
Alaska defunds scholarships for thousands of students ahead of fall semester - curtis
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alaska-defunds-scholarships-thousands-university-students-ahead-fall-semester-n1035231
======
applecrazy
This is absolutely terrible, purely from the perspective from the students.
Having your four years of hard work devalued like that, just because of a
political move, must really suck.

Worst of all, it's past the matriculation deadline for most universities in
the United States, so these students can't even attend other schools that have
offered them scholarships, leaving them to either drop out or go into debt.

~~~
H8crilA
Well the oil revenues did fall down a lot. Alaska has no state income taxes.
Someone has to pay for that, and killing the Alaskan universal (very) basic
income is too unpopular of a move. This is something worth remembering once
more countries and regions will try introducing UBI.

~~~
x86_64Ubuntu
Other states have no income taxes, and Dunleavy ran on protecting and growing
the Alaska Permanent Fund. And as to your UBI FUD comment, why do we need to
find a reason? Cutting public education is well inline with right winged US
policy.

~~~
H8crilA
> why do we need to find a reason?

A reason for what?

------
thanhhaimai
My education was funded by scholarship and two part time jobs. I know for sure
that without the couple thousands from scholarships I wouldn't make it. The
pressure to quit school and focus on the next paycheck/bill was very high.

Now I'm (gladly) paying more in taxes to the state of California annually than
I've ever received from scholarships. I think it's not a wise choice to trade
off the future earnings for short term Permanent Fund dividends.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Many of those kids educated in Alaska universities will be later paying
Californian income taxes also. It isn’t that simple, anyways, from the Alaskan
government’s perspective (if you are concerned with just optimizing state
revenue and not the moral problem of not serving your residents).

~~~
chris11
Cutting higher education funding and scholarships won't help with brain drain.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Sure, but it means economic growth or revenue increases are not the primary
motivator for not cutting them.

------
souprock
Like every bureaucracy that is threatened, they will cut where it is most
visible and most painful for the public. They will do this even if the cuts
don't save much money. Cutting something hidden, like administrative overhead,
just isn't going to happen.

Doing this the ethical way:

1\. Use loans (bonds?) to cover the immediate shortfall for students that are
currently enrolled or accepted.

2\. Raise tuition on future students to better represent actual cost.

3\. Eliminate departments that would take a loss. (students unwilling to pay
the needed amount) Since this is a state school, there is also some
responsibility to the people of the state: prioritize keeping departments that
contribute to the industry of the state, with relatively few students leaving
the state after graduation. So maybe keep geology and petroleum engineering,
while eliminating sociology and art. Even computer science could be eliminated
if those graduates nearly all leave for California.

~~~
Spooky23
The ethical way would be to not operate the government in a way where you hold
your citizens hostage.

Public universities don’t typically have bonding authority without legislative
authority to borrow and appropriations to spend.

Alaska is a land of riches. Even the most regressive regimes like Saudi Arabia
are investing in higher education. Worshipping the cult of ignorance is a
uniquely modern American thing.

------
aejnsn
“How to definitely lose graduates to the other 49.”

~~~
bdcravens
Given the distance, probable they'll stay gone. (though maybe that usually
happens anyways, for those who are ambivalent about Alaska)

------
orf
The core of the issue:

> The House Republican minority has said it will not vote for the reverse
> sweep (and other spending from the Constitutional Budget Reserve) unless the
> rest of the Legislature approves a traditional Permanent Fund dividend,
> which this year would be worth $3,000.

And:

> The rest of the Legislature is not willing to do that, because that
> dividend, combined with current levels of government spending, would require
> overdrawing from the Alaska Permanent Fund, reducing its value in the long
> term.

I guess party of fiscal conservatism ~has truly died~ never existed at all
apparently.

~~~
liability
It was never the party of fiscal conservatism. Notions to the contrary were a
neo-conservative retcon. It never stopped being a party of bibles and _social_
-conservatism.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
That really isn’t true, the republicans of Lincoln and even TDR’s time were
fairly progressive socially (though they have always been pro big business).
They didn’t become social conservatives until the mid 20th century. Claims
like “they were never the party of” or “always the party of” need to be
heavily qualified given how positions shifted over the last hundred years.

~~~
liability
Opposition to slavery happens to be a case in which imposing morality on
others is justified. But my point here is whether they're on the right side or
the wrong side of an issue, one thing has _always_ been true of the Republican
party; they seek to regulate morality.

We could have a conversation about "parties switching", the southern policy,
etc. But I don't think that's needed because no matter which way you slice it,
the Republican party was _never_ hands off on matters of society and morality.
Some people like to pretend it was once some sort of live-and-let-live
libertarian party, but that was never the reality of the party.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
That is nowhere near accurate, nor very useful. Slavery was an institution
that the Lincoln era republicans felt very strongly about eradicating, and
they were otherwise fairly hands off. The progressive movement of the early
20th century (mostly TDR-style Republicans)was even more socially liberal.

And really it’s all irrelevant to who the republicans are today, no longer the
party of Lincoln or TDR or even Ike.

~~~
liability
> _Slavery was an institution that the Lincoln era republicans felt very
> strongly about eradicating, and they were otherwise fairly hands off_

The same people fighting to free the slaves also typically thought it would be
ridiculous to let women vote. They simply were not the libertarians you
imagine them to be. Social deregulation was not on the agenda.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
> The same people fighting to free the slaves also typically thought it would
> be ridiculous to let women vote.

Not unusual sentiment for their time. Progress is relative to a current state
in time, obviously.

> They simply were not the libertarians you imagine them to be. Social
> deregulation was not on the agenda.

They wouldn’t have to be social progressives (until TDR of course), just not
regressive. However the republicans were back then, the democrats were worse.

------
lettergram
Although that $5000 is a lot, it is a relatively small group impacted:

> Gonzales and 2,500 other students in Alaska lost the scholarship because the
> state is no longer funding it.

Also was it a scholarship or grant? Grants were cut in Illinois the same way.
As a tax payer I’m also okay with that. Now, I’m not okay with the deadline.
They should be given at least 12 months notice, OR at least prior to the
registration period

~~~
vkou
> As a tax payer

Every man, woman, and child in the United States is a tax payer, unless they
live off the grid, in the woods, in a cave.

~~~
endtime
Pretty sure my kids (4, 4, and 1) don't pay taxes.

~~~
chillwaves
Do they purchase goods? Do you purchase goods on their behalf?

The point is every household is a taxpayer household. The statement "as a
taxpayer" is not helpful.

~~~
sampo
Also the statewide sales tax in Alaska is 0%. Municipalities might have their
own sales tax rates, though.

~~~
bastawhiz
They do have corporate tax, which would raise funds from goods purchased from
companies doing business in state.

