It appears that the Council for a Better Louisiana, in its CABLWire last week, took exception to what it called “disappointing rhetoric” in the previous post.   After a fair measure of reflection on the matter, the Ledger would like to respond and, with all due respect, kindly disagree.

It’s true, of course, that the previous post employed a rhetorical device – analogy, or, more precisely, allusion – but did so simply as a way to draw attention, in a more easily accessible and understandable manner, to a set of facts that seems to have been lost in the discussion over higher education funding, in a way that a dizzying set of facts often is.

And the facts that have been lost, to repeat, are that:

• The combination of all budgetary actions taken by the House added $110 million to the Higher Education budget – and lessened their total funding reduction from $219 million to $109 million, a reduction of 3.8 percent from the FY 09 existing operating budget.
  
  
• Put into context, in the proposed FY 10 Executive Budget, due to significant revenue declines, the total budget for all of state government, factoring in all means of finance, saw a reduction of 9.8 percent.  Higher education’s reduction: 3.8 percent.
  
  
• Put into further context, in the proposed FY 10 Executive Budget, out of a total budget of $26.7 billion for all of state government, Higher Education spending takes up 10 percent.  After House action, Higher Education’s reduction: 3.8 percent.

These facts bear repeating, because they point to the true intent of the previous post, which was the opposite of being disrespectful but indeed an attempt, actually, to point out the incongruity between these facts and to wonder whether certain characterizations about the severity of the higher education reductions, in the context of significant spending cuts throughout the budget, have themselves been intemperate.  For instance, even after the funding restorations by the House, this level of reduction has on more than one occasion been called “draconian.”

(As a side note, the term “draconian” is itself a rhetorical allusion to the ancient Athenian lawgiver Draco, infamous for his harshness and even ruthlessness.  It’s possible, I suppose, that those who consider a 3.8 percent reduction reasonable could find such a comparison offensive.  The Ledger, however, chooses not to take it personally, but instead prefers to deem the charge a mere exaggeration.)

Put another way, then, the whole point was to utilize an allusion, a light-hearted one at that, with the precise purpose of appealing to reason and highlighting what may be certain unreasonable characterizations of the higher education budget.

And that’s just the kind of thing The Ledger was designed to do, as stated in the very first post when the website was launched:

While state government budgetary issues can often be complex and (let’s be honest here) do not always make for the most compelling reading, they nonetheless have meaningful and tangible impact on the everyday lives and livelihoods of the people of Louisiana.  So the purpose of The Ledger is, in part, not only to highlight recent news on those issues.  It’s also to use the less formal format that a ‘blog’ provides to help make those issues more accessible, more understandable, and (hopefully) more interesting.

That’s not to say that some of the discussion that appears here won’t be complicated (or geeky and wonkish, if you prefer).  It will.  And just because the tone used on these pages may be more casual than the usual governmental press release or policy paper doesn’t mean that the issues being addressed are not approached with the seriousness and respect they deserve.  They are. [emphasis added]

Given that The Ledger is a blog – albeit a government blog –it should not be surprising that it adopts on occasion certain unconventional, bloggy forms of expression (like, ya know, quoting itself, for example).  The Ledger nonetheless has nothing but the deepest respect for CABL, and as has been emphasized repeatedly on this website, this administration strongly supports higher education and has strenuously pursued fiscal reforms to increase budgetary flexibility with a principle aim of protecting higher education.  The administration has also been grateful for CABL’s support of those reforms.

But again, let’s not lose sight of the important issue at hand – namely, determining, in an upcoming fiscal year in which reductions are being made across state government, and when the outlook shows a projected budget shortfall of more than $700 million for FY 11 and a near $2 billion shortfall for FY 12, what is a realistic and reasonable reduction to higher education’s funding, and one that begins a process for streamlining and belt-tightening it, along with the rest of state government, to prepare for future years.

And, it’s important to note, CABL itself has not been among those suggesting that any level of higher education funding reduction is unacceptable.  From their own recommendations on the subject:

1. CABL believes state leaders must look to the future, look realistically at the revenue projections for the coming years and determine how much money we will realistically have available for higher education in the future.
   
   
2. Using that revenue scenario as a reference, state leaders must envision what aspects of post-secondary education must be preserved to offer our citizens the quality workforce training and higher education they need to succeed. We must protect those things that we as a state need to compete in an economy that will require higher levels of education than our citizens as a whole have so far attained.
   
   
3. Recognizing that this can only be done with very serious and very strategic planning, CABL believes the Legislature and governor should reduce the original 15% reduction in state funding for higher education to no more than 7.5% for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. [emphasis in the original]

These are points well taken (as is CABL’s whole statement on the matter, which can be found here).

However, as stated at the top, after action on the budget by the state House, and including not only “state funding” but all means of financing such as federal stimulus funds, higher education’s total budget would be reduced by even less (3.8%) than what CABL called for here, and that’s without making the restoration of funding contingent on delaying tax relief for Louisiana’s citizens.

This is the “very serious” issue likely to be at the center of debate in the closing weeks of the legislative session, as this story in The Times-Picayune today explains:

Senators approved the bill last week with $284 million in "contingencies" – meaning the money won't be available unless other legislation is approved. The contingencies include $118 million for public colleges and universities tied to the passage of a bill to delay an income-tax cut, while some restorations for health care and arts programs are dependent on money from the Budget Stabilization Fund, or rainy-day fund….

[Gov. Jindal] predicted the House-Senate negotiations on the bill by Rep. Jim Fannin, D-Jonesboro, will last until the final hours of the session, which adjourns June 25.

And The Ledger will continue to highlight news and provide context for these negotiations as progress develops.