Write Mass. Congressmen

<p>I rarely start threads of my own volition, but I feel very passionately on this subject and I think CC parents are the right people to reach out to. I encourage everyone to read the following article and then write Mass. State Rep. Paul Kujawski protesting the bill to raid private college endowments to make up the deficit in the state budget. Rep. Kujawski can be reached through this address: <a href="mailto:Rep.PaulKujawski@hou.state.ma.us">Rep.PaulKujawski@hou.state.ma.us</a>
President of the State Senate can be reached through here: <a href="mailto:Therese.Murray@state.ma.us">Therese.Murray@state.ma.us</a></p>

<p>These endowments go towards student financial aid, making costly private educations affordable for a wider spectrum of American students. On top of that, the endowment at Smith helps reduce the cost of education even for students receiving no aid. The sticker price for a school like Smith is considerably higher than the current price to students, and if our endowment were to be curtailed for this reason, it is students who would suffer. </p>

<p>The community would suffer as well. Less money for student programs means that there will also be less money for community outreach and charity programs directed by colleges. </p>

<p>A billion dollar endowment may seem excessive, but the cost of maintaining a school, paying educators and staff, keeping up buildings, meeting ever-rising energy bills, and providing access to lower-income Americans thus allowing them to reach the dreams that they have earned through hard work and dedication, costs a lot of money. Furthermore, these endowments have to last well into the future. Schools aren't sitting around, swimming in gold, laughing about how much they're keeping from the government. They are going about the business of providing education and opportunity to their students and their communities, and they should not be punished. </p>

<p>PLEASE write the Mass. State House, and encourage your friends to do the same. </p>

<p>http//<a href="http://www.boston.com/"&gt;www.boston.com/&lt;/a&gt;...&lt;/p>

<p>Lawmakers target $1b endowments
Exempt status of schools debated
By Peter Schworm and Matt Viser, Globe Staff | May 8, 2008</p>

<p>Massachusetts lawmakers desperate for additional revenue are eyeing the endowments of deep-pocketed private colleges to bolster the state's coffers by more than $1 billion a year, asserting that the schools' rising fortunes undercut their nonprofit status.</p>

<p>Legislators have asked state finance officials to study a plan that would impose a 2.5 percent annual assessment on colleges with endowments over $1 billion, an amount now exceeded by nine Massachusetts institutions. The proposal, which higher education specialists believe is the first of its kind across the country, drew surprising support at a debate on the State House budget last week and is attracting attention in higher education circles nationally.</p>

<p>The idea has prompted a range of questions, including whether it is legal to infringe upon private colleges' tax-exempt status or single them out based on their wealth. It also faces significant opposition from the colleges and some skeptical lawmakers.</p>

<p>But proponents say the colleges' vast accumulations of wealth - Harvard University has the biggest endowment at $34 billion - and their often modest contributions to their host communities justify the assessment.</p>

<p>"When is a nonprofit not a nonprofit because of the wealth they are acquiring?" said Representative Paul Kujawski, a Democrat from Webster and chief backer of the legislation.</p>

<p>"It's mind boggling that one entity not paying taxes has $34 billion. How do you justify that?" said Kujawski, who serves on the influential House Ways and Means Committee. "When people can't afford to live. How do you justify not taxing them?"</p>

<p>University leaders criticized the plan as a gimmick that would backfire by hurting institutions that are pivotal to the state.</p>

<p>"You'd be taxing success here," said Kevin Casey, Harvard's associate vice president for government, community, and public affairs. "Over time, this would put us at a real competitive disadvantage, which would drastically hurt the Commonwealth."</p>

<p>Casey said it was understandable that lawmakers would search for new sources of revenue when economic times are tough. But he said the law would hurt colleges' fund-raising and financial aid initiatives.</p>

<p>The plan was introduced amid a national debate over whether elite colleges are hoarding their endowments. Members of Congress, including Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, have questioned why elite universities do not spend more of their vast reserves to defray the cost of tuition.</p>

<p>Amid the scrutiny, some top-tier colleges have sharply expanded financial aid offerings, often replacing student loans with grants and waiving tuition for a greater number of families. At some of those schools, increases in financial aid are outpacing tuition increases.</p>

<p>The Massachusetts plan has also brought to the fore a more radical notion: whether certain colleges have amassed so much wealth that they no longer deserve to be tax-exempt.</p>

<p>In addition to Harvard, the legislation would affect Amherst College, Boston College, Boston University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Smith College, Tufts University, Wellesley College, and Williams College.</p>

<p>Lawmakers estimate that by assessing a fee for assets exceeding $1 billion, they would raise about $1.4 billion a year, a significant influx for a state budget of approximately $28.2 billion. Amounts up to $1 billion would not be assessed under the plan.</p>

<p>The House's approval of a study last week was only a first step toward adopting a new assessment, but it indicated a political willingness to cross a previously sharp boundary. Most lawmakers predicted the measure would quickly wilt against the universities' political muscle. But after several hours of debate, it became clear that the issue had gained momentum.</p>

<p>Senate President Therese Murray said she supports the idea of studying the issue. Murray declined to answer questions about the proposal, but her spokesman e-mailed a statement saying: "Some of these institutions give very little back to their communities. With such large endowments, they should be doing more. We've done some research on the endowments at some universities and other large non-profits, and we will continue to look into it."</p>

<p>The plan has garnered support among those who believe many top-tier colleges are managed more like corporations than nonprofits and are not doing enough to reach out to low- and middle-income students and the communities around them.</p>

<p>"The pileup of wealth doesn't match their mission of serving the public good," said Wick Sloane, a specialist on college finances and student access who teaches at Bunker Hill Community College. "These schools have generated huge cash flows but are not doing their civic duty."</p>

<p>Sloane and others pointed out that private colleges receive significant government funding for research and financial aid and that their tax-free endowments, financed by tax-free donations, represent a major public subsidy.</p>

<p>"The Williams indoor golf nets are paid by all of us through federal tax policy," said Sloane, a Williams College graduate. "These institutions have brought this upon themselves."</p>

<p>Yet several leading lawmakers are skeptical about the plan. Representative Kevin J. Murphy, the House chairman of the Joint Committee on Higher Education, said it was unfair to single out wealthy universities to improve the state's finances. "You're picking and choosing someone who has a lot of money," he said. "Taxing the Red Sox would raise money for the state, too."</p>

<p>Critics of the plan said colleges are easy targets because of their wealth and because they do not have the option of relocating.</p>

<p>College leaders said the measure would probably reduce the amount they would raise and spend on financial aid, and noted that most gifts to endowments are restricted for specific uses. Private colleges and universities already make substantial public contributions through taxes on payroll and nonexempt property, and educate the bulk of the state's students.</p>

<p>The proposal is the latest example of state leaders searching for new sources of revenue, such as new taxes on cigarettes and on large corporations.</p>

<p>While states get no direct tax benefit, municipalities often try to coax more revenue from local colleges and other nonprofits when budgets are tight. Known as PILOT arrangements, these payments are voluntary contributions of money and a host of other benefits such as scholarships and volunteer work.</p>

<p>Boston receives $1.8 million a year from Harvard, for example, $261,000 from BC, and $141,000 from Northeastern. Many communities say colleges, which often own significant chunks of valuable land, rarely pay property taxes.</p>

<p>Richard J. Doherty, president of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, which has lobbied against the assessment, said the plan would weaken one of the state's strongest sectors. "It's like Florida taxing oranges," he said.</p>

<p>Amherst College's treasurer Peter Shea said that the idea would be "unfortunate" and that the college relies on its $1.66 billion endowment for more than one-third of its annual spending.</p>

<p>Other critics said the measure would result in donors essentially writing checks to the state government. "This could provoke a real backlash," said Matthew Hamill, senior vice president of the National Association of College and University Business Officers.</p>

<p>What an atrocious bill.</p>

<p>Do you think that the congressman will care about letters from people who are, primarily, not Massachusetts voters? I mean even most students (though they can vote) aren't residents.</p>

<p>I worked in a local congressional office and i can say with a fact that letters work. Even if you don't live in Mass, or you don't vote in Mass, students are an important part of the election machine in Mass. Our friends live there, and our neighbors. And the state is trying to get more students to remain in Mass after graduation (most students don't stay in the state). </p>

<p>Students after all pay taxes on income they earn while in Mass. They have a right to be heard. And so do parents, since this affects not just local people, but the entire community of private colleges in Mass. </p>

<p>And I want to stress, if it didn't come across in my post, that this isn't a partisan thing. I'd like anyone who feels strongly about this to write a letter. The chief sponsor of this bill and I belong to the same party, but I'm protesting this as political pandering and poor economic planning. I urge you to do the same.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, this is a national trend, started a few years ago. Politicians have been pandering to the general public by saying that elite private universities sit on the wealth and don't share it, making their tuition prohibitive for the average citizen since they could easily buy down the costs. "Average citizens" eat this up since they already view top college graduates as snobs who are no more intelligent than any other college grads and as receiving more benefits than their own children. The hole in this thinking is in the selectivity of these colleges. Most top colleges provide financial aid for the qualified admitted student; the trick is not as much paying for it (yes, it is a problem), but becoming qualified for admission through better public education, home emphasis on the value of education, and developing an excellent work ethic -- all on top of innate intelligence. But no one says anything about that. All they see are "rich" universities.</p>

<p>Endowments often have a substantial portion of earmarked funds. Let's say that an alumna leaves a million dollars to endow a chair in art history. Those funds support one professor through the revenue, and the principal cannot be touched. Student tuition cannot be reduced through those funds. Other departments cannot be bolstered by them. Administration salaries cannot be paid. Or let's say that a donor bequests $100 million toward a new building. Again, those funds are earmarked for a specific purpose. Some donations can be used only for financial aid while others for student prizes or faculty salaries or acquiring volumes for the library or bidding for art. Valuable land that is not being used cannot be sold because it might be needed in twenty years. </p>

<p>Of course, not all funds are earmarked, but the total dollar amount of an endowment can be deceiving. And then you add, as you say, the need to ensure the continuation of the university not just within the next five years but for perpetuity. What Massachusetts proposes, especially since it is a state known for the variety and quality of higher education, has the potential to destroy its institutions of higher learning.</p>

<p>Obviously, you don't need to convince me.</p>

<p>I'm of mixed minds about this one. I take it as a given that politicians pander. I take it as further given that endowments often have a substantial portion of earmarked funds. And (the kicker), that politicians don't have higher education for the citizenry as their top priority almost goes without saying. </p>

<p>However, my alma mater (one of those really rich places - the one with the indoor golf nets) claims that they spend $72k per student per year (it's higher now), but only charge a maximum of $47k. In other words, they provide a $100k subsidy over four years to students receiving NO financial aid. It is likely that almost half of them could actually afford $72k or something close to it (and hence provide more financial assistance to those who can't afford it.) A substantial portion come from millionaire or multimillionaire families. It is hard to make an argument that the state has an interest (or that I do, with my measly alumni contribution) in subsidizing the millionaire's kids - especially when they'd likely be quite sanguine about paying for what the education of their children actually costs. </p>

<p>If Amherst is relying on their endowment for 1/3 of their annual spending, the simple reply is that they don't have to. They have made a choice to subsidize the millionaires. All they have to do is charge what the product costs, and then subsidize those who can't afford it.</p>

<p>I think you overestimate the number of "millionaire" kids at these schools. Plus, with EFC is so skewed right now (because it doesn't take into account living expenses), upper middle class families would be required to pay close to what they bring in after taxes every year if the tuition went to that figure.</p>

<p>Sorry, but I don't think so at all. Millionaires in assets these days are not at all uncommon (especially in New England and California, where the house itself might be worth more than half of that.) At my alma mater, the numbers suggest that the median family income for those receiving no financial aid is likely somewhere around $325k (or a little more). It would not be at all unusual for such families to have a million or more in assets. Go up to the median percentile among those, and... (well, you can do the math - there are A LOT of multimillionaires).</p>

<p>But again - it doesn't matter. SUBSIDIZE those upper middle class families if they can't afford it with the funds from those who can pay. </p>

<p>"upper middle class families would be required to pay close to what they bring in after taxes every year if the tuition went to that figure."</p>

<p>This is absolutely irrelevant. There is no college in the nation that assumes one should be paying for a child's college out of current income. That wouldn't change one bit if the list price went up. They aren't required now to pay close to what they bring in after-tax income (because they aren't assumed to being paying it out of current after-tax income), and they wouldn't be expected to if the list price went up. It is even theoretically possible that the amount they would be expected to pay could actually go DOWN.</p>

<p>Don't read me wrong: I don't like the bill. But I also don't see either my interests or those of the state reflected in current tuition/endowment policies at most of the billion-dollar schools. I am glad that, at least as regards Pell Grant recipients, Smith is an exception.</p>

<p>Well, this looks like a thoroughly bad "Robin Hood" bill to me. I'll try to drop an e-mail before I leave.</p>

<p>On a related note, I've heard that MEFA has stopped making loans because of insufficient assets. That's a damned shame...they were one of the best, least expensive sources for parental loans and as long as your student attended a Massachusetts college, you were eligible for their loans, Massachusetts resident or not.</p>

<p>I hope they'll be able to lend out what I'm paying back, which is a far larger number than many people would consider reasonable. Shrug. If you didn't save THEN, you take loans NOW. I don't have a problem with that.</p>