show me your budget, and i'll show you your values

posted on Feb 14, 2026

danny caballero

I am not a scholar of public education, nor do I study public funding, history, or higher education policy. I have worked in STEM Education for 15 years. And I have been a Latino in America my entire life. I’m a first-generation college graduate. My perspective is informed by those experiences.

I learned the idea of “show me your budget, and I’ll show you your values” from my friend and colleague. I only leave them unnamed because they do not post their views publicly, but they have been an inspiration to me for years. They are a brilliant scholar and a passionate advocate for access and equity in public higher education. And while we don’t share the same experiences and background, they are also a first-generation college graduate.

For me, “show me your budget, and I’ll show you your values” is a powerful statement that has stuck with me for years. Having neither had the budget nor the privilege in life to reflect on and embody that statement until recently, it’s struck me that those who have the budget to make choices about how to spend their money have the power to reflect their values and priorities in those choices.

I work at Michigan State where my professional career is focused on STEM education. I conduct research and build programs with my colleagues and collaborators to improve the quality and accessibility of university STEM education for all students. I am deeply committed to this work, and I look forward to doing this work each day.

I’ve chosen to work in public higher education and I’m proud to work at a public, land-grant university. Public education is why I’m here. Public assistance and federal funding is why I was able to get an education and how I’ve been able to do this work. Public education is a public good, and we benefit from it as a society.

I also recognize that public education benefits from public funding; the American taxpayer is who pays for public education. I also understand that higher education is not the only outcome that we should be focused on. Expanding access and support for university education is not the only solution to the problems we face as a society. But, it should be a part of the solution, and it should be accessible to and affordable for everyone.

public education has never been accessible, and has been underfunded since its inception

The need for public education was recognized in the early days of our country, but decision making was limited to white, male, land-owning elites. When George Washington was elected, only about 6% of the population could vote with many states and principalities excluding Black, Indigenous people, women, and those without property. By 1856, all white men could vote.

From the start, the United States flirted with public education, but we built it inside of a system of oppression and exclusion. Early schools that were built in New England were constructed to educate wealthy white males, but access to schooling for girls, poor white folks, and Black and Indigenous people was limited to non-existent. Constructing an educational system inside of a system where real citizenship and rights were limited to a small portion of the population meant that public education was never truly public.

Of course, through the struggles of the abolitionist movement, the work to reconstruct the country after the Civil War, and the civil rights movement, we have made progress in expanding access to public education. Much of that progress was not the result of the benevolence of our political leaders, but rather the result of the hard work and sacrifice of ordinary people who fought for their rights and the rights of their children. I think about the construction of schools for girls and colleges for women, but also the work to expand access to public education across the country, including the work of the land-grant universities to expand access to higher education in rural areas. I think about the work of the civil rights movement to expand access to public education for Black, Latino, and Indigenous people, and the work of the disability rights movement to expand access for people with disabilities. We have moved forward to expand access, but we have not yet achieved true access and equity in public education.

Those whose ancestors were excluded often continue to experience barriers in access and support in public education. Our property tax system, which (in most communities) is the way that public education is funded, has continued to exacerbate these inequities. It makes clear that your family history and your zip code are the most important factors in determining your access to quality public education. The nature of this system and what helps students is complex, but the fact remains that we have a system of public education that is deeply inequitable.

These inequities are stark, and they are not new. Simply look at the schools that are built and remodeled in suburbs of metro areas like Dallas, Atlanta, and Phoenix. Compare those to schools in the cities of Flint, Baltimore, and New Orleans, or look at the schools in the rural areas of Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, most of rural Texas, and across our reservations. The inequities are clear, and they are not new. The experience of our children in school should not be determined by their zip code, but it is.

budgets are moral and visionary documents

I titled this post “show me your budget, and i’ll show you your values” because budgets are a moral and visionary document. Budgets show us what we value; they demonstrate what we prioritize; they show us where we are going.

Consider your own budget.

How do you choose to spend your money? What are your priorities? What must you spend money on? What do you choose to spend your discretionary income on?

Your budget is a reflection of your values and priorities. And if you are fortunate enough to have a budget that is not constrained by financial stress, you are in a position to make choices that reflect your values and priorities. If you are not fortunate enough to have such a budget, it is because of systemic inequities that we must address.

Our federal and state budgets are immense and complex, but they are a clear reflection of our values and priorities as a society. When we place a high value on public education, we will fund it accordingly. When we instead choose to fund the invasion of American cities with untrained and militarized agents of a federal government that is out of control, we are making a clear statement about our values and priorities. When we hand over our money to the billionaires and corporate entities that run private prison systems and detention centers, we are making an obvious statement about American values and priorities. ICE intends to spend $38.3 billion dollars to purchase detention centers, paying mostly private companies that run these centers.

With this budget, we are saying that the abuse, exploitation, and dehumanization of human beings is more important than the education and well-being of our children, our neighbors, and our communities.

What happens when the fever finally breaks and we see the true cost of these decisions? What happens when we see the human cost of these decisions? What happens when we see the impact on our communities and our world?

For all his bluster, President Trump will be out of office in 2029, but the impact of his administration’s decisions and their irresponsible and cruel use of our money will be felt for years to come.

We are saying to the billionaires and political elites that manufacture our fear and division that we will continue to give them our money, even as they use it to fund the systems that oppress us. We are saying that we value the status quo of systemic racism, inequality, and oppression more than we value the potential of our children and our communities.

our leadership has failed us

Since the start of the Trump/Epstein administration, we have seen a clear and consistent pattern of our political leaders prioritizing the interests of the wealthy and powerful over the needs of the people. Many people, including my own family, voted for their promises of economic prosperity and a better future, of “Making America Great Again.”

But the reality is their agenda has gone as well as a wet fart at a dinner party.

At every turn, they have failed to deliver on their economic promises for the working and middle class. They have made us less safe and more vulnerable to violence and crime – much of which has been conducted by agents of their own administration. They have cut programs for education, healthcare, social services, public safety, environmental protection, and international aid. Each of these cuts has had a direct and negative impact on the lives of millions of people in the US and across the world.

The federal government has only been one antagonist in this story. State governments, corporate leaders, and university leaders have continued to fail in their response to these challenges. They have often adopted a “wait and see” approach, hoping to not welcome the ire of the federal government or a President that acts like a ten-year-old bully throwing a tantrum.

My own institution has adopted an “Institutional Restraint” approach, which is a fancy way of saying “we are concerned about how we are seen, so we are going to do as little as possible to take a position.”

I do not understand how this approach is supposed to help us. Maybe I’m not well-heeled enough; maybe I don’t run in the right circles; maybe I’m not white enough to get it. But when someone punches you in the face, you don’t just stand there and take it. You fight back. You stand up for yourself and for your values. Maybe that view comes from growing up poor and experiencing racism and discrimination directly and indirectly throughout my life. But it seems to me that the “Institutional Restraint” approach is a cowardly and irresponsible way to respond to the challenges we face.

It seems to be a way to avoid taking a stand and to avoid making any decisions that are morally or politically controversial. It seems to be a way to avoid taking responsibility for the impact of our decisions on our students, faculty, staff, and communities. It seems to be a way to avoid standing up for our values and our mission as a public university.

Obviously, I understand the difference between a person making a statement and an institution making a statement. I’m a loud-mouth asshole with no interest in being an administrator, or the spokesperson for my university. I have no more ambition than doing my work and being a good colleague. I also have the privilege of sitting at the highest level of the university as an endowed full professor; I don’t have to play their game. I already did and won.

But when it’s the position of a public institution, which is supposed to be a champion for public education and the public good, it is deeply disappointing to see such a cowardly approach. Michigan State was the institution that was the first to disinvest from apartheid South Africa. And, as such, it became a beacon of moral leadership against a system of oppression and injustice. It is shameful to see that we have become a follower instead of a leader in the fight for justice and equity in public education. Under the current leadership, we stopped being an affirmative action employer on April 22, 2025 because instead of standing up for our values and our students, we caved to the pressure of the federal government and the fear of losing funding.

These decisions make me question the motivations of academic leadership and pushes me to interrogate my own values.

I’ve been at this university for 13 years, and we have had more than half a dozen presidents during that time. When the current leadership is done, I will still be working at MSU and pushing to improve STEM education for our students throughout Michigan and across the country. Many of us will still be working to expand access and support for our students, and to fight for the resources we need to do that work.

The variability and inconsistency in leadership has been a major challenge for MSU. Moreover, it seems that university leaders have precisely the same training and background without the diversity of experience and perspective that is needed to lead a working-class university that is diverse, dynamic, and complex.

There are leadership academies for university leaders to prepare them for this work. I’ve not participated in them, but they seem to be designed to produce the same type of leader: a person that is focused on fundraising, public relations, constructing buildings, and pushing 2-3 agenda items before they leave. I was told the “do 2-3 big things” is a commonly expressed sentiment in these academies.

And, of course, media training and image management are a big part of this work. It seems that the training for university leaders is designed to produce leaders that are focused on their own image and their own legacy, rather than on the mission of the university and the needs of the students, faculty, staff, and communities they serve.

To be very clear, I am not indicting all university leaders including those at MSU. I’m just some jerk with a blog who frequently writes in generalities to make a point.

we need to demand better from our leaders

Our universities need leaders that focus on our educational mission and not simply by saying that they do.

Our departmental budgets across MSU have been cut by at least 9% due to federal changes.

Could we be more efficient? Yes.

Could we be more effective? Yes.

But we are already doing a lot with less, and we are already stretched thin. We had 1% efficiency cuts every year I’ve worked at MSU. Those cuts were returned in some obscure and competitive process where deans and chairs have to fight for those resources. This is a great way to perpetuate scarcity and competition, and to ensure there are not only inequities in the distribution of resources, but also inequities in the distribution of the work to get those resources.

It a the perfect way to divide the have’s and the have nots, and to create a toxic environment. Maybe there’s a reason why English and history departments are less well funded than engineering and business departments, but it is not because of the value of the work that is done in those departments.

These cuts mean we are unable to provide the educational experience that we offered in the past, which was already deeply underfunded. We will be closing sections of courses, seeking solutions for increasing enrollments, and providing less support for students in need. We are fighting for scraps and competing against other programs and departments for resources. It feels like the Jack Welch approach to management: growth for growth’s sake while cutting positions and support. Financial health is only one marker of a university’s success. This approach generates more work for all of us as we try to do more with less, and it creates a toxic environment of competition and scarcity. I’m proud of the work we have done, and the ways we are trying to preserve what we can, but it is a constant struggle.

what about msu?

At my university, I can’t help contrast these experiences with the reporting of fundraising and spending at the executive level. It appears life is good for university leaders, and they are able to raise money and spend it on themselves and their consultants.

We can build new buildings that we can’t afford to teach in. We simply replace the expensive course for which the space was designed with courses that do need or make use of the elements we spent years designing into those spaces. We can hire new consultants and provide them greater compensation while the rest of us try to keep up with inflation and rising food and housing costs.

Our university contracted with McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm that has been criticized for its role in the opioid epidemic and its work with authoritarian regimes. We paid them $2 million dollars to tell us to cut staff and spend money on splashy projects.

That’s your money. That’s my money.

MSU sought out Ogletree Deakins in our union recognition process, a law firm that has been criticized for its work with employers to undermine workers’ rights and unionization efforts.

Why would you engage in an expensive litigious battle when what our union aims to do is help the university solve this problem?

We see the issues, and we are the best positioned to solve the problems. In fact, all MSU faculty and staff are the best positioned to solve the problems. It is clear that our leaders were more concerned with their power than with the well-being of our students, faculty, and staff. It was deeply disappointing to sit across the table from their lawyers and watch them both attempt to undermine our unionization while having almost no knowledge of the university.

How much did that cost us? How much did that cost you?

We actually don’t know.

show me your budget, and i’ll show you your values

I started this post with the idea that a budget is a moral and visionary document. It shows us what we value, what we prioritize, and where we are going. That is true for our personal budgets, and it is true for our institutional budgets. It is clearly true for our federal and state budgets.

If we want to have a better future, one where we have a more just and equitable American society, we need to demand better from our leaders. We need to demand that they prioritize the needs of the people over the interests of the wealthy and powerful. We need to demand that they invest in public education and the public good. We need to demand that they stop funding the systems of oppression and exploitation that harm our communities and our world.

Specifically, we need to demand of our leaders that they reflect our values and priorities in their budgets. We must demand a return to human dignity and respect for everyone and to jettison these systems of oppression and exploitation that we are paying for. We must demand accountability for the decisions they make and the impact those decisions have on our lives.

Choosing leadership is a moral and political act. And when leaders fail us, we need to hold them accountable and demand better.

University leadership must develop the courage to stand up for our values and priorities, even when it is difficult or unpopular. Now is not the time for “Institutional Restraint.” Now is the time for bold and courageous leadership that pushes for the values that we have written into our mission statement.

I see faculty and staff doing that everyday.

I wish I would see the same from our universities’ leadership.