. Giving the people who live in sparsely populated areas an equal voice with those who live in densely populated areas is the whole point of the Senate. It was designed to work this way and it is doing exactly what it was meant to do.

Ironically enough, rural areas in Alaska vote blue and its the urban areas that vote red. So in this case it’s the urban area majority imposing their will on the less dense areas.

You realize that 90% of the population essentially lives in three towns in Alaska right?

Ha! Imposing their will?

Re: Blindsided by a Devastating Veto, Alaska University System Pleads for Lifeline

#40

Post by mdorazio »

peteradio wrote: post #19
agarden wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You talk as if this were an unforeseen consequence of the way our legislature is set up. It is not. Giving the people who live in sparsely populated areas an equal voice with those who live in densely populated areas is the whole point of the Senate. It was designed to work this way and it is doing exactly what it was meant to do.

I don't think the disparity was expected and doubt the founders would conclude that sparsely populated states with very little economy should lead an entire branch. This is certainly not working.

Had to look up the stats on this. Around the time the constitution was written, about 5% of the US population lived in cities. It's over 80% today. I think the intent of having the Senate represent the states equally regardless of population was a good one, but the massive shift in demographics over the last 200 years probably merits a different approach.

I don't think going strictly by population density is the best approach either, though - that's a good way to completely alienate millions of Americans. Remember that the two branches of Congress were setup like this to force urban and rural communities to work together and compromise. The problem now is that tribalism has become so rampant on both sides that compromise no longer really happens.

Post reply on HN