California grinds to a halt
posted at 12:52 pm on February 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Let the recriminations begin. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says that he will lay off 10,000 workers starting today and end the few remaining public-works projects still in progress as the California legislature failed to reach an agreement to hike taxes by over $14 billion in order to close a massive hole in state finances. Republicans refused to go along:
With lawmakers still unable to deliver a budget after three days of intense negotiations, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger prepared to lay off 10,000 government workers and his administration said it would halt the last 275 state-funded public works projects still in operation.
The projects, which cost $3.8 billion and include upgrades to 18 bridges and roads in Los Angeles County to protect them from collapsing in earthquakes, had been allowed to continue as others were suspended because the state was running out of cash. …
Schwarzenegger had delayed sending out pink slips since Friday, hoping that lawmakers would soon approve a budget. But they failed Monday to find a third GOP vote in the state Senate to achieve the two-thirds majority needed to pass a budget — a requirement that essentially gives the minority Republicans veto power. A spokesman for Schwarzenegger said layoff notices would go out today. …
State Sen. Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria) was viewed as the most likely candidate to provide the final vote, but by Monday evening legislative leaders had not agreed to his demands. The dominant Democrats need three Republican votes in each house to pass the budget; leaders in the Assembly said the votes were available in the lower house.
In the tax revolt of the 1970s, conservatives managed to amend the state constitution to require supermajorities in each chamber for tax increases. They intended to use that as a tool to force better fiscal discipline on state government — a great idea, but unfortunately ultimately ineffective. California just found other ways to raise money, usually through fee hikes. It also did nothing to control spending, as the state’s enormous $105 billion annual budget proves.
Republicans have almost no power in the state legislature apart from this supermajority requirement, so it’s not surprising that they’re reluctant to pass up a chance to use it to get spending cuts. Democrats heavily invested in nanny-state policies over the past few decades, though, and refuse to consider large-scale rollbacks of state government programs. Doing so would jeopardize their standing among key constituencies, especially public-sector unions like AFSCME and SEIU. Instead, they want to bulldoze Republicans into jacking up taxes even higher, making the state that much less competitive and forcing business relocation to increase.
However, Republicans did manage some interesting concessions in this package. They claim over $15 billion in cuts to the budget, as well as greater private contracting on public-works projects, a real sore spot for Californians who wait years for state agencies to complete projects that should take months. They also got approval for a referendum to limit the legislature’s ability to raid the treasury during boom times, which might have prevented the crisis they face now had it been in place three or four years ago.
Is that enough? If the Republicans refuse to budge, Democrats will likely play chicken and blame the layoffs of public employees on the GOP, especially given the concessions already made. Newt Gingrich lost that game in 1995 when he played it with Bill Clinton. Republicans had more strength in 1995, too, than they have had in California over the last decade.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5
IrishSamurai on February 17, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Not to mention Israel.
goat on February 17, 2009 at 11:20 PM
Simple answer to that : let the states decide!
peter_griffin on February 17, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Voila!
Oh wait…states are composed of liberals and conservatives too.
Unborn babies request their clarification.
Bishop on February 17, 2009 at 11:24 PM
Photo for Senator Abel Maldonado (CA)
BiographicalVoting RecordIssue Positions
(Political Courage Test)Interest Group RatingsCampaign Finances
Contact Information
Capitol Website:
http://cssrc.us/web/15/
Capitol Email:
Senator.Maldonado@senate.ca.go …
Capitol Webmail:
http://cssrc.us/web/15/contact …
Capitol Address
State Capitol, Room 4082
Sacramento, CA 94248-0001
Phone: 916-651-4015
Fax: 916-445-8081
District Address
1356 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Phone: 805-549-3784
Fax: 805-549-3779
District Address
590 Calle Principal
Monterey, CA 93940
Phone: 831-657-6315
Fax: 831-657-6320
District Address
100 Paseo de San Antonio, Suite 206
San Jose, CA 95113
Phone: 408-277-9461
Fax: 408-277-9464
Hope this helps
sheebe on February 17, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Nearly all of the “liberals” within those universities don’t study things like computer architecture or semiconductor materials, so the fact that those pursuits are co-located within liberal universities is nearly moot. Liberals don’t do empirical research, unless you count poorly designed social science experiments to confirm their preconceived notions, they do “theory”. Have you never heard of the “Social Text” hoax?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
venividivici on February 17, 2009 at 11:40 PM
I am not sure what you are trying to say here – what I meant was pretty simple, let the federal government not interfere in the working of the states too much. States can vote and decide which way the want to go. States with a conservative majority would be anti-abortion, while states with a liberal majority would be pro-abortion. By the way, I am also requesting my clarification: at what point do you start calling an embryo a baby?
peter_griffin on February 17, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Again, please gather information before you start spewing invectives. I am intimately aware of the academic pursuits in the field of technology, and I know for a fact that while the whole of Computer Science department in Rice U. cannot hire even a single professor, the coastal “liberal” universities are still hiring, since they get a *lot* more money in terms of grants from the tech companies. I will definitely give you that Rice is doing some great work in RAM related enhancements, but overall EE + CS breadth is a lot more in places like MIT and Berkeley. Harvard, by the way, is still one of the best places to study distributed systems in Computer Science.
peter_griffin on February 17, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Wikipedia is the worse place to look up information. Anyone can go there and change what they want. Takes a while for them to catch it before they fix it. Just saying. Is your choice.
sheebe on February 17, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Well, the universities I have worked at / with in the NE and the West, had their electrical engineering and computer science departments filled with liberal students and academia. In fact, making a conservative leaning remark is met with derision in those circles (much to my chagrin). This is coming from someone who has interacted a lot with such people.
peter_griffin on February 17, 2009 at 11:48 PM
OK, since when did Israel become an icon of conservatism? They have their share of conservatives and liberals, and the balance of power swings from time to time. Just because they are forced to be pro-military, does not make them conservative. Look at how the majority of the Jewish population voted this election, and you will realize exactly what I am talking about.
peter_griffin on February 17, 2009 at 11:53 PM
I have been seeing this a bunch, too. AP: do we need a new server :) ?
As for the comment regarding universities, I meant CA and MA universities, and ‘so-called liberal’ because some people were earlier alluding to the fact that being liberal was a sure shot recipe’ for disaster.
peter_griffin on February 17, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Liberal or libertarian/anarchist? My recollection is more the latter than the former.
venividivici on February 17, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Often times, private enterprises offer research grants to universities, and hire the students who participated in those research programs – so there is a very tight association between private enterprise (corporations) and universities. In fact, companies like Microsoft and Intel have university teams to engage with academia, so that they can tap the latest and greatest ideas that come out of these labs.
peter_griffin on February 18, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Good point – there are some in the latter variety, too. However, most professors I interacted with, were from the technology area, so they had too much invested in the market to be an anarchist :)
peter_griffin on February 18, 2009 at 12:02 AM
Spending tax dollars to fund Illegal Aliens and their Bingo Babies has been a complete disaster…..
RealDemocrat on February 18, 2009 at 12:05 AM
More than often, not. Our company only deals with people who have real world experience.
Johan Klaus on February 18, 2009 at 12:13 AM
Makes sense. I’ve seen research showing a correlation between academic area of expertise, pay and political leanings. Accounting professors were the highest paid and most conservative among academics and liberal arts professors were just the opposite. I saw both sides, doing a liberal arts undergrad at a very liberal school and an MBA, where there was definitely a lot of accounting involved.
venividivici on February 18, 2009 at 12:22 AM
I guess that’s also dependent on what kind of work your company does. Large companies in areas which need to invest heavily in R&D (like technology or pharmaceutical companies) have a much closer relationship with universities.
peter_griffin on February 18, 2009 at 12:30 AM
Man, these guys are giving Chrysler a run as worst run joint…
MarkT on February 18, 2009 at 12:30 AM
LOL – that does make a lot of sense. I have seen a similar trend among students too – when they are in undergrad, they are more prone to be rebellious and be an anarchist. When they age and become burdened with more responsibilities, conservatism creeps in. I am not saying there are no conservatives in their 20′s, but their percentage is definitely very low.
peter_griffin on February 18, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Our company is an R&D company.
Johan Klaus on February 18, 2009 at 12:39 AM
The existence of no gov in the technology market would be the best thing to happen in reards to cost, quality, and innovation. so, um yea, I’d say that anarchists do have technology in mind.
Libertarian Joseph on February 18, 2009 at 12:49 AM
Baby is a term of endearment but it’s not a scientific term. I would use terms such as embryo, fetus, and neonate which refer to specific stages of development.
However in common parlance, “baby” is used whenever the mother (and father) do not wish to abort the pregnancy. So phrases such as “she has a baby” can be used to refer to an embryo or “I felt the baby kick” can be used to refer to a fetus. However if the pregnancy is not wanted, then those terms of endearment are quickly deemed out of bounds.
Which I’ve always found a bit dishonest but not surprising because if you want to kill something you have to first dehumanize it so you can act in a clear conscience.
My wife has lost two due to miscarriage butI would advise anyone to not suggest to her that they were somehow expendible because of their stage of development.
PackerBronco on February 18, 2009 at 12:51 AM
Here is what you get when you mix
Drunken democrat laymakers
Insance liberals
20 million illegal mexicans
and taxiong all of the US citizens forcing them to FLEE for their lives due to the onslaught..
Total collapse..
Just wait obama and peloze and reid / thje rest of the democraps has 80 more days to destoy our nation…
hell there off to a great start
Im gettin my guns
jcila on February 18, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Got them.
Johan Klaus on February 18, 2009 at 12:54 AM
When there is a partial birth abortion, is that a baby.
Johan Klaus on February 18, 2009 at 12:57 AM
?
Johan Klaus on February 18, 2009 at 12:57 AM
I think it is. But what if it is at 40% of the cycle? 35%? 45%? What about 0.01% (just after conception)?
peter_griffin on February 18, 2009 at 1:04 AM
I empathize with your pain – my sister had the same misfortune, and it takes an agonizing toll.
However, I think I started the discussion as being a topic on how politically ideological purity may not be the best course for a civilization, not really on abortion per se. I see the point you are trying to make – there are certain questions that demand a Boolean (yes/no) answer, and abortion does fall into that camp. However, for a parent/parents who do not want to keep the embryo, I would let them make the difficult decision, instead of having a big brother state to make it for them. I know of some liberals who think otherwise, and some conservatives who think the other way, so it is clearly not a very politically well-defined ideological line either.
peter_griffin on February 18, 2009 at 1:11 AM
Partial birth, as in late term. Self explanatory.
Johan Klaus on February 18, 2009 at 1:14 AM
States can vote and decide which way the want to go. States with a conservative majority would be anti-abortion, while states with a liberal majority would be pro-abortion. By the way, I am also requesting my clarification: at what point do you start calling an embryo a baby?
peter_griffin on February 17, 2009 at 11:40 PM
What is the difference? There is no middle ground found between conservative and liberal, only the battleground has shifted from national to state. How is that considered middle ground between the two opposing views of abortion?
When there is a heartbeat.
Bishop on February 18, 2009 at 1:15 AM
And, what about this; right or wrong?
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — A judge formally sentenced Scott Peterson to die by lethal injection Wednesday during a dramatic proceeding in which raw emotion poured from nearly every participant but the convicted double-murderer himself.
Johan Klaus on February 18, 2009 at 1:26 AM
Opportunity presents. Will Republicans size it?
As more Americans lose their jobs and their homes, as more businesses crater and banks topple, popular anger is rising like a wall of water over a suddenly quiet beachfront resort. You’d think that the Democrats in Washington would be aware of the danger. After all, the massive expansion of Great Society spending in the 1960s, followed by the stagflation of the 1970s, allowed the marginal conservative movement to tap populist anger and dominate American politics for a generation. Substitute stimulus for Great Society and years of possible “stag-deflation” for stagflation, and you have a scenario in which the Obama’s overwhelming majority could collapse as quickly as LBJ’s.
Given the opportunity, Republicans can once again tap a reservoir of resentment, some of it justified. For a generation, the white-collar liberals who now dominate the Democratic Party have shown a remarkable ability to dress up their own economic interests in the rhetoric of globalization and anti-racism while attacking the motives and assaulting the characters of Americans who are far less wealthy and privileged. They conveniently forget to pay taxes for their illegal-immigrant maids and nannies, and then they denounce fellow citizens who can’t afford servants as Nazi-like xenophobes for insisting that all immigrants, not just some, obey federal immigration laws. They use their status as alumni of elite universities to get their mediocre children admitted by means of legacy programs (class-based affirmative action), and then they blame racism when working-class and middle-class whites criticize race-based affirmative action. They benefit from a regulated national labor market that effectively restricts the number of lawyers, MBAs and teachers allowed to practice in the US, and then they altruistically offer to sacrifice the livelihoods of American factory workers to help out the Chinese poor and to put American farms out of business to help the African poor. They claim that by living in expensive doorman buildings in fashionable downtowns and using uneconomical, taxpayer-subsidized mass transit they are saving the planet from global warming, and then they criticize working-class Americans with a fraction of their incomes who can only afford to live in exurbs and shop at Sam’s Club as sprawl-creating slobs. And they nod their heads in agreement when the elite editorial pages tell them on a near-daily basis that the greatest threat to America’s future is not ruthlessly nationalistic Asian mercantilism or lawless hedge-fund operations, but the danger that Congress might respond to the frightening number of non-Ivy League graduates in the electorate by enacting Buy American or Hire American policies which might inconvenience IRA investments or make it harder to hire an au pair.
- Michael Lind
MB4 on February 18, 2009 at 3:27 AM
Opportunity presents. Will Republicans
sizeseize it?MB4 on February 18, 2009 at 3:29 AM
You’re either very, very young or…maybe just a pompous arse. You actually seem to think the universities you so revere were born out of the brow of some liberal Zeus. Berkeley was founded in something like 1873. Was it liberal then? Was it liberal 20 years ago? Were you there or are you in any position to know?
I knew some of the guys working on BSD at Berkeley back in the early ’80′s. Very, very bright. Basically apolitical. Didn’t give a s— about politics. I remember one in particular had all the mannered eccentricity and social awkwardness that some very high IQ people display. At Berkeley at that time, people laughed at the lefties with all their “dig the revolution” hippy bull$hit. Is that the sort of exalted lefty milieu that produced a better chip?
I can tell you don’t know much about the real world, aka private enterprise, and are basically talking out of your ass.
I’m taking a UNIX class at UCLA. The instructor just got laid off from JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratories) after about 20 years there. Literally, a rocket scientist. The only job he could find is with the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. He’s moving there at the end of this month. It’s a real shame he couldn’t find a spot at a liberal university where all the brainiacs are.
Django on February 18, 2009 at 3:47 AM
Stocks Hate Obeynomics
The results are clear. The market hates Obama’s stimulus package and just about everything related to Obamanomics. Or shall we call it Obeynomics? (I’ll explain in a minute.) Stocks are down 27% since the Nov. 4th election. Stocks have plummeted more than 40% since Obama sewed up the Democratic nomination in June.
MB4 on February 18, 2009 at 3:54 AM
The Obama Presidency already has several malignant tumors – and they are metastasizing at a rapid rate.
MB4 on February 18, 2009 at 4:09 AM
If they’re trying to retaliate at the current political climate, turn up the heat.
They deserve it for making US citizenship a penalty when looking for work. When they stop using the Third World and start having citizens do the work, then they can regain lost trust.
sethstorm on February 18, 2009 at 4:25 AM
Looks like the GOP finally had enough of Sen. Cogdill and his push to raise taxes:
GOP ousts Senate leader, budget deal in question
Maybe there is still hope for the GOP in CA after all.
JeffinSac on February 18, 2009 at 5:33 AM
It appears the premise you state in your first sentence contradicts the position you take in your second sentence.
My stance is that an unborn child has inherent dignity and worth and it has that worth regardless of MY opinion on the matter. Which is why I find a pro-choice position logically inconsistent. If I reject abortion for myself, viewing it as a terrible evil, then how could accept it for someone else, viewing it as a lifestyle choice?
It would be like saying: “I think slavery is wrong and I would never own a slave, but I support your right to own a slave.” How strong would be your conviction against slavery be in that case? Not very strong and quite frankly your position against slavery would only require a strong enough motivation for you to totally violate it.
So too it is with pro-choicers on abortion. They aren’t really strongly against abortion, it’s just that the situation hasn’t yet arisen when they would choose it for themselves.
PackerBronco on February 18, 2009 at 8:49 AM
I should also that that’s my last post on abortion in this thread. Abortion threads can easily hit 1000 posts within a day and I have no desire to hijack this thread. Nor do I have the time this morning!
PackerBronco on February 18, 2009 at 8:51 AM
Ed, you assume CA is like nationall politics. CA know whose fault it is. That’s why you had Gray Davis recalled. You Hugh Hewitt who talks about it. He gave out the state senators phone number on twitter so CA would get him to hang tight with the Repubs. There are local stations that aren’t conservative who go off on the state government. The Fairness Doctrine is more than just Rush and Sean. The problem with CA politics is that it’s more corrupt than people realize. The Republicans we get are more moderate and the districting favors the Democrats. People know who the problem is and even if they blame Repubs no one is really going to worry about government employees. They didn’t care about the grocery union workers when they striked. Or the janitors when they striked. Etc. Etc.
Sultry Beauty on February 18, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Yesterday, at I-5 North and Oceanside Blvd… a 7 foot by 1 foot chunk of concrete fell off of the bridge and onto the street below.
Thanks for cutting the highway funds.
Mazztek on February 18, 2009 at 9:11 AM
Face facts:
States run by majority Conservative are in the BLACK, mostly well managed, higher employment, lower costs, have gun rights intact, lower crime rates, better place for families…
States run by Liberals are mostly BROKE, old, dirty, run down, high welfare, huge unemployment, union run, lower charity giving, more crime and gangs, rampent abortions, horrible to raise kids in the urban cesspools…
*** And yet, the people in these horribly run States continue to elect the same exact radical leftists that cause the huge taxes and corruption. SCREW THE IDIOTS!~
Stop voting for radical Liberals, vote Conservatives and get your States in order, boot out the unions, clean out your schools, enact the death penalty and allow concealed carry, round up illegales and deport, lower taxes and attract business with reduced regualtions. Lower welfare, promote families and adoptions…
California and New Your, New Jersey, Michagan, Ohio… So many morons and idiots complain about where they live and taxes and so on and so on, but keep the SAME EXACT CROOKS in office… Too fricking bad CA, too bad NY, your idiots and deserve all you get and more…
Mark Garnett on February 18, 2009 at 9:35 AM
another 50,000 CA govn’t job cuts and you’ll be staffed just about right
gatorboy on February 18, 2009 at 9:38 AM
B-b-but it’s too big to let it fail!!!
trl on February 18, 2009 at 9:47 AM
E-Verify
Kitty Pilgrim: …E- Verify is the single most effective government program to fight illegal immigration. Business special interest groups were successful in making sure the funding for the program was deleted from the so- called stimulus package and now E-Verify is set to expire next month. But supporters have not given up. [...]
Sen. Sessions: Now let me ask my colleague, is it the desire of the members of this body that the stimulus money to create jobs, that those jobs should be given to people illegally in the country?
Border Fence
Wian: Build it and they won’t come, at least not as many. That’s the idea behind 670 miles of new border fencing. The last stretches being completed east of El Paso, Texas.
[Mayor of El Paso complains]
Wian: The Border Patrol says additional fencing, more agents and better technology have reduced illegal alien apprehensions in El Paso from 122,000 in 2006 to just 30,000 last year. Drug seizures are also down. Both according to the Border Patrol indicate fewer illegal crossings. Still, some in Texas are suing to halt fence construction, including the city of El Paso.
RealDemocrat on February 18, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Stop funding Illegal Aliens and their Bingo Babies and our problems will be solved overnight…
RealDemocrat on February 18, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Funding the Illegal Aliens has been a total disaster. If we continue to move in this direction we will fall into the pit!
RealDemocrat on February 18, 2009 at 10:05 AM
The only reason arnold is the governor is because he’s the terminator and California has just been TERMINATED !!!!!!!!!!!
LODGE4 on February 18, 2009 at 10:09 AM
There you go again. Incidentally, I have been in a management position in F500 companies, and have even owned a startup at one point. What, pray dear sir, is *your* real world experience? Just for the kicks, I would ask you to be at a gathering like the dean’s dinner at UCLA, and talk to the engineering faculty for an hour. Then come back and tell me how many conservatives you found in that group.
Our differences apart, why are you taking a class in Unix? Do you just want to know the commands, or do you plan on tinkering with the kernel?
Cheers, and have a great day!
peter_griffin on February 18, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Straw man argument. Please point me to a culture that was conservative (i.e. capitalistic) and stayed that way for centuries. That’s never been tried.
As for the last sentence of your post, it makes no sense. Middle ground never solved anything.
fossten on February 18, 2009 at 10:40 AM
In CA we are seeing a culture in which purely left-wing socialist policy is being pursued. Beautiful isn’t it.
As to UCLA, I presume that you know the difference between the north and south campuses? When UCLA grad students joined the UAW, south campus was adamantly against, the engineers in particular.
besser tot als rot on February 18, 2009 at 11:07 AM
We’re still doing quite well here in Ohio for having Strickland and Brown. Perhaps if you made it a lot harder to offshore, you would have plenty of people to fill jobs, domestically.
sethstorm on February 18, 2009 at 11:40 AM
All the GOP candidates in the last few presidential elections (either won or lost) have either been “compassionate conservatives”, or RINO’s. Think about it.
peter_griffin on February 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Repeat after me, Seth: not gonna happen. No one can stop a multinational company from outsourcing jobs, if that helps their bottom line. Even Obama mentioned last week that Americans can never compete with the manual laborer in Bangladesh – think a bit over that. If US government stopped our companies from outsourcing, our biggest corporations will be soon be taken over by companies from other countries which do not have these restrictions. You cannot be the only sheep in a land of hawks – period.
peter_griffin on February 18, 2009 at 11:55 AM
McCain.
Johan Klaus on February 18, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Actually, this is a common misperception. Corporate giving is not the largest slice of private philanthropy — giving from individuals is.
As an example, here is a break out for gift sources from MIT (FY07):
• $100.2 million from alumni
• $33.5 million from non-alumni friends
• $45.3 million from corporations, corporate foundations, and trade
associations
• $151.5 million from foundations, charitable trusts, and other charitable
organizations
• $1.5 million from other sources
That’s why many of us who work in fundraising are so worried about what the democrats plan on doing — raising taxes on individuals making more than $200K/yr. Several months ago I posted a study comparing U.S. philanthropy (by source) versus British philanthropy. Although the Brits are amongst the most charitable Europeans, they still lag dramatically behind the Americans. In the U.S. the most philanthropic segment (individual donors) are those making $200K and above.
Most universities and colleges have already experienced significant budget deficits because of the double whammy of poorly performing endowments (a lot of gift funds are invested in endowments which are now tanking because of the stock market) and a decline in charitable giving from individuals that Joe Biden says are rich and need to be taxed more to show their patriotism. Corporate giving is drying up. And, of course, private foundations are also feeling the crunch (again because of their endowments and jerk-offs like Madoff), so giving from private foundations is going to be down as well.
In terms of major research institutions like the ones you cite, I suspect that the largest non-tuition based revenue stream is actually federal research grants (to science and engineering programs). Remember, in addition to research grants paying for direct costs like salaries and equipment, every dollar that is applied to conduct a specific research program carries with it ~50 cents of “overhead” funds. For MIT I found that in FY2006, research revenues made up almost 57% of the institute’s total operating revenues. That figure probably includes research contracts from corporations, but I’m sure that the vast majority is from federal grants from NIH, NSF, DoD, etc.
Your point about where the funds are directed (towards science/technology rather than liberal arts) is valid, of course. Science and engineering faculty live and die on grants to their research programs; liberal arts faculty (and even in my experience business faculty) do not seek much outside funding. That’s why on these threads I always get a little sad to see that the conservative public’s distrust of academe (which is largely rooted in the shenanigans of guys like Bill Ayers and Ward Churchill) spills over onto the science faculty.
Y-not on February 18, 2009 at 12:04 PM
I know exactly what you mean, since I feel the same way. Also, you do make a good point about endowments – in fact, a lot of universities require grants to match 50cents to the dollar for the university administrations, so that they can carry out their projects, which of course makes life more difficult for the poor bloke who is trying to bring in the money. I have friends who are in those shoes, and it is not easy (specially in this sad state of economy).
peter_griffin on February 18, 2009 at 12:10 PM
I think *all* universities and research institutions require overhead. The overhead (we used to call it “indirect costs” or IDC) shouldn’t affect your friends efforts to find funding. IDC rates are negotiated between the university and the agencies based on a really complicated formula unique to each institution. 50 cents on the dollar is typical, although some research-intensive (teaching-light) institutions have much higher rates (and I think that teaching-intensive places tend to have lower rates). Anyway, the grant proposals your colleagues submit to places like NSF have a budget of direct costs from which indirect costs are calculated. The scientific review panel assesses whether or not the direct costs are appropriate to the work being proposed, but the agency (NSF) deals with the IDC part. So, someone from a place like a national lab (high IDC) is not at a disadvantage in the review process relative to someone from a university (average IDC).
Corporations and some charitable foundations don’t like to pay IDC, but talented grants & contracts officers (and smart development officers) can help convince them to do so.
Yeah, I used to do this stuff for a living… :-)
Y-not on February 18, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Trust me, it’s really unlikely that politics has anything to do with your instructor not getting a faculty position at UCLA. Professors are intellectual snobs and have a narrow-minded view of what counts as preparation for joining their club. Although there are some exceptions (particularly in “professional” degree programs like law and business), in general departments balk at awarding faculty positions to people whose background is from industry or hands-on research. They tend to want people with lengthy track-records of publishing in academic journals… which is not usually something folks who have been working in a non-university have.
Y-not on February 18, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Lots of things. This is one that is just off the top of my head: the cancer-fighting agent taxol. Florida State made a lot of money off of taxol.
I think what people need to understand is that the type of research that occurs in universities is, in large part, different than the type of research that happens at companies. Companies are concerned with the bottom line and that usually means that the research they pursue is close to a product that can be marketed. University research is about discovery. Sometimes in the course of that basic research there will be a lead towards a drug or a product. Often that lead is picked up by industry — since the work that the university professor does is usually published for everyone to see. That does not mean that the work at the university was essential — it was.
More and more universities are trying to encourage their faculty to work with industry and start their own small companies. The Research Triangle is a great example as is Purdue’s research park. But there are some things that are simply incompatible about university research, which is just as much about teaching the next generation of scientists as it is about producing results (or a product), and research for profit. That’s ok, imho, because we need the next generation of scientists and engineers to run the companies that are so important to our country.
Y-not on February 18, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Gator-ade? Tang?
BobMbx on February 18, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Good examples!
This might be of interest to folks interested in tech transfer and commercialization of university-based research:
Y-not on February 18, 2009 at 2:41 PM
That is two and one of those concerned football. How about free enterprise?
Johan Klaus on February 18, 2009 at 5:29 PM
By now, everyone here understands that you badly want us to be impressed with you. Why that is, only your psychiatrist knows for sure. Anyone who is trying to pimp his resume for credibility on an internet forum has got some issues. (I’m sure you did a great job supervising Wally in the stock room.)
You repeatedly ignore counter arguments and simply repeat your unfounded and false assertions. If you were actually able to refute what is said to you, you would do so rather than appealing to your alleged expertise as a Fortune 500 employee.
Responding to you is a waste of time and becomes boring because you don’t actually engage in a conversation.
Django on February 18, 2009 at 5:35 PM
Is that not a tax supported school? Do you think that universities should not be concerned about the bottom line?
Johan Klaus on February 18, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Offshoring, not outsourcing.
Then what can you suggest that doesn’t put US citizens at a penalty in their own country?
sethstorm on February 18, 2009 at 6:43 PM
Sloppy on my part — replace “bottom line” with “profit margins.”
I’m not sure where the distinction between state schools and private schools come in for you, but I would hasten to point out that most major public universities derive only a small portion of their operating budgets (and probably even less of their capital budgets) from their home states. I’d have to look for the articles, but I seem to remember during the U of Colorado budget kerfuffle, the number was typically less than 20%. I was at a Big 10 for several years and I think that was about the figure for our university.
Don’t forget that the “product” a university is producing is rather complex. It’s the educated people they graduate, the new knowledge that is produced, and the service to their communities (through things like extension offices) — it’s not just the inventions and the intellectual property that arise from their faculty members’ research or the start-up companies in their research parks.
Y-not on February 18, 2009 at 7:04 PM
???
Tang was not designed for football…
Read the link I provided on IP and tech transfer. There are several references to university-derived technologies that became commercialized.
Maybe I’m missing your point here (I joined the thread late). Are you contending that the private sector is the best venue for research?
Y-not on February 18, 2009 at 7:08 PM
I’m worried for my Dad, who lives in California (he’s a Republican). I hope this mess gets sorted out soon, one way or another. Also hope he’s taking his pills for hypertension.
Frivolous on February 19, 2009 at 4:25 AM
If you live there and haven’t had the gumption to get out yet, get out now.
The government corruption is so great that it can never be overcome.
notagool on February 19, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5