Rowdy protesters blocked major gates at two California universities and smashed the windows of a car Thursday amid campus protests across the nation against deep cuts in education funding.
Protesters at the University of California, Santa Cruz surrounded the car while its driver was inside.
The uninjured driver was not trying to get onto campus and appeared to have been singled out at random, Santa Cruz police Capt. Steve Clark said.
University provost David Kliger said there were reports of protesters carrying clubs and knives, but Clark could not confirm those reports.
California higher education has been cut significantly and students have been hit with tuition hikes around 30%. That’s rather a lot. The students are, of course, correct, that it is ludicrous that California, which is wealthier than most countries, can’t fund higher education properly. But, as I’ve said before, this is what Californians have voted for, again and again. Without a rewrite of the California constitution, including allowing the legislature to overturn referendum results, it isn’t going to get fixed.
Especially since fixing it would require allowing property tax increases and increasing high end income tax rates significantly.
Too many people in California are clinging to their little slice of heaven, no realizing that they are dooming themselves and everyone else.
This is the US, writ large. California is the bellweather of America.
Of course, if enough people get upset enough to protest, beyond just students, and to do so in whether “allowed” or not, then California and America’s elites might get the message that they’re threatened.
When the first set of Greek riots happened last year the EU’s elites let them go on—until they spread beyond Greece. This time, when the Greeks started rioting, they suddenly started talking seriously about helping Greece. Such help will come with some pretty ugly terms, but it’s better than no help.
Rioting tends to concentrate the mind of elites. People forget the huge riots, marches, factories being occupied and all out wars between police, private dicks and unions that were common occurances in the US right through the Great Depression.
FDR saved capitalism because it needed saving from the American population, who had had it with the excesses of unregulated capitalism and financial games run amok.
He did so by making capitalism and the government work for ordinary people. Since then, with a couple major exceptions, most of what he did has been undone, but Americans are only beginning to realize what that will mean, and brainwashed by years of big lie propaganda, there is a real danger they may respond by demanding not that capitalism be made to work for everyone, but instead for ideological policies like a flat tax which will make the situation even worse.
If so, they’ll get what they demand, but not what they want.
The Raven
There were also substantial demonstrations at the University of Washington..
BTW, if we get more right-wing policies, it won’t be a majority of the public demanding them. It will, instead, be a result of undemocratic governance.
DancingOpossum
“Rioting tends to concentrate the mind of elites.”
Indeed. It’s the only thing that does. On that note, I strongly recommend taking one and a half hours out of your day to watch John Pilger’s documentary “War on Democracy,” about rising populist movements in Latin America in the wake of the death-dealing spread by U.S.-backed regimes. What is most amazing (aside from the horrifying U.S. complicity in backing genocidal maniacs) is the way these desperately poor, often illiterate people fought back–time and time again, taking to the streets to demand their rights.
After the 2002 coup of Chavez, it took ordinary Venezuelans only 48 hours — two days! — to have the coup leaders tossed out and Chavez’s presidency restored. They did it by marching into the city and surrounding the presidential palace until their demands were met. (They were also greatly helped when the military decided to back them, of course, but that wasn’t something they were counting on.) Bolivians did the same thing. And on and on…this is not a brief for Chavez, btw, but rather about the force of populist uprisings. It makes me wonder: Why haven’t we done that here? Why are nut-whacked teabaggers the only people taking to the streets? Maybe we’re not desperate enough yet. Most of us still have too much to lose. Those Bolivian and Venezuelan and Argentinians had literally nothing left to lose. Perhaps it is only when things get that bad that people rise up. If so, well, at least Obama and his pals are ensuring that they get that bad…
DancingOpossum
BTW you can see the documentary for free here: http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=171
cgeye
Um, that’s not true.
Single-payer advocates have demonstrated and have been arrested, since last year.
The tea party sockpuppets get press because their bosses own it.
Ian Welsh
Demonstrating is easily ignored…
Barry
The Bush Administration sought to implement many policies (repeal of posse comitatus act, Northern Command, “free speech zones”, presidential command of state militia, etc) that reveal elite expectation of imminent rioting. I think they expected it to start much sooner.
John B.
Yes, I think that is right Barry.
jo6pac
I have hope but this will lead to UC hiring Blackhawk to clear the halls of trouble makes.
This what the UC system has become here in Calif.
http://www.counterpunch.org/parrish03012010.html
jumpjet
The kids are all right.
Twisted Martini
Ian, can you please explain to me in layman’s terms why a flat tax is bad and a prgressive system like we have is beneficial? I’m struggling to put it in simple terms.
zot23
Twisted Martini, basically the flat tax is a regressive tax in that it hits those with lower incomes harder than the rich.
For example, let’s say we have a flat sales tax system (like europe’s VAT.) Someone who makes $30,000 a year wants to buy a $15,000 car; someone who makes $300,000 wants the the same vehicle. If the flat tax is 20%, then the tax on a $15,000 vehicle would be $3,000 regardless of the buyer. But looking at our buyers, we see that:
$3000/$30,000 = 10% of a yearly income for the poorer person
but
$3000/$300,000 = 1% of a yearly income for the richer person
So the rich person is actually paying a magnitude less in taxes as far as their total income. The leavening factor is supposed to be that rich people buy more stuff, but do rich people eat more bread, milk, eggs than poor people? No, but for poor people the cost of such things is a much greater portion of their total income.
Progressive income taxes is much better (in a capitalist system) for “spreading out the pain” of who pays for what. Both people can still buy that car, but the poorer person is not burdened with a 10% of income tax at purchase and the rich person is still unaffected (1% was already very low) because his taxes are independent of purchases.
The only way flat taxes could even be close to fair would be to have a graduated system of flat taxes for different products. So bread, milk, eggs, food, gas, etc might have a 10% tax, whereas yachts and ferraris would have a 50% flat tax. But honestly, this defeats the simplicity of a “flat” tax and would be just as hard (if not harder) to implement than just having progressive income tax brackets like we do now.
Did that help, or did I muddy the waters further?
Ian Welsh
Good explanation.
A flat tax also increases the speed at which the rich get richer, which has political and social implications (most social indicators, including lifespan, infant mortality, happiness and so on, after a certain point, track equality much more than they do overall wealth.)
In economic terms, flat taxes also reduce broad based demand for goods and services, pushing it towards specialized luxury goods and services, which sucks for full employment and so on.
Twisted Martini
No, it makes perfect sense, and the example of the car purchase is a good one. It also speaks to the point that those who benefit most from a stable “democratic” society are the ones who should bear more of the burden. Obiously those in power don’t want that to happen and thus demonize efforts to increase their tax burden.
There is also a huge ignorance about how stuff like social security or the tax system really works. I would imagine it is by design. Those who are ignorant are more easily scared and manipulated.