Public higher-ed students, staff and faculty are shedding light on the growing problem of campus debt held by state colleges and universities, and its effect on student fees.

While the state used to pay for building costs on public college and university campuses, individual campuses more recently have had to take out loans to finance building projects. Revenue from auxiliary services such as student room and board often go toward debt payments.

Joanna Gonsalves, psychology professor at Salem State University and member of the Massachusetts State College Association Salem Chapter, said fees have been going up to make up the difference.

"These debt payments annually range anywhere from a few million to UMass Amherst, which pays $95 million a year in debt service, and it's unfair," Gonsalves argued. "We feel like it's a generation of students that are being taxed for the buildings rather than the taxpayers."

Gonsalves noted when students were not living in the dorms during the pandemic, the loss of revenue brought the issue of campus debt to the forefront. She added the UMass system owes $3 billion, and other state universities owe $1.2 billion. Groups are calling for more state investments, as well as increased taxes for the Commonwealth's wealthiest residents.

Tyler Risteen, a junior sociology major at Framingham State University, said rates of enrollment at her university have been on the decline.

"Me, personally, and I know a lot of my friends who I go to school with, they chose these state schools because it's supposed to be cheaper," Risteen explained. "The government is supposed to be helping us, but in reality, it's just the schools taking out loans and then us paying for those loans."

Gayathri Raja, a sophomore economics major at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell, said there is a sentiment colleges are raising tuition and fees out of greed, but she thinks there is a larger structural problem.

"They're allowed to sit on a good amount of assets, despite having so much debt," Raja pointed out. "And that's not even a college's fault. That's just how the financial system is constructed, and it's kind of more so up to the state to step in and help with the unbelievable amount of debt that state colleges are in."

She said voters in November get to approve or disapprove what's known as the Fair Share Amendment, which would increase the tax rate by four percentage pointed for those making more than a million dollars a year, and put those funds toward education. Opponents worry such a tax would cause high earners to leave the state.

Raja added a bill before the General Court, the Cherish Act, would also allocate more state funding to public higher ed.

The election is less than six weeks away and Washingtonians will be deciding on a slate of initiatives, including one measure affecting funding in support of children.

If passed, Initiative 2109 would repeal a 7% tax on capital gains for assets worth more than $262,000. The repeal has support from hedge fund manager Brian Heywood, who said it is a slippery slope toward a state income tax, which the state does not have.

Gabriela Quintana, senior policy associate for the Economic Opportunity Institute, said fewer than 4,000 people in the state pay the tax.

"It's a very privileged move to be able to fund these initiatives for your own needs and to not think about the impact this will have on a huge majority in Washington state," Quintana contended.

Last year, the tax pulled in about $786 million. The first $500 million collected from it goes toward schools, early learning and child care. Any additional money collected goes toward school construction.

Justin Fox-Bailey, president of the Snohomish Education Association, said the vast majority of Washingtonians who do not pay the capital gains tax will be affected if Initiative 2109 passes, especially kids.

"They're going to feel it in their communities when we give a tax cut to these millionaires and billionaires and you don't have the same access to child care, your kid's school isn't getting updated, public services are being cut or reduced," Fox-Bailey pointed out.

Washington has historically had one of the most regressive tax systems in the country and a recent report found the lowest-income 20% pay more than three times as much of their income as the top 1%.

Quintana argued the capital gains tax is vital for the state.

"We all need to play a role, including the wealthy individuals," Quintana asserted. "Repealing it will only really hurt families and children."

Ballots start going out on Oct. 18.

Congress has one week from today to reauthorize a sweeping policy playing a big role in shaping the nation's food production system, and Wisconsin agricultural voices are paying close attention.

The Farm Bill is supposed to be renegotiated every five years. A temporary extension was approved one year ago, amid big differences about where to prioritize aid, including subsidies typically helping industrial-level farms.

Chuck Anderas, associate policy director at the Wisconsin-based Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, said as the issues get sorted out, organizations like his hope lawmakers do not lose sight of the need to adequately fund conservation programs to benefit small farms.

"To neglect that is basically just picking winners and losers within the agricultural economy," Anderas contended.

Advocates are concerned about proposed language which would essentially spread conservation funding to "climate-smart" practices skeptics say only benefit big farms. The Farm Bill also covers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. House Republicans have proposed formula changes hunger-relief advocates say would amount to a $30 billion cut. GOP leaders dispute the claim, saying they would lower costs without cutting anyone's benefits.

According to the National Centers for Environmental Information, Wisconsin has seen more than 20 weather-related disasters -- each resulting in at least one-billion dollars in damage -- in the past five years, four times the totals from the 1980s and 90s.

Anderas argued stronger and effective climate resiliency aid in the Farm Bill means participating producers can mitigate some of the damage.

"Even if you are skeptical about climate change, these practices infiltrate more water and hold more water in the soil and make a huge difference on the amount of water coming off of farm fields," Anderas outlined.

He added it protects natural resources, as well as infrastructure in farming communities, with local governments not having to spend as much on fixing washed-out roads and bridges.

With the current focus on the November election, analysts said it is likely Congress will approve another temporary extension of the current Farm Bill, rather than agree on a new one.

Even in a stable economy, consumers in Wisconsin and elsewhere still express pessimism and advocates said a key federal agency working on issues like unfair business practices cannot risk losing resources needed to help consumers.

To avoid a government shutdown, Congress has to approve a new federal budget by month's end. Over the summer, House Republicans floated cuts in certain areas, including a 27% funding cut for the Federal Trade Commission.

Erin Witte, director of consumer protection for the Consumer Federation of America, said the timing could not be worse for such a move.

"We've seen people talk a lot about feeling like their costs are increased in lots of ways," Witte pointed out. "The FTC's work is really aimed at trying to lower a lot of those costs, to bring some fairness back to the process."

Last month, the agency co-hosted the first meeting of a task force about whether companies are price-gouging and the effect on consumers. GOP leaders on the Appropriations Committee said they want a financial services bill prioritizing combating terrorism-money activity, maintaining the integrity of financial markets and spurring small business growth.

Witte contends the FTC has made progress in standing up for consumers with great efficiency. She pointed to the proposed "click to cancel" rule, which would remove barriers for people worried about recurring charges for an unwanted subscription for a service or product.

"That would make it as easy for someone to cancel a subscription as it is to sign up for it," Witte explained. "That proposal has gotten thousands of comments from consumers about how much time they are wasting on things like unnecessary subscriptions."

The state-level organization Opportunity Wisconsin has also cited concerns about consumer protections being gutted. It called on Congress to pass clean funding bills without extreme provisions it said would "hurt Wisconsin families." It is unclear if any of the budget ideas floated over the past several months will find their way into a final spending plan.