“The House Higher Education Committee, acting in a bipartisan manner, adopted House Bill 1624, which would commit our state to increasing our investment in higher education and set a long-term goal for affordable tuition and access to our state universities. The goal for affordable tuition should be for tuition to not cost more than 10 percent of median household income in Washington. Just five years ago, tuition at the University of Washington was 10 percent of median household income – now, tuition is unaffordable to many families at more than 20 percent of median household income.
“I’m encouraged that our colleagues in the Senate Republican Caucus have joined the conversation on higher-education funding and the need to restore affordable access to the opportunities of higher education. Their proposals for funding higher education are billed as ‘a comprehensive plan that would bring down the costs of higher education for students, increase state spending on public universities and community colleges, and tie additional funding to higher-education institutions’ performance.’
“As always, of course, the question is HOW to pay for this laudable proposed $300 million, 10-percent increase in funds for higher education. The proposal doesn’t pay for itself. It’s good that they seem to share some of the objectives sought in HB 1624. I want us to aim at the long-term goal — a very doable goal — of making college accessible and affordable for citizens willing to work hard to earn their dreams. Our House Higher Education Committee proposal — ‘Education Opportunity Funding’ — would make sure that state funding for higher education is at least 50 percent of spending relative to tuition.
“The bottom line is that tuition isn’t affordable if it exceeds 10 percent of the median family income in our state. That’s the objective in the House legislation. And that’s an objective I hope my friends in the Senate Republican Caucus can eventually embrace.
“We mustn’t rob Peter to pay Paul. The duties we face in funding K-12 education, health care for disadvantaged senior citizens and needy families, public-safety issues — these responsibilities aren’t going to go away.
“Therefore, I’m also proposing legislation to lift higher-education funding by closing tax loopholes for high-technology companies’ — and shifting this revenue to higher education. High-tech corporations have benefited from these B&O and sales tax exemptions to the tune of $114 million per biennium. The high-technology and research corporations rely upon our public investment in higher education to provide the highly trained and innovative graduates needed by the same businesses which have received the equivalent of $114 million in public investment every two years. For that investment, few jobs have been created, and those jobs have cost more in subsidy than the ‘new earnings’ generated by those jobs. This new revenue would provide the state’s share of funding for nearly 3,000 community and technical college students for one year (at 2012 funding levels).
“The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee has found that these high-tech tax credits and exemptions have cost $45,000 for every job the industry claims it has created. The ‘new earnings’ from these jobs average $25,000 per year. So you do the math. Well, you don’t have to, actually. The per-job price tag in the biotech sales-tax deferral/waiver for 14 jobs in new facilities is $140,000 per biennium. That’s not an efficient, cost-effective investment of the public’s dime — no matter whose economic primer you’re using.”
Pollet has also offered House Bill 1494, which would double the estate tax with the resulting $100 million also devoted to higher-education funding. Only about 300 estates would be subject to the tax, annually.
He noted that maintenance funding for higher education includes approximately $120 million in funding above current levels to restore pay reductions, and a three-percent reduction in tuition would likely require $108 million.