Tuesday evening, after dragging their feet for weeks, student lobbyists released their counter-proposal to President Pete Likins' tuition plan.

Unfortunately, both plans share the same essential problem: They divert more than half of the increase to financial aid, ignoring the university's obvious budgetary problems.

Both plans divert a majority of the increase to aid, ignoring the fiscal situation.

In other words, we're raising tuition to pay for raising tuition.

Under the lobbyists' plan, in-state undergraduate tuition would be raised by $900, and out-of-state by $1,450. Likins' plan called for a $1,000 boost for in-staters and $1,250 for out-of-staters. Keen observers of Likins' plan will remember that approximately 60 percent of the proposed increase was to be funneled to financial aid. As a result, less than half of an average student's $1,000 would pay for his or her education.

The lobbyists' plan is essentially the same. The majority of the increase would be funneled into financial aid. In their plan, out-of-state students would pay an additional $200 hike, to offset the hike for in-state students and pump more into aid. On paper, this might look reasonable, but out-of-state students are already paying more than the actual cost of their education.

So, aside from some number shuffling and the absence of a graduate tuition proposal, the philosophy behind the lobbyists' proposal is the same: increase accessibility, not revenue, on the backs of students who don't get financial aid.

Here's the big question: Do students realize that less than half of their money will actually go toward their education? Let's have truth in tuition.

Unless one is following the process closely, one might gather that tuition is being raised to offset budget cuts. That's not the case.

Pre-computer science freshman Jacob White echoed the words of many students after learning about the student lobbyists' proposal. "If it helps the departments from budget cuts, I'm for a tuition increase," he said.

Sorry, Jacob: It won't. The steep increase will be diverted to financial aid.

Regents should raise tuition, but the money must be spent on offsetting the impact of budget cuts.

If regents are worried about its effects on students, then keep the increase moderate.

Give UA its own financial aid.

Editorials are determined by the Wildcat opinions board and are written by one of its members. They are Daniel Scarpinato, Jessica Lee, Jose Ceja, Jennifer Duffy, Brett Fera, Erik Flesch, Caitlin Hall, Jessica Suarez and Kendrick Wilson.