Bullfight

Dan,

Since you point out the absence of our local republican legislators to this event that looks like a democrat party convention, do you happen to know if the republicans were even invited?

I've also noticed lately that Paul Zing has been actively pushing teachers to go out and protest proposed cuts to education. Isn't that a bit self-serving considering that Zing gets paid more than $270,000 annually (in a recent CN&R article), along with a housing allowance and a car allowance of $10,000? Just what kind of car does a guy have to drive to spend $10k a year on it? Shouldn't we be looking at cutting this kind of wastefull spending before asking already tapped out taxpayers to pony up more?

Dane

Dane:

I don't know if any of the state Republican elected officials were invited but it appears this event was primarily led by the Lt. Governor's office.

As for the other invited speakers, it's pretty obvious why they were present. Those speakers represent K-12, community college, the CSU, and students affected by education cuts.

There were some Republicans there--the Chico State Republicans holding cardboard signs that said things like, "Democrats and Unions are ruining our schools." There were five or six of them and they sort of held the signs aloft until their arms got tired. They didn't look to be in very good shape, though they did look well-fed.

Dane

What's this about tapped out taxpayers?

California is 17th of the states in terms of tax burden of its citizens. We rank 49 of the 50 states in funds spent on public schools K-12. Our higher ed students are the victims of outrageous fee increases and in effect are paying taxes to get a college education at public universities and community colleges in California.

Yes there is "fraud, waste and abuse" in government, but have you asked your local Republican representatives if they have reduced their office expenses? I have and gotten only angry stares for daring to question what they spend. There is no justification for "wasteful" spending, but the current budget situation in California will not be solved by draconian cuts based on across the board cuts.

Our taxes provide us with much needed services and one hopes that critics don't have a heart attack in the middle of the night or a burglar make a hit on their home after we cut services due to the mindless mantra of "no new taxes."

It is my firm belief that "there is no free lunch, you don't get something for nothing, and you get what you pay for." I don't remember which Supreme Court judge said "I enjoy paying taxes because with them I buy civilization," but he got it right.

And, I would add that Paul Zingg is the best president we have had at Chico State since Glenn Kendall retired in 1966.

Jim Gregg

Well it seems I got a couple of responses from the "feeding at the public trough" types.

Rod, your comment about the students was rude and off base. If they were there standing up for their beliefs then good for them. Debate their ideas but don't get ugly and call them fat.

Jim, I'm not sure what Zingg has done exactly that makes him the best president, but since he gets paid more than our state assemblyman and state senator combined, I certainly hope he's doing something!

As for your statistics on taxes, our ranking next to other states on our tax burden proves nothing. If other states have a higher income tax, who's to say that those taxpayers aren't tapped out as well? The fact remains that taxpayers are paying out exorbitant amounts of money to the government these days, with no relief in sight. When will they pay enough?

I find it very troubling that the highest paying jobs in Butte County continue to be the government class. When you add up the pay and benefits, they are raking in the money while those who work in the private sector not only make less, but are asked to pay the bill for the government workers.
It's true there is no free lunch Jim, but lately taxpayers have been paying double for their lunch while the government class eats all the sandwiches. That is unfair, it is unjust, and it is very undemocratic. Are you really going to justify the enormous pay increases that the UC Regents have given themselves these last few years? Chancellor Reed now rakes in 4 times what the Governor would make if he accepted his pay. Does Reed really NEED all of that money?

Don't ask taxpayers to pony up any more until you eliminate ALL of the fraud and waste in our state government system!

Dane

So you castigate Rod for rude comments and then begin yours by resorting to the old chestnut "feeding at the public trough!"

Then you show your ignorance of governance of higher education in California by castigating the UC Regents for giving themselves big pay raises.

The Regents receive NO COMPENSATION. Their positons are the most sought after appointive positions in California government. A little knowledge on your part would give your comments more credibility.

My comment on Paul Zing was based on serving 34 years under five presidents prior to the last two
at Chico State.

Actually, Jim, UC Regents DO receive some compensation, just not regualr compensation:

" The UC regents are not paid for their 12-year appointments, but receive compensation for their travel expenses to attend the meetings.

All of the regents hold other jobs, including heading major corporations such as Blum Capital Partners and Paramount Pictures."

source: The California Aggie, 8/23/04

http://www.californiaaggie.com/media/paper981/news/2004/08/23/FrontPage/Regents.Under.Scrutiny.For.Lack.Of.Attendance-1318092.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.californiaaggie.com

From the University of California bylaws:

"BYLAW 8. Special Provisions Relating to Regents
8.1 Compensation of Regents.
No Regent shall receive salary or other compensation for services as a Regent nor shall any Regent other than the President of the
University be eligible for appointment to any position in connection with the University for which a salary or other compensation is paid,
provided, however, that the student Regent shall not be deemed ineligible for part-time compensated University employment. A Regent
may be reimbursed for actual expenses incurred by reason of attendance at any meeting of the Board or a Committee thereof or in the performance of other official business of the Corporation. Members of the Board of Regents serving as representatives of The Regents of the University of California to the California Postsecondary Education Commission may receive stipends as provided by law for attending
meetings of the Commission or of its committees or subcommittees."

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/bylaws/bl8.html

The travel reimbursement policy is outlined here:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/policies/6008.html

Anthony -

UC Regents DO receive some compensation, just not regualr compensation. The UC regents are not paid for their 12-year appointments, but receive compensation for their travel expenses to attend the meetings.

Reimbursement for expenses is not compensation. If someone racks up $1,000 in travel expenses, and bills the client for $1,000 to cover those expenses, they've made $0. To imply that compensation equals expense reimbursement is absurd.

Anthony

Dane clearly said the Regents gave themselves big pay increases. I suppose reimbursed expenses for attending meetings could be covered by the word compensation as staated in your source, but that is not what Dane said.

Did you consider travel expenses paid to you as a school trustee as pay?