The state of Arizona fell nearly a billion dollars short of the revenue it was counting on for fiscal year 2002. As a direct result, the UA's anticipated budget for the 2001-2002 school year was cut by $15.9 million - a decrease of 4.56 percent.

Consequently, a moderate tuition and state income tax increase is necessary for our university's financial recovery. University of Arizona President Peter Likins and Gov. Jane Dee Hull should meet in the middle on this issue. Along with an income tax raise, a 5 percent tuition increase would be a reasonable compromise. Even a modest increase such as this could generate roughly $6 million for the UA next year.

Many variables are to blame for the fiscal shortfalls of our state and university, some obvious and some inconspicuous. Without a doubt, the recent nationwide recession and the events of Sept. 11 have hurt our economy on both a national and state level. Many Americans have lost their jobs and the unemployment rate has risen sharply, lowering income tax revenues and increasing the need for spending to compensate the recently unemployed.

But three other factors come into play as it pertains to the UA. First, the state of Arizona's tuition - the second lowest next to the state of Florida - has certainly not made the budget deficiency easier for Arizona to bear.

Second, the reinstatement of state income tax loopholes by former Gov. Fife Symington has finally come back to haunt our state's economy.

In 1990, the Arizona Legislature passed a tax reform bill that eliminated many loopholes in the state income tax system, most of which benefited the wealthiest Arizonans. Under this reform, most residents ended up paying slightly lower in-state income taxes, while the well-to-do paid a substantial amount more. The result was a positive one for the state, and revenue increased at an impressive rate in the years that followed.

Unfortunately, Gov. Symington did away with most of these reforms. But no one seemed to notice until recently, since Arizona, much like the rest of the nation, was experiencing strong economic growth up until the last fiscal year.

The third unfortunate circumstance, the effect of which has just now come to fruition, is a bill passed by the Legislature in 1992 that made it exceedingly difficult for the state to raise taxes in the future. The bill amended a law in the state constitution to declare that any state tax increase must be approved by a two-thirds vote in the Legislature, as opposed to a majority vote as in years prior.

Given the current situation, an across-the-board state income tax increase is only logical. Even conservatives, who are usually opposed to any tax hike on principle, should find the idea of raising state income taxes quite attractive. Since state income tax is deductible from federal income tax, taxpayers would not be paying more, but would simply be allocating more money to the state, and giving less to the federal government.

The idea of raising tuition is an attractive option to President Likins, who would like to see a 10 percent rate increase starting next semester. This would raise tuition for in-state students by roughly $250 each.

Gov. Hull is strongly opposed to a tuition hike, citing an Arizona law that, in essence, requires our state's public education to be as nearly free as possible. But Gov. Hull should not feel beholden to this vague, archaic state law. It is essential that UA students receive the best education possible - as the state's yearly allocated budget for our university dictates.

A tuition hike, combined with a sensible income tax increase, will alleviate our university's budget shortfall in short order.