The Budget: First, let's preserve. Then let's question - Part 3 (more on expenses)

In our last iteration of post-Agostini budget examination, we noted a discrepancy between UC's version of UCLA's expenses and UCLA's expenses as reported in the pre-Agostini period. As blog readers will know, UCLA CFO Agostini was terminated after he told the Daily Bruin that UCLA financial reports for the period before he arrived were inaccurate. That is a Bad Thing for a CFO to say because it suggests that administrators, some of whom are still on the payroll, produced misleading figures. (Bond holders might also be upset.) Just before his fatal remarks, however, he did produce a budget book with new data.

In our prior analysis of reported UCLA expenses as reported by UC versus those reported by UCLA, we found a UC series running from 2014-15 to 2024-25.* More recently, prowling around on UC website, we found an older series said to be updated through May 22, 2025.** It reported different numbers for UCLA that were somewhat higher. Further investigation found the discrepancy was caused by omission of interest expenses in the more recent information. We have redone our chart using the older series that includes interest. See below:

Note again that the UC and UCLA series in the pre-Agostini period do not agree. Why? Yours truly doesn't know, except that the discrepancy isn't explained by the omission of interest. Note that the Agostini numbers and the UC numbers are very close. It may be that he was relying on the same sources that systemwide UC did in producing his budget book.

We will look at the revenue side of the story in a later post. (Revenue and expense data from the older series go back to 2003-04.) But keep in mind that yours truly is not a forensic auditor. All yours truly can do is preserve public budget documents so they don't disappear. The older UC-derived expense series documents - which, as just noted, go back to 2003-04 - have been added to our preservation site:

https://archive.org/details/ucla-budget-book-v-final-feb-2026.

Perhaps these documents might be of use to the Academic Senate as it seeks to understand UCLA's current financial situation.

====

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/03/the-budget-first-lets-preserve-then.html.

**https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/about-us/information-center/revenue-and-expense-data.

Free

From columnist George Skelton, LA Times:

One unique perk California kids enjoyed for generations was tuition-free college. Now, a candidate for governor promises to bring that back... The candidate, former congresswoman Katie Porter of Orange County, even suggests a way to pay for her bold pledge... She‘d raise the corporate income tax a notch.

OK, it’s very unlikely to ever happen. The powerful business lobby would scream, even though California companies would benefit from a more educated workforce. And California’s public universities would probably cry about their revenue streams having to rely on unpredictable corporate profits rather than the pocketbooks of students’ parents.

...[One] reason for making college tuition-free again, she said, is that “it was a promise made to the people” by the California Master Plan for Higher Education... Free tuition [would be] only for California residents who are undergrads. And only in their third and fourth years at the University of California and California State University. If they desired free tuition in their first two years, they could attend community college. Many community colleges already waive course fees for full-time, first-time students...

Full column at https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2026-03-09/skelton-monday-politics-newsletter-porter-college-tuition.

Straws in the Wind - Part 280

From the Cornell Daily Sun: ...The Trump administration’s freezing of over $290 million in federal funding for Cornell, while restored with by a settlement in November, had caused “real independent damage to faculty, to faculty careers, to young people’s careers, to graduate studies and [to] post doc careers,” [Cornell President Michael] Kotlikoff told the Faculty Senate in January. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by Congress in July 2025, affected federal financial aid in the form of “new loan limits, new loan repayment options, and updated eligibility requirements, for both current and future students,” according to the Cornell Office of Financial Aid.

Additionally, international student enrollment is at risk due to visa changes, international student concerns about job opportunities and political concerns, Kotlikoff said, adding that both international graduate student enrollment and applications have decreased.

To address the financial challenges caused by these issues, the University is undertaking a workforce realignment and the centralization of student resources and programs with the intention of improving efficiency, Kotlikoff said. He added that while the University is continuing to hire new applicants, the process is occurring at a slower pace...

Full story at https://www.cornellsun.com/article/2026/03/president-kotlikoff-lays-out-cornell-financial-plans-at-employee-assembly-meeting.

The Way We Live Now

From an email circulated yesterday:

Dear Bruin Community: 

The Office of Campus and Community Safety (OCCS) is aware of recent media reports suggesting an increased possibility of drone strikes in the California region. We want to address these reports directly and provide you with accurate information.

Today, OCCS met with federal leaders regarding these reports. Based on those conversations, we can confirm that the information circulating in the media is unverified and that there is no increased threat to UCLA or the Southern California region.

Additionally, our federal partners have assured us that if they ever learned of a verified threat, they would communicate directly with us. In turn,OCCS would  immediately share information and offer guidance to the UCLA community.

Our office maintains ongoing coordination with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to monitor potential threats and ensure the security of our campus. We will continue to keep you informed should circumstances change.

As always, if you observe any suspicious activity, please contact UCPD at (310) 825-1491 or call 911 in an emergency.

Sincerely,

Office of Campus and Community Safety

Iran War

The UCLA Nazarian Center, with various co-sponsors including the Dept. of Public Policy at Luskin, has been presenting a series of online interviews on the current Iran War which are then posted to YouTube. (I haven't come across other similar UCLA programs, although perhaps some are being scheduled.)

The most recent three programs are at the links below:

March 12: (The Iran War: The View from the Arab World)

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikzFiSl8C2M.

March 10: (The Iran War: The View from Israel)

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d78IEH4qGag.

March 5: (The Iran War: An Urgent Update)

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqHB8Ba7Zsg.

I haven't come across other similar UCLA programs, although perhaps some are being scheduled.

Medicare Disadvantage

From time to time on this blog, we have taken note of the growth of seemingly-cheap Medicare Advantage plans which now cover more than half of the Medicare-eligible population, thanks to insurance company promotions. UC offers Medicare Advantage to those retirees eligible for health insurance. At one point, there was a push at UCOP to turn the entire retiree health offering into a Medicare Advantage system, although protests halted that development.

In addition, UCLA Health now has created its own Medicare Advantage plan for LA County residents (although NOT for UC retirees).

The idea behind Medicare Advantage originally was that privatizing Medicare would save money. But it has long appeared that in one way or another, there was overcharging going on. (If you think about the idea of offering medical insurance to individuals who are more likely than the general population to have costly health issues, and then think about the eager TV and other promotions to attract enrollees, you might not be surprised about overcharging.)

Anyway, the Congressional Joint Economic Committee has now come out with a report: 

Executive Summary

Medicare Part B premiums are higher because Medicare Advantage (MA) is overpaid. On average, covering a beneficiary in MA costs an estimated 120 percent of what it would cost in Traditional Medicare (TM). MA overpayments raise Part B spending, and because premiums are set to cover roughly one-quarter of expected costs, everyone in Part B pays more.

The Joint Economic Committee estimates MA overpayments increased Part B premiums by $212 per enrollee in 2025, totaling $13.4 billion in higher premiums. Since 2016, MA overpayments have added an estimated $82 billion to Part B premiums. TM beneficiaries, who are not enrolled in MA, bore roughly $6 billion of that burden.

Higher Part B premiums reduce seniors’ net Social Security benefits. About 85 percent of the added premium burden falls on individuals, with the remainder falling on state and federal taxpayers. For most seniors, Part B premiums are withheld from Social Security checks. Therefore, increases in premiums directly reduce take-home benefits for seniors.

Seniors face a dramatic reduction in the affordability of Medicare Part B. By 2035, per-person premiums are projected to double from $2,440 to about $5,000. Of that total, about $450 will be due to overpayments if they continue at the same rate. Aligning MA payments with TM would prevent unnecessary premium growth, increase the affordability of Medicare, and protect net Social Security checks.

Full report at https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/vendor/_accounts/JEC-R/issue-briefs/The%20Part%20B%20Premium%20Pass-Through.pdf.

Congress is currently dysfunctional and we don't know what the midterm elections will bring. But it seems likely that at some point, maybe in the not-so-distant future, there will be changes in current policy with regards to Medicare Advantage.

Another Forecast

A Zoom program was presented on Monday by UC CFO Jagdeep Bachher on the economic outlook. It originally was scheduled to include Rick Rieder of Blackrock (who was one of the candidates to be named chair of the Federal Reserve), Gilles Delleart of Blackstone (Blackstone and Blackrock are separate firms), and Torsten Slok of Apollo Global Management. At the last minute, UC Regent Hadi Makarechian was added to discuss the Iran situation (because he is of Iranian background).

Due to a technical glitch, the first ten minutes of the one-hour program never made it to the screen, which included the Rieder portion. But in broad terms, the group painted an economic outlook similar to what the UCLA Anderson Forecast projected last week.* The outlook was mostly positive due to the stimulus of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill and maybe, now, tariff refunds, along with AI-related investment. Makarechian's take on the Iran War was that it was part of a larger Trump intent to control world oil, starting with Venezuela, and thus a counter to oil-dependent China. 

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/03/ucla-forecast.html.