We get about half the funds of UCLA and Berkeley, and that includes the income from the university's oil lands. I am not going to argue with Weinberg's comparisons to other states. It is more relevant, instead, given the Legislature's budgetary restrictions in a sputtering economy, to compare Texas' spending on higher education with other critical public needs. Higher education, overall, received a 9.9 percent increase in funding in the new state budget for 2002-2003, a greater boost than was given in most other spending areas. But although he is correct that an income tax could vastly improve the quality of a number of state services, that option isn't likely to be exercised in the foreseeable future.
Political opposition remains too strong.
In the meantime, though, the University of Texas can re-examine its own budget priorities. Big-time college athletic programs are not really higher education. They are big business, entertainment and supposedly pay for themselves through ticket sales and radio and television contracts, etc. Most of Coach Mack Brown's compensation package, considered competitive with other large university football programs, doesn't come from tax dollars. But it may say more about the priorities of a large segment of our society than many commencement speakers would like to admit.