When Mississippi’s legislative leaders brag about holding the line on spending, as they did following this year’s session, what they fail to say is that their supposed frugality often is no more than passing some of the costs on to someone else.
So it is with higher education in this state.
The eight public universities, like most state-funded institutions and agencies, have seen multiple budget cuts over the last couple of years. When the new budget year starts on July 1, the appropriation for higher education is going to be about 12 percent less than what the universities actually spent in state funds two years before.
Thus, it’s not surprising that the College Board — on a speedier than normal timetable — voted last week to increase tuition in the fall by an average of 6.6 percent, rather than the 3.8 percent that had been previously planned.
An extra $500 a year for college might not sound too overwhelming until you add it to a series of tuition hikes that threaten to make a four-year education less accessible to children from families of modest means.
When this latest tuition hike takes effect, according to The Associated Press’ calculation, it will bring the cost of tuition to 64 percent higher than it was a decade earlier. That rate of increase is three times that of inflation, further crimping families whose incomes have been stagnant during this time.
Some may argue that tuition hikes are a user fee, and that it’s reasonable to expect those who benefit most directly from a college education to foot a larger share of the bill for it.
However, those same state officials who have caused this “user fee” to rise have shot down others, most noticeably refusing to increase a fuel tax that has not been adjusted in 30 years.
It makes no sense to advocate higher user fees for a commodity — education — whose consumption Mississippi should be encouraging while not doing the same for a commodity — pollution-driving fossil fuels — whose consumption it should be discouraging.
It’s just another instance of misplaced priorities by those who set the state’s tax and spending policies, or a failure to understand the consequences of the decisions they make.
