NYSUT: Do the rich and the special interests really need another $2.2 billion giveaway?

The 2014 executive budget proposes $2.2 billion in tax cuts and freezes that mostly benefit the wealthy, banks and corporations. Under any circumstances, that would be a waste and a bad idea. It's even worse right now, though, when huge gaps exist in the funding of schools and public universities in New York state. 

How about we take that $2.2 billion and do something good with it? 

Take action now at the NYSUT Member Action Center to tell lawmakers to oppose tax cuts that favor the wealthy and use that money to fund education! 

Over the last several years, programs and services at every level of education and health care across the state have been slashed to the bone. Our public colleges and universities have been cut by nearly $2 billion in recent years, and this latest executive eudget proposal would still leave approximately 69 percent of New York state schools at or below 2009-2010 education spending levels. 

Now the savings from those "bad times" budgets are to be used to provide tax breaks for the privileged elite? 

Outrageous. 

Take action now at the NYSUT Member Action Center to tell lawmakers to oppose tax cuts that favor the wealthy and use that money to fund education! 

Any budget that provides increased tax cuts to corporations and a select number of wealthy estate inheritors yet does nothing to restore the drastic cuts to the programs and services which students depend on is simply unacceptable. 

Don't you agree?                       


In solidarity, 
 
Andrew Pallotta
NYSUT Executive Vice President 

P.S.:   $2.2 billion for the privileged elite or for our students and schools? Tell 
           lawmakers which choice you prefer! 

Comments

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated just to make sure they are not spam! We aim to review and publish within 24 hours.

Popular posts from this blog

CUNY First Computer System to Aid Administrative Control over Colleges at the Expense of Efficiency and Effectiveness

Guest Post   Every once in a while I get a question, either privately or in a department meeting, regarding CUNYFirst. Here is what I know of CUNYFirst, based on a few years of working with the project as a "training liaison" (which is a fancy term for room-scheduler). (1) The idea of CUNYFirst is a good one: to have a unified, integrated "enterprise"-scale system that encompasses all university/campus business processes. Such a system could, in principle at least, have saved a lot of expenditure on maintaining dozens of disparate, redundant, barely cooperating third-party systems. Such a system could have offered information access that would have benefited the administration, the staff, the faculty, and students. (2) CUNY Central's motives in pursuing CUNYFirst were dominated by an agenda that has nothing to do with such benefits however. Rather, CUNY Central sought absolute control over all college activity, including curriculum. Think of it: whoev
Read more

CHAPTER LETTER CAMPAIGN: to President Michelle Anderson

Image
In the Fall of 2023, we asked all departments or units to write and sign letters to the college President, Michelle Anderson. We wanted her to know what our colleagues do well. We wanted her to hear our vision for work and mission at Brooklyn College. We wanted her to understand what we all need to thrive. We wanted to model a mission-driven discourse, not a workplace lead by austerity.  We wanted our President to hear us. Professor Naomi Braine reads the Sociology Dept Letter Professor Jillian Cavanaugh reads the Anthropology Letter     Twelve letters, signed by 100s of our colleagues were submitted—although many more were penned (many felt uneasy about being visible in this way). 1) Synthesis letter signed by over 80 faculty and staff 2) Sociology Department , 26 signatures 3) Anthropology Department, 16 signatures 4) Accounting Department , 14 signatures 5) Library , 28 signatures 6) PRLS , 6 signatures 7) Psychology Department , 30 signatures 8) English Department , over 100 signat
Read more

93% Vote No Confidence in Pathways

The referendum votes have been tallied: a total of 4,322 votes were cast, out of a total number of 7,202 possible votes: a 60% turnout. Of those, 3,996 full-time faculty agreed that they have No Confidence in Pathways, with only 323 voting Disagree (and 3 void ballots). An absolute majority of the full-time faculty are on record as having no confidence in Pathways. That is a stunning rebuke to the new curriculum and the coercive process used to implement it. I will send a longer message to the entire membership shortly, but for now I want to congratulate you all on your extraordinary collective effort in defense of our students' right to a rigorous education. Equipped with this result, we can take the campaign to a new level in the fall. In solidarity, Barbara Bowen
Read more