Meet the Candidate

Student Government elections are just around the corner and it is our duty and pleasure to provide readers with the scoop on presidential candidates. I know. I just have one thing to say first: Tickets suck.

Researching the candidates, as a voter and for writing this article, has been pretty disappointing. Every year, a single ticket covers a vast majority of the available positions. In 2004 the ticket du jour, Focus, took all 43 available positions. Ten students campaigned for the presidential seat and a record-breaking 23 percent of the student body came out to vote. The trend of mass driven groups dominating the electorate has since continued, minus the variety of presidential candidates and voter turnout. The Connect ticket took 31 of 40 seats in 2005. Impact secured 34 of 39 available positions in 2006. Both elections featured largely uncontested ballots and much lower rates of voter participation. Last year, Advance claimed all but one position. Andrew Solomon was awarded the presidency with no contest. I’m too disgusted to even quip about that.

Almost every seat in the assembly will be filled by this year’s juggernaut ticket, Empower, if they get their way. Probabilistically, they will. Empower’s campaign distribution reads like the bottom line of an eye exam chart, but I can’t blame them. They would have to hand out banners to get all of their candidates and initiatives on in a readable font.

Empower’s presidential candidate is Keshav Rajagopalan, a third-year Plan II and Political Communications major. For the sake of time and space, I asked Rajagopalan what three initiatives he would be most intent on accomplishing as SG president. He responded that his main goals will be (1) to cooperate with the City of Austin on projects regarding safety and urban development in student-rich, off-campus areas, (2) to initiate student involvement on campus within the first few days of a freshman’s life as a Longhorn and (3) to work with the State Legislature on maintaining affordability at UT. Rajagopalan agrees that tuition should remain reasonable, but does not want affordability to interfere with quality. With more state funding, the University could secure the same level of excellence without putting too much strain on students.

Honestly, good for him. Out with the Riverside robberies and in with the student activities. I just hope he has enough time to get to those items when Empower’s ticket lists motions ranging from student endowments to “wayfinding signage” to religiously sensitive food options.

On the other hand there is Matt Li, third-year petroleum engineering major, who is vying for the presidential position as an Independent. When I say ‘other hand,’ I mean another hand that is very, very far from the first hand. When asked about his platform, Li replied that he does not have one and will very unlikely be “pulling one out of [his posterior-end] within the next two weeks.” His idea of an academic initiative is to increase the number of albino squirrels on campus so students will have more luck on test days. Well, I guess that is one alternative to Empower’s agenda to increase operational hours for campus study areas.

This is what I mean. Student tickets have steamrolled over the competition so much that people run fake campaigns just so the presidential seat won’t go uncontested. A variety of members should compose SG in a way that represents the mosaic student body. But here’s how it is, folks – the big topics up for debate amongst the presidential candidates: albino squirrels. Leave them alone or breed them?

I hope Empower enjoys their reign next year. I also hope they take their responsibilities seriously and don’t go stamp crazy every time one of their buddies puts a movement through. I would like to see affordable tuition, tax-free textbooks, etc. Those things generally require work, commitment, disagreements, and compromises. Let’s see if a government consisting of members on a single platform can supply the voice for a student population over 50,000 strong.

Elections will be held online through the Student Government website (http://www.utsg.org). Polls are open from 8AM to 9PM on Wednesday, February 27, and from 8AM to 5PM on Thursday, February 28. You must have a UTEID to sign into the election site.

-Rachel Wright

Dergulation Debacle

Some words are loaded with politically connotative attributes, as we well know. However, we often find that the terms are made purposefully mis representative of their true definitions in order to lend a sense of credibility and acceptance to an unpopular idea.

‘Tuition deregulation’ is one such evocative term. Deregulation, when taken alone, sounds beneficial to consumers of a hypothetically deregulated environment. Through the removal or reduction of harsh statutes, deregulation is meant to increase efficiency and decrease cost through escalated competition. Amazingly, tuition deregulation has led instead to the opposite!  How was this allowed to transpire?

In 2003, the 78th Texas Legislature passed House Bill 3015 (Tuition Deregulation) into law. This effectively placed gubernatorial political appointees (college system regents) in charge of approving tuition and fee rates at public universities. It marked a transfer of power from those accountable to the public into the hands of those unaccountable to anyone.

Instead of proposing a tax to cover the cost of higher education, Governor
Perry and Texas House Speaker Craddick, along with a majority of the Legislature, decided to deregulate tuition and thus alleviate themselves from a thorny situation.

Fast forward to 2007: The University of Texas at Austin, what many would call the foremost public university in Texas, is increasing tuition again as it has done every fiscal term since 2003 and the advent of deregulation. Students say tuition has increased about 93% from the average 2003 level, while the UT administration contends the percentage is closer to 72%, citing differences in “fees” and actual tuition.

Tuition policy forums were held on campus, though they were a mere formality. To make matters worse, those who owe their full allegiance to the student body have instead associated with the UT administration. The student representatives on the Tuition Policy Advisory Committee, Andrew Solomon (UT Student Body President), Stephen Myers (UT Senate Chairman), Yvette Garza (UT Presidential Undergrad Appointee) and Brian Gatten (UT Grad Student Rep.) joined in a unanimous vote to go forward with the tuition increase.

Additionally, the UT System Regents all happen to have been appointed by Governor Perry, and as evidenced in previous years by their willingness to sign off on tuition increases, they will very likely not break with this pattern.

Despite the seeming futility of protest, a student group made up of unlikely allies on the UT-Austin campus has formed the Tuition Accountability Coalition. Quickly mobilizing a student effort to protest the tuition hikes, the group declared that it would not cease the fight against tuition deregulation until prices were again affordable for all and accountability was restored to the Legislature. The Coalition, comprised of students from all ends of the political spectrum (and everything in between) have rallied to a common cause and vowed solidarity. Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians and Socialists have united to face what none could alone – tuition deregulation supporters in high places.

This Coalition faces tough odds in their campaign to restore accessibility of higher education to Texans. One need only look to those who profit as opposed to those who are being disenfranchised to see the hard road back to fiscal responsibility. Who profits from deregulation? College administrators, politicians and preferred collegiate lenders all have a vested interest in keeping the system as is. Public universities want more money to increase their renown and resources; politicians don’t want to explain tax increases to constituents and lenders most clearly benefit by picking up the slack for students through college loans.

Unfortunately, these transferred costs fall most heavily on lower- and middle-income college students who are the most likely to borrow from lenders and work while in college. Some concessions are made for the lower-income strata, but the sticker price of tuition itself on its face can be a strong deterrent to these students. Taking a full course load while working a 40-hour job to pay for housing, food, clothing and textbooks coupled with the stress of taking out various supplemental loans for tuition, after all, sounds less than enticing.

As we have reviewed the causes and effects, as well as the participants and their separate motives, we have but one final question to answer: What can be done to fix the system? The answer seems apparent. Students must use their voices and votes to persuade the Legislature to re-regulate tuition.  For the Legislature to act, they must fear the consequences of inaction more than those of the proposed action.

The State of Texas must again be held accountable for funding higher education. This will be no easy task as youth are viewed as apathetic and are not a consistently significant voting bloc. Though these trends may change as tuition continues its ascent with no clear end in sight. Perhaps when the students have reached point break, they will organize and lead the way for state funding to shoulder the burden of higher education in Texas.

-Ed Oden

Global Gore-ming

On the evening of October 1, the Frank Erwin Center audience at The University of Texas showered former Vice President Al Gore with thunderous applause as everyone nostalgically reminisced at a brighter-looking time before today’s economic recessions, before the Iraq War and before 9/11. The charismatic public-private citizen served as a poster boy for a simpler time, when economic growth was fueled by dot com booms, in addition to the ever-prevalent artificial injections through the Federal Reserve.

He addressed the crowd with his trademark introduction: “I used to the be next President of the United States.”

Gore then proceeded to burst the crowd’s bubble with his truth – inconveniently, I might add.

The purpose of this column is not to debate the merits of the global warming argument, nor those of the skeptics. Rather, I will address the flawed philosophy behind the requested solutions to our “planetary emergency.”

Throughout our adolescence, we are shown to respect nature through the musings of benevolent teachers and adults. We don’t understand the hypocritical lifestyles (i.e. Al Gore’s power-hungry mansion vs. George Bush’s eco-friendly ranch), nor do we comprehend the questionability of the methods through which we are taught: enviro-conscious yet gas-guzzling hippies and books printed on paper warning us about the dangers of rainforest depletion.

Things are never as they seem, as is the case with the environmentalist’s solution to global warming. In Gore’s presentation and in society today, people are growing more conscientious about their ‘carbon footprint’ and the overall impact they have on the environment. Because the flush of a toilet in Chile can cause a hurricane in Japan, it is important to understand how interdependent global civilizations are.

However, looking to the federal government is seldom the answer.

Restrictive and destructive legislation that promotes emissions caps do not benefit anyone. Essentially, these laws do redistribute wealth through the carbon credit system. If a company exceeds its carbon emissions cap for a certain year, it can purchase credits from other companies, the government or NGO’s. This may not be a problem for large corporations, but this bureaucratic tool only adds obstacles in the way of small businesses and start-ups. The entire concept of a forced carbon credit system, as is mandated in the Kyoto Protocol, is disingenuous in that if you have money, can you pollute as much as you want.

There must be some manipulation of the environment to survive and produce; you cannot create wealth from nothing. Nevertheless, if the goal of the global warming movement is to cut emissions, many companies are following suit without legislation. For example, Starbucks, McDonalds and Limited Brands are in the process of developing or already have a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) division. Regardless of the impending crisis we are constantly reminded of, it is profitable to be committed to CSR. Customers pay higher prices for Fair Trade, locally grown and/or environmentally friendly products – and this is all accomplished without the ‘help’ of the federal government.

Global warming will not be solved through the red-taped hand of the government; rather, the Invisible Hand will do a much better job. For example, French inventor Guy Negre – and his company Moteur Developpment International – has been researching Compressed Air Technology (CAT), and one day, hopes to mass-produce cars that run solely on compressed air. If successful, this invention would do much more to reduce pollution than any bureaucrat in the federal government ever could – no matter how engulfed in red tape he is.

It may help to think about the role of the federal government; it is there to protect any one individual or group from inflicting force on another individual or group. Capping emissions doesn’t fall into that category (not without some serious emotionally baseless rhetoric). We embrace the idea of a benevolent government, ready to take on the challenges of the world, and we forget that it’s not the government that gets us through challenges – it’s us.

It will be difficult, but we need to get rid of the notion that anytime something bad or unexpected happens, we need to make a new law.