If you think the proposed $139 million in cuts to the UNC System is bad, look back to the United Kingdom in 1985.
The late Margaret Thatcher, former-prime minister of Britain, did far worse things to Britain’s universities than anything the North Carolina General Assembly is proposing. According to Britain’s Telegraph, upon her first year in office, Thatcher gave UK universities 18 months to cut 18 percent of their budgets. She cut 3,000 university positions, and three years later, froze student grants. The opposition from Britain’s higher education was so great that Oxford University refused to give Thatcher an honorary degree, which was unprecedented after World War II.
And yet, many UK citizens think that the 1980s and 90s were good years for British education. Christopher Woodhead, writer for British education journal EducationNext, said that Thatcher’s 1988 British Education Reform Act worked — that is, until “government officials and various education groups got into the act and diluted nearly every reform, rendering the changes impotent.”
The shocking thing about the effectiveness of the Education Reform is that it was government-run. Thatcher’s administration sought to nationalize schools and eliminate the British equivalent of school districts. For someone who staunchly supported privatization and smaller government (as Thatcher did), this Reform Act seemed to come out of nowhere.
If you read my columns, what I’m about to say probably will feel the same way: I think Thatcher’s move to nationalize education was a good one. The Telegraph reported that it required schools to focus more on “vocationally relevant higher education, closer links to employers and a wider range of modes of provision,” and that the reform still has a positive educational legacy in Britain today. Thatcher was able to cut through the big government/small government argument and propose an actual answer to the problem.
And as with every government program, her success largely came down to money.
I’m going to shift gears for a second and admit that it’s possible for Big Government to work. Sweden and its 51.1 percent tax rate has managed to host a stable economy and thriving entrepreneurial scene (Skype and Spotify both came from Sweden). But, like ancient Athens, in which every voting member of society took part in the law-making process, Sweden’s small size plays a large part in its success. Plus, compared to the U.S., Sweden has no international affairs to worry about. Its army has had little effect on the affairs in the Middle East and it doesn’t possess nuclear weapons.
These aspects have allowed Sweden to focus almost exclusively on domestic affairs and increasing economic efficiency. This efficiency is what allows the Swedish government to work.
I’ve heard the “people matter more than money argument,” which basically says government should care more about its citizens than about staying out of debt. But this is a faulty approach — without money, you can’t care for the people, no matter how much goodwill you possess.
The Greek government is learning this lesson the hard way. In attempts to “care for” its citizens, it handed out benefits associated with almost every job imaginable. According to Business Insider, a hairdresser in Athens could retire with a full pension at age 50. Vasia Veremi, a 28-year-old Greek hairdresser, told Business Insider that her job was risky because she worked with ammonia and harsh chemicals.
“People should be able to retire at a decent age,” Veremi said. “We are not made to live 150 years.”
It’s a nice idea, but who’s going to pay for it? Certainly not Greece — its economy is in shambles.
In the end, Thatcher’s education reforms worked because her government was able to pay for them. Whether it’s N.C. General Assembly cutting funding to schools or whether it’s Sweden charging its citizens exorbitant tax rates, the only successful government is a government with money. Perhaps the United States is too large for big government to effectively provide for all citizens and government should be regulated to the local level. Or perhaps, it is possible, and we should mimic France’s proposed 75 percent income-tax on the rich.
Though I personally believe the former is true, we won’t know for a while — in fact, we won’t ever be able to know until our government again has money. Only when North Carolina moves away from the number-three spot in debt to the federal government can we talk about opposing cuts to the UNC System. And only when North Carolina is able to store up the $1 billion that Gov. McCrory is proposing can we talk about teacher salaries and restoring the pre-McCrory welfare payments.
Until that happens, I’m going to support things such as the federal Sequester or Gov. McCrory’s proposed budget.
