California lawmakers should reject exorbitant UC, CSU budget cuts proposed by Newsom | Opinion

Exorbitant UC and CSU funding cuts

“Federal funding cuts threaten California students’ educational opportunities | Opinion,” (sacbee.com, April 16)

Federal funding cuts are indeed concerning, especially with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s nearly 8% proposed decrease in the 2025-26 general fund appropriations for the California State University and University of California systems (totaling $772 million, 55% of the proposed $1.4 billion in 2025-26 general fund cuts Newsom has proposed). In comparison, Newsom proposed only a 1.88% reduction in the Department of Corrections.

These cutbacks are already having an impact: The UC recently announced a systemwide hiring freeze, and Sonoma State University is laying off tenured faculty and eliminating 20 degree programs, six departments and all NCAA Division II intercollegiate sports.

Lawmakers should say “no” to these disproportionate reductions. Public higher education is much too important to students and our state’s economy for the UC and CSU systems to bear such significant reductions.

Mel Levine

Dick Ackerman

Co-chairs, California Coalition for Public Higher Education

Kiley feigns ignorance

“How will Trump tariffs affect California Republicans’ congressional races?” (sacbee.com, April 9)

This article quotes Rep. Kevin Kiley as saying he is “unfamiliar with legislation that would give Congress more of a say in tariff policy.” That’s interesting since Kiley also claimed in a recent tele-town hall that he didn’t know that the SAVE Act, for which he has twice voted yes, threatens millions of Americans’ voting rights, including married women whose legal names do not match their birth certificates.

Is Kiley truly unaware that cutting spending to preserve tax breaks for the wealthy will endanger Medicaid and Medicare, federal programs on which thousands of his constituents depend?

It’s unlikely. He’s either decided to feign ignorance or maintain a veneer of plausible deniability. Either way, he’s siding with House leadership, leaving District 3 voters with an elected representative who purposefully votes for legislation that harms us.

Barbara Smith

Auburn

Trump’s ‘tariffpalooza’

“Gavin Newsom slams Trump’s tariffs. ‘No state is poised to lose more’ than CA,” (sacbee.com, April 16)

I support Gov. Gavin Newsom’s suit against the Trump administration.

President Donald Trump’s “Tariffpalooza” will wreak havoc on the Golden State’s economy. My hope is that many of California’s farmers, manufacturers and small business owners agree.

Denny Freidenrich

Laguna Beach

The people’s pope

“Sacramento Catholics mourn death of Pope Francis: ‘It’s like we lost our father’,” (sacbee.com, April 21)

It is with great sadness that I learned of the passing of Pope Francis. He was unlike any who came before him, and will be remembered as one of the most consequential leaders of our time.

For decades, Pope Francis served the most vulnerable across Argentina, and his mission of serving the poor never ceased. As pope, he was a loving pastor and challenging teacher who reached out to different faiths. He commanded us to fight for peace and protect our planet from a climate crisis. He advocated for the voiceless and powerless, and he made all feel welcome and seen by the Church.

He promoted equity and an end to poverty and suffering across the globe. Above all, he was the people’s pope — a light of faith, hope and love.

Paul Bacon

Hallandale Beach, Fla.

Prop. 13’s impact

“This California law made housing too expensive. Here is how to change it | Opinion,” (sacbee.com, April 17)

Your editorial argues that the California Environmental Quality Act is what makes housing expensive in California, but what actually makes housing more expensive is Proposition 13, the limit on real estate taxes.

Prop. 13, adopted by voters in 1978, not only makes real estate a safe haven to park wealth, it encourages land speculation (the speculators can cheaply hold land off the market until it reaches peak price, making property ever more expensive). Houses will typically rise to the value banks will lend, and since they lend multiples of available discretionary income, the lower Prop. 13 tax also encourages higher prices since it makes more income available for mortgage payments.

Mark Dempsey

Orangevale

This story was originally published April 23, 2025 at 6:00 AM.