An Increase is an Increase

Taking a page out of the government's playbook to separate you from your money, it looks like CNM is being more than a little disingenuous here:

The good news: Most students at Central New Mexico Community College won't pay more for tuition during the upcoming academic year.

The bad news: They'll begin paying a $3-per-credit-hour technology fee, raising the cost of attending the state's largest community college by $36 a semester for a student taking 12 credit hours.

CNM's governing board approved the new tuition and fee rates Tuesday.

The board also approved a $187 million budget for the college, which enrolls close to 25,000 students.

Because of statewide budget cuts, the budget the governing board approved includes no salary increases.

According to a CNM news release, this is the third year the school's governing board has not increased in-district tuition, which is $41 per credit hour.

It's that last line that really gets my goat. No matter how you slice it, "a $3-per-credit-hour technology fee" increase is a 7% increase in tuition. I'm not quite sure who the governing board at CNM think they're kidding, but it is wrong for them to pretend that they are not increasing tuition costs (i.e. the cost to attend) when they absolutely are.

Happy Tax Day!

You're Reading the Small Print, Right?

Uh oh, the banking situation is getting worse, not better, and guess who is going to get stuck with the bill not once, but twice:

Citigroup is reneging on a promise it made to tens of millions of credit card customers in good times.

After pledging that it would no longer reserve the right to raise interest rates at any time for any reason, Citigroup now plans to start raising rates for customers who have not had an increase in at least two years. The move appears to backpedal from a commitment that Citigroup executives made to Congress in early 2007 when they tried to fend off greater regulation by promising not to raise rates until an account expires.

Citigroup attributed its decision to the “difficult market environment,” suggesting that the cost of the program — on top of sharp increases in its borrowing costs and severe anticipated losses — cut too deeply into profits. The bank said the policy change would only partly offset a $1.4 billion third-quarter loss for its credit card unit. However, it declined to provide specific figures.

That's right, first the taxpayers are going to have to pay for the bailout for generations to come, and now we get hit with larger fees. This news breaks at the same time we learn that Citi is going to layoff another 50,000 people:

Citigroup Inc (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) said on Monday it plans to cut about 50,000 jobs as souring economies and global credit conditions cause the U.S. bank with the farthest reach worldwide to retrench. The cuts are expected in the near-term and are on top of the roughly 23,000 jobs eliminated by the second-largest U.S. bank between January and September.

Do I have a problem with a private company making staff layoffs, or increasing the fees for their services? Normally, the answer would be, "No." However, that answer becomes more complicated when the company is a recipient of a federal bailout with my tax dollars.

In these dire economic times, you have to wonder who would want to go into banking? Well, it turns out its hard to find a business that would not like to go into banking. My suggestion, you better start paying close attention to the legalese mailers you get from your credit card companies, or you are going to open a statement and be unpleasantly surprised by the fees you find.

A final note: You can avoid the higher fees if you let your lender know that you reject them and close your account paying off your remaining debt according to the original terms (i.e don't be late). The irony of this is that this means less lending, the precise thing the whole bailout was intended to avoid.

Taxing Public Lands

There's no denying it. Most Americans are feeling an economic pinch. And, when dollars are tight, families (and everyone else for that matter) look at taking vacations that aren't likely to take quite as big of a bite out of the family budget.

Vacations a little closer to home start looking very attractive. Vacations like camping in a National Park, or boating on a lake on federal lands. These shouldn't cost too much, right? Wrong! The Recreation Access Tax just keeps on increasing:

The U.S. House of Representatives has decided to take a serious look at the much-criticized implementation, if not over-implementation, of the Federal Lands Recreational Enhancement Act (FLREA), This is the law that has saddled us the pandemic of new and ever-increasing recreation fees to enter and use our public lands, which is why it’s called RAT, for Recreation Access Tax, by its distracters.

It's about time. This is NOT a partisan issue. We already work four months of every year to pay for our government. Should we really have to pay more and more every year to pay to enjoy the PUBLIC lands our taxes are already supporting. I don't think so.

Three Letter Words

The next time you hear about the government proposing the creation of a new "authority" to deal with, well, with anything, you should call your legislator and tell them to just say, "NO." Government's tax and then the spend. It's what they do. Government created Authorities assess fees and then they increase fees. It's what they do.

TAX = FEE

You don't believe me? Well, here is a case in point of how a government created Authority creates a fee that ultimately becomes a tax on you and me (subscription):

Homes and businesses in Mesa del Sol apparently will be the first to get hit by a new Water Utility Authority fee for buying water rights.

Only new buildings constructed outside the water authority's service area will be affected by the rules, which have been incorporated into the water rate ordinance.

The rules will add about $1,250 to the cost of a standard- size home. The fee rises for larger homes, commercial and industrial size projects to as much as $66,000, depending on meter size, said Frank Roth, water authority Senior Policy Manager.

The one-time fee for buildings, called the "water supply charge," will be placed into an account the water authority can only use to buy new water rights or direct toward finding new sources of water.

Lynne Andersen, National Association of Industrial and Office Properties president, said the fees will most likely be passed on to home buyers and business owners.

Here comes the bad part. When elected government officials raise taxes, we at least have an opportunity to vote them out of office the next election cycle. The same is not true for government created Authorities. These folks are appointed, not elected, so the taxpayer has no recourse whatsoever.

It basically boils down to "Taxation without Representation." The last time that got out of control there was a revolution in this country.