Thursday, June 01, 2006

Wisconsin residents get the shaft from UW again

UW System recommends 6.8 percent resident tuition hike

The UW schools have once again proposed an increase in cost for Wisconsin resident students, in the meantime they are proposing a huge cut in non resident student fees.

The cost for a state resident going to UW- Milwaukee next year will increase by about $374. The out of state student going to UW-Milwaukee will see a decrease in tuition of $2,776.

How is this fair? How is that a family lives in Wisconsin for years, paying their taxes to support this state and it's educational facilities, and then find themselves being penalized again for being a resident in the state of Wisconsin?

When do we stop punishing people for living in Wisconsin? As it is, we are one of the highest taxed states in the US. As taxpayers, we have no rights- we cannot even get a Taxpayer Bill of Rights, while most of the rest of the country have these rights.

Why is it we are more concerned about the education of out-of-staters, than we are about our own children's education?

Here's a thought- let's completely cut the benefits we give to illegal aliens and give that money to our own children and their future! Let's stop punishing the people of Wisconsin, just because we live in Wisconsin and pay taxes to Wisconsin.

1 comment:

jeff said...

Does cutting benefits include not allowing children of illegal aliens to attend public schools or the use of emergency rooms of hospitals if the state, we as taxpayers, have to pick up the bill? Does it include sending those in our prisons we know to be illegals back to their home countries instead of them serving their sentences? Do you also mean the eliminatin of bilingual and immersion programs in the public schools?

Can you give examples of the benefits we should cut if different from above?

If you mean not allowing them welfare benefits--to enact a procedure that when you apply for benefits you have to prove citizenship--I would support that. Or preventing WHEDA from not requiring Social Security numbers that are valid as part of loan packages--- I could support that.

Be more specific instead of speaking in 'bumper sticker'.