College funding in question

Uncertainty over Gov. Bobby Jindal’s proposed 2013-14 budget for public colleges and universities is sparking widespread alarm both at the Capitol and on Louisiana’s campuses.

The distress is twofold. This year’s proposed $209 million budget cut would make six straight years that the governor and legislators have taken an ax to college and university state revenues. Secondly, much of the money earmarked for higher education is speculative and may not materialize at all.

Jindal’s budget proposal also counts on schools making up some, but not all, of their shrinking budgets with tuition increases.

Campus leaders argue Louisiana is underfunding its higher education system to the point that top-flight academic talent is leaving or avoiding the state, and students are being forced to pay more money for fewer course options offered in more crowded classrooms.

Some of those leaders claim this year’s budget proposal is more troubling than previous ones because so much of the money is, so far, intangible.

The governor’s $24.7 billion overall, comprehensive budget proposal reduces higher education funding 21 percent to $774 million, down from $983 million in the current year. About 63 percent — $489 million — falls into two categories.

The first is the so-called “one-time” or “nonrecurring” income that likely won’t be available in future years. The second category is called “contingencies,” which are projected revenues that may or may not pan out. Contingencies include settling legal cases, collecting old debts and selling state property.

Should any of those dollars fail to materialize — for instance, the $47 million in projected revenue for property sales — Jindal’s budget proposal dictates that higher education would be cut the corresponding amount.

If the money does turn up, colleges and universities are essentially living on one-year’s worth of revenues without the benefit of knowing what level of funding will be available the following year, higher education officials point out.

Concern raised

The proposed budget has resulted in varied levels of concern from the four presidents running the state’s public college and university systems.

Much of the anxiety comes from having to build their own budgets with uncertain funding from the state.

University of Louisiana System President Sandra Woodley said that makes it difficult to negotiate contracts with teachers for the more than 90,000 students the UL System is expected to enroll across its nine campuses in the fall.

Lawmakers will begin debating the state spending plan April 8 at the start of the two-month regular legislative session.

Legislative reaction to the governor’s higher-education funding plan is varied. One lawmaker called it “embarrassing,” while others have expressed confidence that higher education will receive a more stable source of funding once all the details are hashed out.

State Rep. Cameron Henry, R-Metairie, opposes the way the governor is handling the state budget. He is a member of a group dubbed the fiscal hawks after they stalled the budget process last year to protest what they called a patchwork approach to balance it.

Henry said the Jindal administration is basing the higher education budget on “phantom” money.

“The decisions being made send a troubling message that this governor doesn’t see higher ed as a priority,” he said. “This will make it difficult for our institutions to attract and retain our students. This is truly breathtaking.”

Jindal did not respond to an interview request made through his press office. His chief budget aide, Commissioner of Administration Kristy Nichols, defended the proposal last week, saying she’s confident the state’s higher education institutions will see all of the money projected for them.

Planning appropriately

State Commissioner of Higher Education Jim Purcell said the uncertainty complicates making the decisions that go into running a campus, such as hiring staff and negotiating teaching contracts.

The budget proposal “fundamentally changes the manner in which higher education has been historically funded,” he said, referring to the large emphasis on one-time money and the contingencies.

“This makes it very difficult to do what we do, which is generate human capital,” he added.

Jindal’s “great job” in attracting a diverse group of new industries to the state is undermined by a shaky financial outlook for the institutions that are supposed to produce workers to fill those new jobs, Purcell said.

Purcell said this year could mark the first time the state’s higher education management panel, the state Board of Regents, has to run one-time money through the higher education funding formula — the mechanism the state uses to distribute funds to individual campuses.

One part of the budget that has sparked criticism at the State Capitol is the proposed use of $120 million from tobacco companies to fund the Taylor Opportunity Program for Students, or TOPS, the state’s popular scholarship program for college students.

The tobacco money comes from the $200 billion or so in settlements that major tobacco companies agreed to pay to states in 1998 to end lawsuits related to health-care costs. That money is considered one-time funding.

Some legislators claim the governor’s approach creates a $120 million-sized hole in future TOPS budgets.

The governor’s proposal further includes just three months of funding for LSU’s E.A. Conway Medical Center in Monroe and strips all funding from LSU’s Huey P. Long Medical Center in Pineville. The idea is that the Jindal administration will be able to find private partners to run those facilities before the July 1 start of the 2013-14 fiscal year.

The governor’s plan also calls for another $75 million cut from the higher education budget to be offset with $75 million in tuition increases authorized by the La Grad Act. The law gives schools permission to raise tuition up to 10 percent each year without legislative approval provided they meet certain performance targets, including graduation and retention rates.

If the governor’s budget proposal passes as is, it would represent an 84.5 percent, or, $1.24 billion decrease in state funding to higher education from the funding levels of 2008, according the Regents.

“I think the administration definitely had difficulty putting together a budget considering all the issues that are out there, but we believe the risk should be allocated across all state entities and not just higher ed,” Purcell said.

As it stands, Purcell said campuses need to be mindful that as much as two-thirds of their budgets are at risk.

“We’ve been given a budget that tells us the most that we can expect,” not what schools will actually get, Purcell said.

Southern University System President Ronald Mason said even if everything falls into place, his system still must contend with a $7 million hole in its budget following year-after-year budget cuts and declining enrollment. If Southern can’t close that gap, administrators may have to close some programs, he said.

Nichols, the governor’s budget aide, said the administration prepared the budget in a way that actually “protects” higher education.

“Obviously we are committed to higher ed,” Nichols said. “So committed we made sure to find any money we could.”

Nichols said that without the one-time money and contingency funding, the state’s colleges and universities would have to absorb a 19 percent budget cut.

“And that would be irresponsible,” she said.

Nichols defended crafting a budget that relies partly on selling property, a funding mechanism legislators have questioned, especially in an uncertain economy.

Nichols argued that the majority of the properties have been appraised, noting that they all are underutilized and adding that the administration has identified parties that “are highly interested” in the properties.

“We would not have put it in the bill if we didn’t think the money was coming in,” she said.

Nichols also said the use of one-time money has been a routine part of preparing a budget in state government and has never directly led to a midyear budget reduction.

“The process of projecting revenue collections is not new,” she said. “Using one-time money is not new.”

Nichols said the Jindal administration has averaged $300 million in one-time money every year. She added that the administrations of Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Gov. Mike Foster averaged $500 million annually in one-time funding in the six years prior to Jindal taking office.

“When you identify money that’s going to be collected, it wouldn’t make sense not to put it in the budget and then have to cut higher ed instead,” she said.

Louisiana Community and Technical College System President Joe May said he has “no reason to think the funds won’t materialize.” He said he often prefers the governor’s budget proposal to the final version crafted by state legislators.

State Sen. Conrad Appel, R-Metairie, the chairman of the state Senate Education Committee, brushed off most of the uproar over the governor’s proposal.

“This is nothing but the governor starting a conversation about the budget,” Appel said. “It’s going to be changed and it’s going to be sliced and diced all different ways before the final vote is taken. If this was April or May, maybe I’d be worried; but not now, it’s way too early.”

More Information

For sale

$47 million of the governor’s budget projections are contingent on the state selling:

$12 million: The Point Clair Property in Carville.

$10.25 million: a partially vacant state office building on Third Street in downtown Baton Rouge.

$17.8 million: Southeast La. Hospital in St. Tammany Parish.

$350,000: Wooddale Towers, an unoccupied State Office Building at 1885 Wooddale Boulevard, Baton Rouge.

$2 million: Various vacant land parcels owned by the Office of State Lands.

$4.9 million: The Insurance lot and parking structure adjacent to the State Capitol.

Comments

1) Comment by GardenVariety - 18/03/2013

I certainly agree, BRModerate. But the probability that many Louisianans would've tuned you out just because you mentioned CA, TX, and NY points to a foundational problem in LA: provincialism. Also, people such as you and I beg the question when we assume that economic growth is actually a priority. Economic growth would entail a broader distribution of power, which Louisiana's deeply entrenched political and economic elites have historically resisted. (The moderate growth and democratic progress of Foster and Blanco years are being proved anomalous from a historical perspective.) Jindal has been profiting greatly from a negatively trending LA. He's capitalized on the inequality of the state, which has provided him the opportunity to building his right-wing credentials. What has he done with that opportunity? He's encouraged the decay of state institutions that were actually improving before his tenure, all the while blaming the state's woes on those institutions. He has folks like Nichols, agagent, and Prof. Sadow to help him muddy the waters and poison the well--all in order to make us believe that budget battles are about objective, qualitative economics. Government fiscal policy is rarely about economics in the sense that most of give to the term; fiscal policy is a political tool/weapon. The university and college presidents know this, yet they continue to play the game even though the state only contributes 30% of funds to those institutions. Why they're allowing such a minor--and let me add, hostile--stakeholder dictate anything to them is beyond me. Or returning to my initial point, is it? The way things are now might be exactly how people want them.

2) Comment by BRmoderate - 18/03/2013

California, Texas, and NY are the top 3 economies in the U.S according to GDP. Each of those states have INCREDIBLE publicly funded universities. In fact, the Top 20 state economies all have great public universities. An educated work force is invaluable to economic growth

3) Comment by GardenVariety - 18/03/2013

Maybe Louisianans don't deserve to have colleges and universities. Outside of those of us who are or have been educators, there seems to be underwhelming public support for education, whether K-12 or post-secondary. If job training for low-skilled and medium- skilled labor is all people want, businesses and tradespeople can provide it from grade- school-age onward: e.g., apprenticeships, on-the-job training, etc. Getting rid of education will mean that healthcare will have to be cut further, but since when did most LA citizens care about health? Without teachers, intellectuals, and researchers to worry about, Louisiana will kill two birds with one stone: critical thinking and enemies of state. Utopia will be achieved. And to those of who insist on developing the life of the mind, we would be doing young people a favor by sending them out of the state for their educations and, beyond that, their livelihoods.

4) Comment by foldgers - 18/03/2013

Want to keep more LSU grads here, so that TOPS is not wasted? You will need to get more fortune 500 or fortune 1000 companies in this state. What is a good way to start this? Reducing corporate taxes, even to 0% if need be. Yes, the big bad corporations will be getting yet another tax break, but hey, at least they will provide our recent grads and unemployed with more job opportunities. What is so bad about that? There is no other way to get high paying jobs that are not industrial here to Louisiana. If there is, please tell me how. Tell them 0% for 10 years, then after that, they have to pay 10%. Still not too much, but by then, that 10% will be quite a bit added up with all the corporations that would have come here. Companies like Google or Apple will never set up offices here otherwise. Get jobs here that require at least a college degree. Those with Masters Degrees will most likely over-qualify for positions here in La. I was turned down a job once for being over-qualified for having a bachelor's degree! I highly doubt any corporations will just decide to set up camp here just because of the good food. Give them a reason to come. Make them WANT to come.

5) Comment by teacherguy - 17/03/2013

Jindal has turned LA's government into a mob of "deadbeat dads" when it comes to taking care of the needs of the residents.

6) Comment by Toldyouso - 17/03/2013

"Obviously we are committed to higher ed,” Nichols said. “So committed we made sure to find any money we could.” Yeah, any money at all, including money that doesn't exist.

7) Comment by zealer99 - 17/03/2013

We cannot afford to run state funded colleges and universities like they are social clubs that allow children to find themselves. Neither can we afford to over-staff state funded colleges and universities with unnecessary and redundant positions with employees spending most of their workday socializing. If somebody held a university employee socializing photo contest, it would look like Walmartians on steroids. In order to support the state funded colleges and universities in the style that they are accustomed, the budgets have gotten as obese over the years as the people of Louisiana. To fund this obese monstrosity in times of shrinking state revenues, the powers on high decide to increase tuition at these referenced institutions which requires "students" to increase their Federal student debt load to the point of stalling for years to buy homes and vehicles, there goes the real estate prices as the bubble grows, if they can land a job with an income sufficient to repay those loans. As the default rate skyrockets, reaching in excess of a $ trillion within this decade, Federal funding for the student loan program will be deceased and the number of students will drop rapidly and suddenly. We need to add a mix of rational thought to this process. Many degree programs do not afford graduates with the potential for economic success adequate to repay loans accumulated during the student process. Enrollment in these degree programs should be limited and competitive. This could allow for an orderly downsizing of the staff and faculty as well as the physical plant of the colleges and universities. Funding formulas for these colleges and universities should be redesigned so that enrollment was only one factor. What we are doing now is not sustainable.

8) Comment by agagent - 17/03/2013

The rest of the budget gets leaner as Medicaid expands.

9) Comment by agagent - 17/03/2013

Higher Medicaid costs took almost a extra billion dollars in the current state budget: “The estimated gap in Medicaid financing the state faced in FY2013 was $859 million. To close that gap, Gov. Jindal's administration cut $523 million from state health care programs in July 2012, including $329 million from the LSU public hospital system, one-quarter of its entire budget for the fiscal year that began July 1.”--The Sunshine Review

10) Comment by agagent - 17/03/2013

Another loss in state revenue: more than $300 million reduction in federal payments to Louisiana and another $79.3 million reduction in DSH payments to state hospitals, all in the next budget.

11) Comment by IMVOR - 17/03/2013

Kristy Nichols defends the proposal because that is her job. There is no reason to think the funds will materialize this year when they have not materialized for the past six years when funding was calculated in this way. Every year Jindal proposes a budget based on projected income. Every year the projection falls short of the actual. By this time, slashing of higher education budgets, whether from the beginning of the fiscal year or in the middle of it, has become a predictable routine, much more predictable than the governor's revenue projections. There are a few other clues in this saga as to what is in store for Louisiana in the next three years. Jindal said when he campaigned for governor that he wanted to make graduates of Louisiana higher-education "world-class." In fact, those same buzz words are still be used. But his actions and even his words have sent exactly the opposite message. More than once since taking office he has said, in effect, that Louisiana college graduates would not find jobs in Louisiana, so they would go elsewhere. Early on that was his excuse for emphasizing vocational education over 4-year degree programs, and that has been echoed again within the last few months. He has reinforced that by hiring professionals for his staff almost exclusively from out of state. The message: if you manage to get a 4-year or higher degree in Louisiana, you had better plan to leave the state to look for a job. I suppose it is okay that whatever investment the state made in those graduates will not redound to the state since the investment is shrinking pretty rapidly anyway. The idea that the funding solution is to raise tuition simply doesn't make any sense at all. Raise tuition high enough, and out-of-state public higher education will be competitive. If Louisiana institutions do not offer as much to students, they can go out-of-state to school as well as to job hunt. A lot of our best high school graduates already do. What is the point of having "world-class" K-12 education if the state is then exporting them all to finish their educations and find jobs elsewhere. None of this is about Louisiana or its taxpayers. It is all about completing an agenda. Having an ideology is just fine. Corporate welfare is just fine. But even corporations are eventually going to need the rest of us. What's the point of destroying the state's economy and institutions in order to attract corporations. If corporations are people, won't they get awful lonely after a while?

12) Comment by spqr - 17/03/2013

Hey speakthetruth...LSU's grads are not a bumbling bunch of Bubba's. That is such a stupid remark I cannot believe you are an adult. Want to know where LSU's so-called bumbling "Bubba's" are? They are making money they cannot earn here working for Fortune 1000 companies that will come here, in Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Orlando, Birmingham and Memphis. I know dozens of LSU grads that come "home" only for the holidays. They miss only the food. I wish we could miss Piyush Jindal...soon, but that political cancer is terminal for this state is terminal...Stage 4.

13) Comment by RODEO CLOWN - 17/03/2013

Here are a few facts we should all be aware of-especially the “Jindalites”. Fact one, total state revenue collections have decreased an average of almost a billion dollars per year in Jindal's first four years in office. (LA. DEPT OF REVENUE REPORT, 2011, pg 16). The decrease averages out to $925 million a year, I just rounded it off to a billion. WHY? Fact two, the state is owed from 1 to 1.5 billion dollars in monies for back taxes, business loans, student loans, etc. Jindal has failed to address this issue.(LA SEEKS TO COLLECT 1 BILLION DOLLARS, ADVOCATE, MICHELLE MILLHOLLIN,8/24/12) Fact three: NATURAL GAS REVENUE Natural gas severance collections decreased by over 44%, from a level of $317.40 million collected in 2008 to $138.80 million for 2012.(2012, LA DEPT OF REVENUE REPT) Yet, over this same period natural gas production in Louisiana increased over 224%. Louisiana has the most productive natural gas field in the United States, ie, the Haynesville Trend, producing an average 5 BCF(BILLION CUBIC FEET) of natural gas daily. Why haven't natural gas collections stayed abreast of the increased production? Fact four: Revenue collections from corporate franchise and corporate income tax collections dropped in excess of $700 million dollars for 2011 when compared with 2008 collections and represents a 74% decrease in collections. Did your state income tax decrease 74% since 2008? Fact five: Louisiana owes the LAPERS over 18 billion dollars of unfunded accrued liabilities(UAL). Jindal suspended payments to the UAL his first year in office. Payments have never resumed. This is the retirement programs for state employees. Why were payments suspended? How much has the UAL debt increased under Jindal's administration? These five items serve to illustrate the fact that had Jindal concentrated on revenue generation or revenue maintenance his first four years in office as much as cost cutting Louisiana would not have experienced the fiscal trauma, drama he has forced on the state.

14) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 17/03/2013

"As others have pointed out, the system is overbuilt and closures/demotions/consolidations are in order." jeff is correct. Why does LSU-S need a poli sci dept when there is a pretty good one at LSU?

15) Comment by jeffsadow - 17/03/2013

I have no idea where this reporter is getting his figures for this story (except for those that are truly "one-time" money, some of which is miscategorized as it is recurring and not all of the $120 million from tobacco proceeds refinancing is; see http://jeffsadow.blogspot.com/2013/03/half-baked-budget-critique-provides-no.htm). According to the budget, the overall reduction from last fiscal year's budget for total MOF financing of higher education goes from $2.936 B to $2.692 B, or $244 million or 8.3 percent. In fact, it is the first decline in budgeted MOF spending for higher education in several years. The figures he throws out match nothing in either of these budgets, but perhaps that's because they come from the Regents, which often reports these tremendously massaged in order to make a crisis appear. Best I can tell, the $1.24 billion/84.5% figures cited are the reduction in general fund allocation to higher education since FY 2008; in fact, total MOF budgeted then was $2.765 B, or a decline of only 0.44% a year since. As such, this article is highly misleading in terms of the true amounts budgeted for higher education. And, don't forget, much of this is self-inflicted by higher education's governance as LA ranks 8th highest in total per capita spending on higher education among the states. As others have pointed out, the system is overbuilt and closures/demotions/consolidations are in order.

16) Comment by speakthetruth - 17/03/2013

Suze, my pronouns lacked antecedents because I was speaking in generalities. My argument of LSU sports being the only concern of LSU University isn't a hate of LSU, its a frustration of what it has turned LSU into. It is no longer about education, its about money and partying, bubba driving around drunk screaming GO LSU, all in the name of LSU sports because that is where the money is. Ask yourself why a DUI checkpoint is never set up near LSU after a game. I use be a fan and attend all the games until it turned into a drunk fest. I have attended several away games and can attest to the behavior at other schools and it is not like LSU. Sorry to offend any LSU fans, but the shoe does seem to fit.

17) Comment by tradewinns - 17/03/2013

return "higher education" to those capable of utilizing same. the price of educating everyone is too great a cost for society to bear.

18) Comment by jwarren - 17/03/2013

Sorry to disappoint you, but lsu athletics is an integral part of lsu. You can hate it or not. -- and your hate is showing -- but lsu athletics is not part of this problem at all. So those who want to dive off the deep end and take shots at lsu athletics are missing the real problems. And you can start with a governor who cares more about his political future than the state.

19) Comment by SuzanneMS - 17/03/2013

Absolutely too many "universities" in this state. But, how do you know that if it weren't for LSU athletics -- which, btw, is not what was said; we said football and meant football -- LSU academics would be in worse shape? You are assuming that the major donors to the Tiger Athletic Fund would donate their money elsewhere. That is rather telling about what you think their priorities are. What if -- just imagine -- they endowed scholarships or research chairs with it? What if they just donated it to the LSU Foundation? What if LSU were known for its academics -- its researchers, scholars, alumni -- rather than for its football team? Would that attract quality researchers and scholars who would secure large grants, and produce alumni who would donate back? Would it attract donors from around the country? What if it were a great university with a football team rather than the reverse? What if the library and labs and rest of the university were open all weekend every weekend in the fall, rather than closed for football games? If the tailgaters restricted themselves to actual tailgating, rather than camping out on campus? Some of that money that is transferred is, in fact, spent on cleaning up the campus and maintaining the roads and parking lots damaged by tailgaters. Some of it hires the security guards who sit in every building to prevent vandalism. And consider this -- without LSU, there would be no LSU football. The reverse is not true.

20) Comment by jwarren - 17/03/2013

I see LSU athletics hate entered into this conversation. That is ironic considering the LSU has one of the few athletic programs in the NCAA that is profitable, and that LSU athletics annually transfers several million dollars to LSU academics. In fact, LSU has one of the few if not the only formal athletics-to-academics funds transfer agreements in the entire nation. So why the hate, when all other NCAA athletic programs in the states are SUBSIDIZED by the state. If it wasn't for LSU athletics, LSU academics would be in even worse shape than it is. One problem this state has besides a governor who doesn't care one bit about the state -- and that is a huge problem right there -- is the sheer number of universities in the state that style themselves as major universities. A reorganization of this system would save lots of money, but it would also mean slaying some sacred cows. Do we really, for example, need two state universities located within half a dozen miles of each other in......Ruston?

21) Comment by SuzanneMS - 17/03/2013

Actually, FredNeck (clever name, btw), 48% of federal grants go to the university for overhead, so $2.4 million of that $5 million grant goes to the university. In addition, nearly all research grants include funds for student research assistants, paying their tuition and a stipend. They frequently include funds for additional staff, as well. Very little of the money actually goes to the researcher. It's primarily funding for equipment (which then belongs to the university), and salaries for staff and students. It varies with department, but most faculty only get a summer salary from the grant. Speakthetruth, it's hard to know exactly what you were saying in your first post -- your pronouns lack antecedents. I may have misinterpreted what you said; it certainly appears that I did from your second post. Who are you accusing of "whining?" What "government freebie's" (sic) are you talking about? We can't require students to stay in the state if there are no jobs for them in their field, and it's hardly fair to demand that they work at Raising Cane's for four years after graduation. I'd like to see TOPS' standards made more rigorous and a means test instituted. BTW, LSU was "fully funded" for one year before the slide -- in 2008 it had just reached the regional average among its peers for the first time in nearly 30 years. I agree completely that the football culture of the university and of this city and state certainly plays a very strong role, but at the same time, we cannot change that without the funds to attract high-quality faculty and students. Another problem is the strong vocational orientation that sees an education as solely a means to a high-paying job, and that eliminates anything that is not directly relevant to a specific job today.

22) Comment by Whatnow - 17/03/2013

http://www.lsureveille.com/salary/

23) Comment by Whatnow - 17/03/2013

( http://www.lsureveille.com/salary/article_020cae86-852b-11e2-992f-001a4bcf6878.html )Salaries

24) Comment by Scrooge - 17/03/2013

Being_Stupid writes "it costs taxpayers a ridiculous amount of money to subsidize these entitlements" and "Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money" while being a fanatical proponent of vouchers, Being_Stupid is correct, the hypocrisy is stupid.

25) Comment by speakthetruth - 17/03/2013

Thank you FredNeck, (I am not being sarcastic). You helped make one of my points; "Why should La. not want a university that is as competitive as its fooball team"? LSU will never be known as an academic as long as its all about their football and all that goes with that, the tailgating, drinking, partying, getting drunk. fighting, rudeness. The whole university is about SPORTS! And the one's that do graduate from LSU are leaving the state not because of a poor university, but because a lack of good jobs high paying jobs. When LSU was fully funded, graduates were still leaving the state and we were not attracting any super intelligent scholars. The grant money that has come in the past has not made a big impression on the state. Yes, there has been some results from the grants (Pennington), but overall its is still about partying and LSU sports. If the government really wants to keep its graduates here, lets start by saying if you use TOPS to fund your education you have to stay in the state for at least 4 years or pay the money back. Also, if you use TOPS and fail to graduate, you pay the money back. Suzanne, I don't see where I have spread misinformation. If La. was a top producing state and dropped in the rankings because of budget cuts, we can point the finger at government. But we are at the bottom and have been there for a long time. Oh, but we have a good football and baseball team. Lets party, get drunk and all drive home.

26) Comment by agagent - 17/03/2013

Higher education is in a squeeze because Medicaid is expanding rapidly and federal funds for Medicaid are decreasing. There are no limits on Medicaid spending so those huge mid-year Medicaid deficits must be taken from higher education and health and hospitals. A provision in Obamacare reduced funding for hospitals serving the poor by $15 billion, including the state hospitals. Those cuts will increase each year until 2020. The Restore Act took more than $600 million from Louisiana’s Medicaid funding. Now Louisiana must pay a higher share of its $7.7 billion Medicaid program. Higher education, like the rest of state budget, is being squeezed to pay for Medicaid. Unless Medicaid is reformed more and more state revenue will go to Medicaid and less and less will go to higher education.

27) Comment by zealer99 - 17/03/2013

Welcome to the Sharecropper State. The people of means send their kids back east for an education and they come home to run things. The small time educational establishments in the Sharecropper State are good enough for straw bosses, and all they need for their caste in life, the people of means are going to run things anyway and that much education is too much for the little people.

28) Comment by FredNeck - 17/03/2013

Part of the tragedy of Louisiana is that its citizens have sucked hind teet for so long that they've become habituated to settling for less. Why should Louisiana not want a university that is as competitive as its football team? If an LSU professor brings in a $5 million dollar federal grant, $1.6 of it goes to the university and $3.4 to the research. The best research professors raise lots of money for the university, so why not fight to keep them in Louisiana? The state is eroding all of the gains LSU made in recent years, and the best professors are being recruited away to other richer states who know the value of a strong university. If you are a Louisiana citizen you should be fighting to have the best possible university. Even if you never set foot in a university, it is better for Louisiana if LSU prospers. Folks --- it is ok for us to have the best! Stop settling for less.

29) Comment by SuzanneMS - 17/03/2013

I really wonder whether Nichols actually believes the propaganda, lies an deceptions she spews, or she is a woman without any ethical core. Being_Stupid is once again being stupid, and speakthetruth is once again spreading misinformation and falsehoods. It has been reported for years that the college-educated are leaving the state in droves. This is just going to push them out before they graduate, to attend higher-ranked schools. TOPS is not going to keep the best and brightest in this state when they realize that a degree from a Louisiana university will be a liability in getting into the professions or into graduate school. The only students who will be willing to come here from out of state are those who cannot get into any other school. Few of the really intelligent will be willing to pay top dollar for a second- or third-rate degree. The top-flight academic talent that is leaving the state came primarily from outside the state; they are referring to faculty. They are leaving and taking their grant money with them. The few applicants for faculty positions at LSU are mediocre, at best. Louisiana faculty are the lowest-paid among their peer institutions, and now they have to contend with an aging infrastructure, lack of support staff, increased class size, increased advising, and still manage to do research and publish. Anyone who can leave, is leaving. The rest are counting the days until retirement. As for higher education being an entitlement -- you clearly have no idea what that word means, but hey, if you want it to be an entitlement, I'm all for it. Every person in Louisiana is entitled to education beyond high school.

30) Comment by speakthetruth - 17/03/2013

Being_Stupid is correct. I would like to add that all the whining you see coming from certain people is what happens when you take away government freebie's. So "Campus leaders argue top flight academic talent is leaving the state". Looking at Louisiana's current culture and past history I'm not sure it is a bad thing if the "top flight academic talent" is leaving because I sure don't see an abundance of highly intelligent LSU alumni around here. Most of them are a bunch of beer drinking drunk bubba's, and its all done in the name of LSU. Maybe we need some talent from outside to turn this state around. First in all that is bad and last in all that is good.....Go LSU!!!

31) Comment by lovemykids - 17/03/2013

All educators in Louisiana, from preschool teachers to college professors, should be paid minimum wage. After all, all they do is baby sit students. Oh, what the heck! HOME SCHOOL FROM BIRTH TO GRADUATE DEGREES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

32) Comment by Being_Stupid - 17/03/2013

Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money. "Higher Education" is an entitlement, not a right. Government has no role in stealing taxpayer money to pay for entitlements. There is a reason they call it "higher" education, because it costs taxpayers a ridiculous amount of money to subsidize these entitlements and overpaid professors and school administrators. If Government would just get out of the way, the price of education would come down to more reasonable levels and quit being so high. Only a free market, without Government intervention and meddling, can fix the price of education.

33) Comment by gvm - 17/03/2013

Higher education in Louisiana is about to get "Jindaled" - again. Normally I'd say that this is a case of poetic justice for the folks who voted him in but, unfortunately, the implications of his administration's dunderheaded policies are too ominous to take lightly.