When I became Governor again — 28 years after my last term ended in 1983 — California was facing a $26.6 billion budget deficit. It was the result of years of failing to match spending with tax revenues as budget gimmicks instead of honest budgeting became the norm.

In January, I proposed a budget that combined deep cuts with a temporary extension of some existing taxes. It was a balanced approach that would have finally closed our budget gap.

I asked the legislature to enact this plan and to allow you, the people of California, to vote on it.  I believed that you had the right to weigh in on this important choice: should we decently fund our schools or lower our taxes?  I don’t know how you would have voted, but we will never know.  The Republicans refused to provide the four votes needed to put this measure on the ballot.

Forced to act alone, Democrats went ahead and enacted massive cuts and the first honest on-time budget in a decade. But without the tax extensions, it was simply not possible to eliminate the state’s structural deficit.

The good news is that our financial condition is much better than a year ago. We cut the ongoing budget deficit by more than half, reduced the state’s workforce by about 5500 positions and cut unnecessary expenses like cell phones and state cars. We actually cut state expenses by over $10 billion.  Spending is now at levels not seen since the seventies.  Our state’s credit rating has moved from “negative” to “stable,” laying the foundation for job creation and a stronger economic recovery.

Unfortunately, the deep cuts we made came at a huge cost. Schools have been hurt and state funding for our universities has been reduced by 25%.  Support for the elderly and the disabled has fallen to where it was in 1983.  Our courts suffered debilitating reductions.

The stark truth is that without new tax revenues, we will have no other choice but to make deeper and more damaging cuts to schools, universities, public safety and our courts.

That is why I am filing today an initiative with the Attorney General’s office that would generate nearly $7 billion in dedicated funding to protect education and public safety. I am going directly to the voters because I don’t want to get bogged down in partisan gridlock as happened this year. The stakes are too high.

My proposal is straightforward and fair.  It proposes a temporary tax increase on the wealthy, a modest and temporary increase in the sales tax, and guarantees that the new revenues be spent only on education.  Here are the details:

• Millionaires and high-income earners will pay up to 2% higher income taxes for five years. No family making less than $500,000 a year will see their income taxes rise. In fact, fewer than 2% of California taxpayers will be affected by this increase.
• There will be a temporary ½ cent increase in the sales tax.  Even with this temporary increase, sales taxes will still be lower than what they were less than six months ago.
• This initiative dedicates funding only to education and public safety–not on other programs that we simply cannot afford.

This initiative will not solve all of our fiscal problems. But it will stop further cuts to education and public safety.

I ask you to join with me to get our state back on track.

Jerry Brown

I am proud of UC students who are speaking out with passion and conviction in support of public higher education across the state. I was moved last night by the sight of thousands of students who peacefully demonstrated in UC Berkeley’s Sproul Plaza, and by those who traveled to Sacramento to protest state disinvestment in our colleges and universities.

Free speech is in the DNA of the University of California, and public protest is an important part of our history. Free speech is often contentious, as is democracy. I want all of our students to know that I fully and unequivocally support their right to protest peacefully.

At UC Berkeley, a process is in place to review the violence of last week. Like Chancellor Birgeneau, I was distressed by what I saw, both as a parent and as president of the University of California. Whether there or elsewhere, I have absolute confidence that our chancellors will do what is right and necessary to ensure that the campuses where our students live and learn provide an environment for robust but peaceful discourse. The safety of our students must be protected, always.

In difficult times like these, it sometimes can be too easy to lose sight of the larger picture. UC students, faculty, staff and our regents all share a passion for the University and its role in shaping a better society. We also suffer together the strains caused by what has been a long pattern of state disinvestment in the University of California. And, as a result, we should stand together in common cause to do everything in our power to convince the state’s political leadership that higher education represents not a cost, but the most enlightened investment any state can make.

I also want to offer the heartfelt sympathy of the entire UC community to the family of Christopher Travis, the student who died of wounds suffered yesterday at the Haas Business School in a shooting incident unrelated to the Sproul Plaza activities. It is an absolutely tragic situation for all involved, for Mr. Travis, the students who were placed in jeopardy and the staff and police who quickly responded and took action.

UCOP Communications

Thank you for your email regarding the recent tuition increase enacted by the Board of Regents. As I hope you will understand, because of the volume of mail I have received on the subject, I am sending this same response to all and, therefore, may not address all of the specific circumstances or questions you have raised. Please be assured that I have indeed read each message I have received, and that I share your deep dismay and anger over the necessity of our taking this action.

Let me begin by offering some background information. The California State Budget Act for 2011-12 includes a $650 million reduction to the University of California (UC) for 2011-12 and a $1.7 billion reduction to higher education as a whole. The budget also fails to fund more than $360 million in mandatory costs, bringing UC’s total current budget gap for 2011-12 to over $1 billion. This shortfall will grow to more than $2.5 billion by 2015-16 if the University does not identify new revenues and cost-saving measures.

Unfortunately, the State has proved to be an unreliable funding partner. Adjusted for inflation and enrollment growth, UC now receives nearly 60 percent less funding per student from the State than it did in 1990. The dramatic drop in State support per student over the past 20 years has resulted in students being forced to shoulder an ever-increasing share of the cost of education: in 2011-12, for the first time in UC’s history, students will pay a greater share of the cost of education than the State.

Let me be clear that this most recent tuition increase, which amounts to a 9.6 percent increase in mandatory systemwide charges, is in direct response to a last-minute decision by the Legislature and the Governor to reduce UC’s budget by $650 million in 2011-12 instead of by $500 million. The revenue generated by the increase in tuition is the amount necessary to replace the additional $150 million in lost State funding. In addition, UC’s budget could be reduced by another $100 million “trigger” cut later this year if State revenues fall short of projections. In short, UC has already taken an unprecedented and disproportionate share of State cuts this year – and the situation will clearly be worse if the trigger cut is enacted.

Please be assured that the University continues to hold three values at its core: quality, access, and affordability. In response to the massive and unprecedented cuts the University has taken, our campuses have implemented layoffs, consolidated and eliminated programs, increased class sizes, delayed faculty hires, reduced levels and hours of service, delayed purchase of necessary equipment, and taken a variety of other actions to address their budget shortfall. In addition, the University is pursuing a major systemwide administrative efficiency initiative aimed at producing $500 million of positive fiscal impact over five years. The University is also increasing enrollment of nonresident undergraduates (whose high tuition and fee payments help support the instructional program for all students), aggressively seeking to increase private philanthropy, and exploring other alternative revenue sources. For 2011-12, the University was able to address approximately three-quarters of its billion dollar shortfall through these means. There are limits, however, to the extent that campuses can reduce cost without at some point embarking on an irreversible path of declining quality. In the wake of the additional $150 million State budget cut for 2011-12, we were forced to increase tuition so that UC can continue to deliver the high-quality education that students and the citizens of California have come to expect and, frankly, deserve.

Many have expressed concern about the effects of this tuition increase on access and affordability. We currently administer a world-class financial aid program – in 2010-11, 69 percent of UC undergraduates received more than $2.3 billion in financial aid, including grants, scholarships, loans, and work-study from UC, State, federal, and outside agency sources. As a public institution, it is essential that UC remain accessible to all academically eligible undergraduates so that financial considerations are not an obstacle to enrollment.

The simple fact is that 55 percent of UC undergraduates will not pay this tuition increase in 2011-12. The University expects that institutional aid funds, together with expected Cal Grant award increases, will be sufficient to fully cover the additional tuition increase for UC grant and Cal Grant recipients (including those eligible for the Blue and Gold Opportunity Plan) and to cover 100 percent of the additional tuition increase for eligible financially needy undergraduates from families earning less than $120,000. We pride ourselves on keeping UC accessible to undergraduate students from all income groups, including low-income and middle-income students. You may be interested to know that UC enrolls a higher percentage of low-income Pell Grant recipients than any other top research university in the country.

Some have also mentioned mounting debt levels and having to leave UC due to rising tuition and fees. No one should have to leave UC due to rising tuition and fees. To our students, I want to say that if you feel that your debt level is unmanageable or that you may have to leave the University due to rising charges, I implore you to discuss your financial aid options with your campus financial aid office. They stand ready to help you explore all options open to you.

Some have written that UC should also reduce the salaries of its executives. Recruiting outstanding leaders who will help steer UC through these troubling times requires that we offer salaries commensurate with their experience; studies performed by outside consultants show our executives are paid significantly less than market. Excellence in administration is critical to fostering excellence in the classroom and laboratory. The salaries we pay are directly linked to the quality of the instructional program we provide; cutting leadership pay would only help lessen the quality of a UC education.

All of this being said, please know that raising tuition and fees is a loathsome choice for The Regents and for me. It is untenable that the State continues to slash support for UC.

Given the State’s recent actions and possible future actions, now is the time to stand up and fight for UC. I strongly encourage you to join us and take your concerns directly to the Legislature and the Governor, where the actions necessitating fee increases are actually occurring. Please consider getting in touch with Legislators and the Governor through the “UC for California” webpage at http://www.ucforcalifornia.org​/. It is vital that your voice be heard by California’s legislators; perhaps together we can persuade Sacramento to reduce or eliminate the possible trigger cut to UC’s budget. A clear message needs to be sent by all members of the UC community that cuts to UC’s State support must stop. Otherwise, the high-quality UC education that has benefitted generations of students will surely erode.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me, and thank you in advance for expressing your thoughts to the Legislature and the Governor.

With best wishes, I am,

Sincerely yours,

Mark G. Yudof
President