It is simply a management problem. I propose that libraries should, with public discussion, and the approval of faculty and university administrators, decide what percentage of the materials budget will be devoted to the purchase of locally-owned journals. If the percentage of funds devoted to subscriptions climbs above the agreed on figure, that is an automatic trigger for cancellations. It might require a consortium of libraries to define use and perhaps to purchase ISI citation information in the form useful to each library. With these moves, libraries would have the tools by which to respond immediately to budget cuts or subscription increases.
Librarians have a done a great deal of cussing and discussing of journal costs.
We're whining from a position of weakness. Once publishers begin to get cancellations in immediate response to price increases, they will begin to respond differently, increasing the value of the journals, and accepting lower profits as the price of getting any profits at all. This proposal doesn't solve the problem of spiralling serial costs, because scholarly publishing via the dissemination of printed journals is a system with far too much built-in waste to continue to function much longer. Our purpose should be not only to spend our institutional money wisely, but to restore the balance among libraries, publishers, and scholars. As equal partners, we will be in a much better position to insure that the coming transition to electronic publication with on-demand printing develops in a way that works to the benefit of society, not just to a powerful segment of society.