I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.
Confucius
George Will, "Rev the Scientific Engine": Thumbs UP!
With White House economic advisor Austen Goolsbee in full alarm mode yesterday, playing the obligatory Chicken Little role if the GOP-controlled House fails to extend the $14.3T federal debt ceiling (it currently stands just shy of $13.9T), the House is clearly sending a message to Obama: this is not going to be a rubber stamp 111th Congress. A spendthrift President and Senate are going to have to make some real concessions towards fiscal responsibility. We are very close to the point where the national debt equals the size of the economy. This is unsustainable: other countries like Japan and China have alternatives to buying US debt. If I was John Boehner, I would deliberately keep Obama and his agency managers under a very short leash, demanding full transparency and accountability; Darrell Issa (who notoriously called the Obama Administration one of the most corrupt ever on a syndicated conservative talk radio program recently) has implied much the same, suggesting that the President, beefing up his legal staff anticipating subpoenas, has more need of accountants. While the Republicans are unlikely to shut the government down or to let the country default, Obama is going to have to have to make some serious compromises with the House on spending and other legislation. To be honest, I think the Republicans are going to be aggressive and dare the President to veto spending reductions; contrary to the President's instincts, I think the Congress' ratings will increase and the President's will decrease in a battle over fiscal conservatism. Moderates and independents who made the difference in the mid-terms expect the Congress to be more fiscally responsible, and if the President continues to follow his progressive mindset, the people will realize that that he's all hat and no cattle when it comes to fiscal discipline.
The reason I just went into the discussion over budget matters because it's a key issue that George Will is worried about in his excellent column: the current obsession of short-term vs. long-term results. Wall Street can reward or punish a company based on the latest quarterly report. A proper organization design, with internal controls, or an IT systems design require advance preparation and more upfront costs before we ever see tangible benefits. But, for instance, we see the results of neglecting these points in a variety of ways: infrastructure or IT projects which go far over budget and operations vulnerable to fraud. But if you pay short shrift to design in favor of implementation or operation, it will be penny wise, pound foolish.
The same idea holds for longer-term investments (e.g., large infrastructure projects) or basic science and engineering in the federal budget. Basic scientific research, engineering, and mathematics are the "seed corn" of inventions. Most of us know, for instance, that Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were extraordinarily talented in multiple disciplines, but how many people realize that the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, held a patent?
George Will makes a compelling case that Americans should be concerned about:
U.S. undergraduate institutions award 16 percent of their degrees in the natural sciences or engineering; South Korea and China award 38 percent and 47 percent, respectively. America ranks 27th among developed nations in the proportion of students receiving undergraduate degrees in science or engineering.... From 1970 to 1995, federal support for research in the physical sciences, as a fraction of gross domestic product, declined 54 percent; in engineering, 51 percent...Annual federal spending on mathematics, the physical sciences and engineering now equals only the increase in health-care costs every nine weeks.George Will is urging our fellow conservatives (and I think he's spot on) that not making more of a priority than the Obama and prior administrations have done towards investing in basic science and engineering is a fundamental mistake in terms of long-term economic growth.
I will rant a bit on the Obama Administration on this topic: it's true that Obama has urged more "investment" in union-favored education and paid lip service to market shortages of math and science teachers (not so much for professional scientists and engineers). But he has cancelled high-profile science projects (i.e., NASA), which served as an inspiration to many of us whom have been obsessed with our nation's leadership in the space program. Many of our brightest scientific and engineering talents are seduced by much higher paying professional services (like medical doctors).
Unfortunately, Obama's emphasis in the sciences seems to be related to his ideology, e.g., the recent "integrity" guidelines which really are aimed at certain high-profile disagreements between government scientists and the Bush Administration on climate change matters. [I have a true scientist's skepticism to the groupthink of politically correct climate change science, but I thought it was counterproductive and futile to censor government scientists, short of national security reasons.] And his policy towards higher education financial aid does not differentiate between, say, someone pursuing a doctorate in nanotechnology versus yet another unemployable English, history, psychology or philosophy PhD.
George Will doesn't go this this far, but I would argue for a federally-subsidized full ride to bright students pursuing academically rigorous programs in math, natural sciences and engineering, with active solicitation of foreign nationals seeking to study in US accredited universities, with expedited US naturalization processes for credentialed and/or experienced scientists, engineers and technology professionals.
Pardon Me, Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger....
On Sunday, the Governator, in one of his last official acts in office, commuted the manslaughter sentence for the son of the former Democratic California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. Why is it that we tolerate such manifestly cronyistic abuses of power? This, by any objective standard, reflects an intrinsic conflict of interest, and I personally regard it as a violation of professional ethics. Have we already forgotten one of the most infamous abuses of pardon privilege by a US President, Bill Clinton's unconscionable pardon of Marc Rich?
Other than some occasional pushbacks to the spendthrift California legislature, Governor Schwarzenegger, once considered a potential Presidential nominee if an amendment allowed foreign-born citizens to run, seemed to morph after losing a couple of prominent reform propositions, opposed by unions (of course) in the People's Republic of California. I don't underestimate the difficulty of having to play bad cop to the Democrats' payback to their special-interest constituents. But when Governor Schwarzenegger refused to support the people's restoration of the traditional definition of marriage to the California constitution, it was the last straw. The California constitution already guaranteed legal rights to domestic (gay) partnerships. Good luck in your future endeavors, Arnold.
Political Humor
A few originals:
- An Air Force drone, fitted with Gorgon Stare technology, can inconspicuously track movement across an entire Afghan town. The technology has passed some impressive tests: Hillary Clinton was able to track her unsuspecting husband Bill going around Washington DC.
- President Obama was busy in the off-term season; reportedly in exchange for Rahm Emanuel, the City of Chicago has offered Mayor Richard Daley's brother Bill and two cronies to be named at a later date. (The disappearing smell of rotting fish wafting in the White House corridors is an added bonus.)
Maurice Williams and the Zodiacs, "Stay"
