The University of California System is in serious trouble. The budget shortfalls have forced administrators to cut all faculty salaries by 8%. I wonder how long before other schools start raiding the UC system for talent; I’ve already heard rumors of certain high profile academics planning to leave. What was once the pride of public university education seems on the verge of collapse. However, the UC strategy of cutting faculty salaries to save money is fundamentally flawed. Here’s why:
Read the rest of this entry »

I have to admit that the Mark Sanford sex scandal has captured my attention. Usually I don’t care about these things (John Ensign, John Edwards, David Vitter, Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, etc.) except to bemoan the tragedy of gifted and skilled political voices who threw it all away. To paraphrase what Dee Snider of Twisted Sister once said: family and career are too important to give away in exchange for five minutes of orgasm.

For some reason, however, the Mark Sanford thing feels different to me. Read the rest of this entry »

It strikes me that the way congress has gone about developing a health care plan is to come up with an ideal plan, and then see how much it costs. When those budget figures come out, they panic, but are already anchored on a plan.

Another approach would be to start with a budget, and then maximize the value (cost-benefit wise) of what can be purchased for that budget. This is what they did with the Kitzhaber plan in Oregon. I can’t help but think that this is the only way to get a plan that won’t be exhorbitantly overpriced for the good that it does…

As the health care debate continues on, I’ve seen a lot of liberals cite poll numbers that the majority of Americans would like a public plan, and moreover would be willing to pay higher taxes for that plan. This annoys me. There is a difference between favoring something in the abstract, and favoring specifics, and this is being conflated in the debate.

Q1: Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to have a public health care plan? (72% say yes)

Q2: Would you be willing to have your taxes increase by $5000 a year to pay for a public health care plan (?? say yes)

I wonder how many people asked Q1 interpret it as being Q2, as many democrats (most notably Senator Dodd) imply that they do. My gues is the answer to question 2 would be much more frequently negative. Using a poll with abstract questions to claim public support for a $1.6 trillion monstrosity is ridiculous.

I understand the hullabaloo over the recent controversial Iranian election from the Iranians point of view. After all, the President of Iran does have real power to effect domestic and social policy (within the constraints set by the Supreme Leader and the clerics, of course, but some power nonetheless). What I don’t understand is the ruckus people in the United States have been making.
Read the rest of this entry »

I was recently forwarded a sermon by the late Dr. D. James Kennedy, a mega-church pastor (Coral Ridge Ministries) and syndicated televangelist. The sermon, “Christianity and the Federal Deficit” laid out pretty succinctly the basic arch-conservative argument against liberal fiscal policies, and phrases it in quasi-Biblical terms to boot. I will note that the sermon was originally given back in 1993, shortly after President Clinton was elected on a platform of economic mismanagement by President Bush and in an election in which the size of the federal deficit played a huge rhetorical role. It was rerun by Coral Ridge Ministries on nationally syndicated television a week ago, for reasons you can probably guess.

Anyways, the arch-conservative argument goes something like this (along with quotes from Dr. Kennedy so that you can see how this actually plays out, rhetorically):
Read the rest of this entry »

The university where I work has, in the past, allowed summer interns. Students from other universities who wanted research experience, would come here over the summer and join a lab. The students would benefit from learning about how research works with all the skills that entails, procuring letters of recommendation for future applications to grad school, and having an intellectual enriching summer experience. The labs were enriched by having new perspectives shared (students would bring methods and ideas from their home universities with them), and getting labor to run studies that would otherwise be unaffordable. Science and society benefited because university research is a public good and more of it was being produced for no additional cost, and because scientific networks were expanded and enriched, which increased the quality of future research.

Then a summer intern fell while on campus, and hurt himself. And sued the university for the injury. I don’t know the specifics of the case. But I do know the repercussions - the university, worried about the cost of litigation for unpaid employees, created a new policy forbidding unpaid interns. This year, I got about 20 requests from students to work in my lab. I had to turn them down, so they don’t get that summer experience. My lab doesn’t get that research assistance, which limits the number of studies we can run. Society doesn’t get the benefits of the knowledge that those studies would have produced. And this policy creates no benefits, aside from keeping the university safe from litigation.

In other words, the threat of litigation has crippled a system that previously had produced tons of good with no obvious downsides. Society becomes less efficient as a result. This process is hardly unique to education. It also reduces efficiency in health care, transportation, entertainment, consumer goods, museums, restaurants… well, pretty much every industry, actually. In other words, because of the way the legal system works, and the increasingly litigious nature of society, America is slowly but inexorably becoming less efficient. Increasingly, resources are going into protection from law suits instead of improving quality of life.

Legal reform is one of the more pressing issues facing the country, because fixing this will greatly facilitate fixing other broken systems (e.g. health care). So, I raise the question for the leftfielders - how ought the legal system be reformed? Is it even possible?

Yesterday I posted on how the GOP has become totally ineffective - whining about problems rather than trying to solve them. Lest I be accused of being hypocritical (whining about the GOP without suggesting solutions) allow me to start with some concrete suggestions. Today, the issue at hand is the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor. Republicans have been up in arms about her nomination. Some have called her racist. Others have claimed that she legislates from the bench. Basically, they’ve raised a big fuss. This is a bad move. Read the rest of this entry »

Conservatives like to blame budget deficits on spending increases. During the 2008 election, they blamed their own addition to spending on the budget deficits of the Bush years. Lately, I’ve seen many conservatives blame spending for the budget crisis in California. And they have the numbers to back up their claim, or so it would seem at first glance. California spending has risen by 7% per year, on average, since Schwarzenegger took office, and domestic spending under Bush certainly rose by a heft margin as well. And so, conservatives tell us, we don’t need to raise taxes or do anything drastic; we just need to go roll back the spending increases we’ve had over the last few years, and everything will be fine.

Of course, they tend to be a little vague on the details–and for good reason. Read the rest of this entry »

Last night at the GOP fundraiser, there were a number of speeches that made me roll my eyes in disgust at the republicans. I ranged from frustration, to disbelief, to anger at what was being said. And the crazy thing was, I agreed with most of it.

The government spent billions bailing out GM, which went on to bankruptcy - goodbye taxpayer money. The current spending plan DOES put a burden of debt on our children, and that does cause long term harm to the economy and the nation, for little observable short term gain. I am very skeptical of the new health care plans being touted by democrats (perhaps another post on that later). While Obama’s speech on Islam was inspiring, I haven’t been all that happy with what he’s been doing domestically.

And yet, the GOP is pissing me off more than Obama is. How is that possible? I think its because while I disagree with Obama, I respect him. And the same can’t be true for the vitriol spewing republicans. They rightly point out the problems with current plans, but seemingly with the goal of tearing down, not building up. They seem to want Obama to fail. To want the country to do so badly that the voters will oust the democrats come midterm elections. So rather than help fix the problems, they just rant about them. Rather than suggest alternative health care plans, they hurl insults, and try to block any progress. They didn’t offer any alternatives to the stimulus package, just criticism. And I just can’t respect that.
Read the rest of this entry »