Atkinson not for fee increase, tries to keep UC
affordable
UC President Richard Atkinson is not calling for a student fee
increase in the new state budget, contrary to your story
(“UC
president wants to raise fees,” News, Feb. 13).
Under his presidency, mandatory system-wide fees have fallen 10
percent for resident undergraduates and 5 percent for resident
graduate academic students. And the 2002-2003 budget that President
Atkinson brought to the regents last fall similarly proposed no fee
increase.
What President Atkinson supports is the university’s
Partnership Agreement with the Davis administration. This agreement
recognizes that programs funded by student fees continually face
cost increases for employee salaries, health benefits and the
effects of inflation. It specifies that, to help cover these cost
increases, the state will either endorse a modest fee increase
““ indexed to personal income growth in California ““ or
provide an equivalent amount of state funding.
For the last seven years, the state has provided this funding to
“buy out” fee increases. This year, the proposed budget
calls for no fee increase but also no state buyout.
President Atkinson remains committed to keeping UC affordable
for students. His goal for the current budget is not to have a fee
increase, but to convince state policymakers to provide the funds
necessary to keep both student fees low and keep UC programs
whole.
Brad Hayward Assistant communications director UC Office
of the President
Westwood trash problem result of unstable rent
prices
I couldn’t agree more with Barbara Ortutay’s column,
“Westwood
mainly a college town,” (Viewpoint, Feb. 11).
Shelley Taylor complains that trash and abandoned
furniture are a problem because students are moving in and out
year-round. I agree, but it’s only a symptom and not the
root of the problem. There wouldn’t be so much turnover
among tenants if the rent prices weren’t increased by $200 to
$300 every year. If the already overpriced rent in Westwood
would remain relatively stable, tenants would be more likely to
remain in their apartments for a second or even third
year. Less turnover means less trash and abandoned
furniture.
Perhaps if student tenants in Westwood were treated less like
gullible, faceless rent checks and more like valued
members of a residential community, they would have more respect
for their neighborhoods.
Scott Rentschler
Democratic victories in next election extremely
unlikely
Nathan Gonzalez’s article, “Upcoming
Election chance to oust GOP“ (Viewpoint, Feb. 12) serves
as a rallying cry to Bruins to do their part to diminish the
six-seat Republican majority in Congress.
Unfortunately for UCLA Democrats, their votes will have very
little impact on this effort. Redistricting and Democratic success
in claiming four Republican seats in the last election cycle leaves
the remaining 20 Republican seats in California’s delegation
completely safe.
Nationwide, incumbents have benefited from redistricting,
resulting in fewer targets for Democratic takeovers in the House.
Meanwhile, George W. Bush’s astounding national popularity
has translated into better Republican performance in voter
identification and generic congressional match-ups in polls. While
Democratic opportunities to retake the house and retain the senate
exist, they are certainly not in liberal bastions like
California.
The battlefield for the senate is the Heartland, while the South
plays host to some of the most competitive house races. If the
Democratic Party emphasized the liberal issues that were the focus
of Gonzalez’s rant in its 2002 campaign, it would be sealing
its own devastating fate. To most Midwestern and Southern voters, a
conservative ideology comes naturally. Religious morality is, for
them, an inseparable part of politics; guns, a staple of rural
life; and abortion, unthinkable. Just the thought of taxes makes
them cringe.
Thus, if Democrats run a national campaign promoting West Coast
social values and advocating the repeal of the Bush tax cut, they
are destined to lose seats in both chambers.
Sean Kolodji First-year Political science
Remarks about GOP unfair
Nathan Gonzalez would have you believe that the Republican Party
“stands in the way of social reforms” ““ but the
opposite is true (“Upcoming
Election chance to oust GOP,” Viewpoint, Feb. 12). I fail
to see how the Republican Party has attempted to eliminate all
things “environmentalist,” “gay,” or
“intellectual.” President Bush has appointed more
openly homosexual members, for better or worse, in his cabinet than
President Clinton did in eight years.Â
The Republican Party also supports environmental policies,
although you would not hear this in the mainstream media. It is
Republicans, for instance, who are upset that Tom Daschle, the
Senate majority leader, wants the government to subsidize an
environmental cleanup, when the polluter in his own home state
ought to do the job.Â
The Republican vision of lower tax cuts was also not based on
“pure greed,” as Gonzalez alleges. Rather, the
Republican movement is one built on the notion that lower taxes
will provide individuals with greater incentives to invest and work
harder. I take offense to the notion that Bush’s tax cuts go
only to the wealthy. If you look at the tax rates, you will
see that everyone has a reduction in their tax burden ““ not
just the wealthy. One reason that the “wealthy”
receive a huge junk of the benefits of the tax cut is because they
make the most and also pay the most in taxes.Â
Voting Republican is not going to starve any children;
it’s not going to change all the workplace laws; it is not
going to generate an end to all environmental laws ““ these
are lies.Â
Michael Gordon