California's crisis continues while Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders inch slowly toward agreement on the deep cuts necessary to close California's massive $26 billion budget shortfall. Now, even as the state continues to pay its bills with IOUs, the University of California, the nation's leading public university, is being forced to cut its budget by $813 million -- or 20%. It is highly unlikely that these cuts will be reduced by a budget agreement in Sacramento.
UC Berkeley will see recruitment of faculty drop from the normal 100 positions a year to 10. At 28,000-student UC San Diego, also ranked with Berkeley and UCLA among the world's top 20 research universities, recruitment has been halted. More than 300 UC scientists have issued a white paper warning Schwarzenegger that the sharp reduction endangers the 10-campus system's position as the premier public university in the United States and could have a negative impact on California's future economic growth. According to UC officials, the cut in state funding brings the "amount of state investment in the University down to $2.4 billion -- exactly where it was in real dollars a decade ago." During the same time period, spending on state prisons has more than doubled to $11 billion. Either prospective students would rather be incarcerated or they've got the wrong client mix? In any case, it is obvious education in California is not working.
The UC Board of Regents on Thursday approved an emergency budget plan that would force 80% of the system's 180,000 employees to take unpaid furloughs of 11 to 26 days over the next year. UC President Mark Yudof said the furlough plan was preferable to layoffs in an enormous system that includes five medical centers, three national laboratories, and 225,000 graduate and undergraduate students. UC officials have yet to secure agreement on the furlough plan from the unions that represent 35% of university employees. Surely couldn't be a hold up by the unions.
But furloughs will only cover approximately a quarter of the UC deficit. The rest will come from a 10% increase in tuition, debt refinancing and dramatic budget cuts at the individual UC campuses, as testimony to the Board of Regents from the systems chancellors revealed on Wednesday. At UC Berkeley, according to Chancellor Robert Birgenau, campus libraries will be closed on Saturdays and no longer stay open 24 hours during final exams (a long-time campus tradition). He said UC is "the only university among our competitors whose faculty are taking a furlough," adding that faculty salaries already lag some "$25,000 behind our peers." In the past, even with this gap, UC Berkeley has been able to entice top faculty to leave Harvard and Yale for the Bay Area. The UC System as a whole has won 55 Nobel Prizes. Not to mention all the Orders of Lenin.
The retrenchment at the individual campuses will mean fewer student jobs, few teaching assistants, a virtual elimination of lecturers who often teach up to 30% of the undergraduate classes in some departments, and the risk that top faculty will flee for more lucrative -- and stable -- ivory towers. Elimination of untenured community activits and guest lecturers? Who's to do the work?
In these troubled times, where is one to find the Shangri La of more lucrative and stable tertiary education employment? I think the writer might be a tad overwrought. Perhaps a cup of chamomile tea is in order.
At UCLA, the campus is projecting 165 fewer courses for the fall quarter, a 10% drop compared to fall 2008, Chancellor Gene Block said.
I'm sure there are entire departments that can be closed down, their key courses folded into other departments. Gender studies comes to mind. Perhaps the various campuses can specialize, especially at the graduate level. Not every campus needs a law school or a graduate program in 14th century Russian poetry.
There will be larger classes, which are expected to exceed an average of 60 students each. "We've already seen a 20% increase in the average class size over the last three years, due to increases in student enrollment not covered by state support," Block explained. At UC San Diego, Chancellor Marye Anne Fox said, "Our student-faculty ratio is so high that students may not be able to graduate on time."
In Sacramento, Schwarzenegger and Republican legislators have blocked all attempts by Democrats to cover any portion of the current $26 billion state shortfall with a tax increase. Tuition has more than doubled at the University of California in the last decade, rising to more than $8,700 for in-state students in fall 2009. Many of the state budget cuts being negotiated behind closed doors in Sacramento will primarily affect the poor and working class -- health coverage for the poor and the CalWORKs welfare-to-work program, for example. But the severe funding reductions to the public schools and to the state university system -- not only the University of California but also hundreds of thousands of students attending the 23-campus Cal State University system and the community college system -- will strike California's large middle class in a fundamental way. $8,700 for "in-state" tuition? Still a huge bargain I'd say.
No doubt it will be discovered that a great many students have chosen to take a year or two... or perhaps just summer classes... at the community college (CC) level before finishing their degrees at the university. My personal recommendation is that remedial courses should be taken at the CC anyway -- that should not be part of the university mission, nor should that cost university prices.
In a July 9 "Open Letter to UC alumni and friends," Richard Blum, the Regents' immediate past chair, Russell Gould, the current chair, Sherry Lansing, the vice chair, and UC President Yudof wrote, "The UC model -- providing universal access to a top-notch, low-cost education and research of the highest caliber -- continues to be studied around the globe among those who would emulate its success. And yet, this model has been increasingly abandoned at home by a state government responsible for its core funding who may possibly be sick and tired of educating the Chinese."
#2
And yet, this model has been increasingly abandoned at home by a state government responsible for its core funding
For so called enlightened people, they still don't get the basics of cause and effect. If there is no money, there can be no services. Services have to be scaled to match resources which are not unlimited. The gravy train has run out of rails. The tax serfs don't exist to serve the state. The state exists to serve the people.
Lileks makes it to the NY Post. RTWT
It takes years of yoga to learn the posture necessary for speaking clearly with all your feet in your mouth. But for some the skill comes naturally, which brings us to Joe Biden. Those who saw Dick Cheney as an evil genius crouched silent in the shadows of the Oval Office like Nosferatu must enjoy Biden's high profile: he's out there daily with the sunny enthusiasm of Ronald McDonald opening another store. And, quite often, telling everyone to have a Whopper.
The "gaffes," as we call unscripted thoughts, come delightfully often with Biden. The latest: Speaking before the AARP, Biden aarped up a peculiar formulation to explain the need to borrow 3.2 bejillion dollars in order to transform the American health care system, preferably by next week. He said people ask him "What are you talking about, you're telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt? The answer is yes, 'I'm telling you.'"
In Vietnam-era terms: we have to burn the hospital in order to save it. Even if that means losing the burn unit.
In one sense, Biden's logic isn't new; anyone who said we had to partition Iraq to save it is perfectly capable of believing we have to dig a deep hole now to keep from falling into a deeper hole later. But how does this fit with Biden's other summer misstatements? Let's take a quick review.
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/19/2009 12:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Biden's logic is no less sound than that of the Berkeley economics professor who chairs CEA.
#2
Forgive me, but I must continue to applaud Joe Biden. His giving Barry a weekly case of the ass is just what the doctor ordered. The job is beginning to wear on Barry, it's showing. He been getting rather ungentlemanly of late.
Even Obama's scripted speeches are deliberately more forceful, aggressive and direct in taking on critics, aides say. Friday remarks at the White House had a trash-talk edge count me out and youll be sorry.
To late Barry, I'm already phueching SORRY you're in office.
Buoyed by the decisive mandate the ruling coalition received in the recent general election, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has set an ambitious agenda for his government. His primary focus is reviving economic growth through increased infrastructure investment and substantive financial sector reforms. But equally important, Singh is trying to set out a coherent Pakistan policy.
Addressing Parliament on 8 June, Singh indicated India was ready to "try again to make peace with Pakistan". He called on Islamabad to "bring to justice" those responsible for the terrorist attack in Mumbai last November. He added: "I expect the government of Pakistan to take strong, effective and sustained action to prevent the use of their territory for acts of terrorism on Indian territory, or against Indian interests." (The reference to "Indian interests" was a nod to the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul, which was carried out in July by elements of the Taliban based in Pakistan.)
Washington, too, has an obvious interest in seeing that India Pakistan tensions do not get out of hand. It would like Pakistan to remain focused on military action against the Taliban on its western frontiers with Afghanistan. The Barack Obama administration also knows that another major terrorist attack on India from across its borders would provoke a strong Indian response. The US has told Islamabad that it has a "special responsibility" to act immediately and firmly against those responsible for the Mumbai attack and bring them to justice.
The last years of former president Pervez Musharraf's rule saw considerable improvement in the India-Pakistan relationship. A ceasefire across the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir was agreed upon in November 2003. Subsequent dialogue led to wider contacts and the resumption, after half a century, of trade and travel across the LoC. "Back-channel" negotiations between India and Pakistan from 2005 to 2007 came close to producing an innovative solution to the Kashmir issue.
The settlement envisaged grant of extensive autonomy on both sides of the LoC, with this line dividing the state becoming "irrelevant" in the course of time--by free movement of people, goods, services and investment across it. With declining violence, there would be a phased reduction of forces that now face one another and representative institutions set up for promoting trade, travel, tourism and cooperation on issues such as health, environmental protection and education. Singh and former Pakistani foreign minister Khurshid Kasuri have acknowledged that they were close to reaching a solution in 2007.
While Pakistan calls for immediate resumption of the dialogue process, New Delhi has been cautious. The Indian public remains outraged by the brazen Mumbai terrorist attack of 26 November. Singh would face severe criticism if further terrorist attacks took place once the dialogue process resumed. New Delhi also believes that though a civilian government ostensibly rules Pakistan, the Pakistani army has a preponderant say in relations with Afghanistan and India. This is evident from the fact that foreign dignitaries visiting Pakistan invariably seek a meeting with army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, without bothering to call on his direct boss, defence minister Ahmed Mukhtar.
Whether the Pakistani army establishment can be associated with the dialogue process with India is a question to be considered. Most importantly, demonstrable action by Pakistan to bring those responsible for the Mumbai outrage to justice will facilitate early resumption of dialogue. India is also cautious because of perceived divisions within the Pakistani government. New Delhi senses there are differences between President Zardari on the one hand, and Prime Minister Yusuf Gilani and the foreign office and intelligence establishment on the other, on issues ranging from trade and economic relations with India to the resumption of the stalled dialogue process on Jammu and Kashmir. The indications are that Islamabad, led by the army establishment, would like to repudiate what was agreed upon in earlier "back-channel" negotiations.
To resume the formal dialogue process, careful behind-the-scenes preparatory work would be necessary. This week, there has been occasion for President Zardari and Prime Minister Singh to exchange views at the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Yekaterinburg, Russia, and they could also meet during the forthcoming summit of the Nonaligned Movement in Egypt in July. These meetings could help address existing doubts and differences.
In the meantime, India could make some unilateral gestures to promote people-to-people contacts and ties between civil society organizations. The people of India and Pakistan both stand to benefit if this process goes well.
G.Parthasarathy is a visiting professor at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi, and was India's high commissioner to Pakistan from 1998 to 2000.
Posted by: john frum ||
07/19/2009 08:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
India and Pakistan are in a state of active hostility -- if not war or at least two proxy wars. At least six of the Pakistan army's nine corps are on the border with India. Of the six, I Corps and II Corps are heavy armour strike corps. At least seven of the Indian army's 13 corps are on the border with Pakistan. Of the seven, X Corps and II Corps are powerful strike corps (strike corps is an offensive formation). Additionally, all of India's holding crops that are directly facing Pakistan also have significant offensive capabilities. In effect, 66 per cent of the Pakistan army's holding and strike formations are directly facing India. In effect, more than 53 per cent of the Indian army's holding and strike formations are directly facing Pakistan.
Pakistan maintains -- and sustains -- critical assets in the northeast that have managed to pin down India's XV Corps, IX Corps, XVI Corps, XIV Corps, XI Corps, X Corps and II Corps. India's 4 Armoured Brigade, 340 Mechanised Brigade, 11 and 12 Infantry Divisions, Jaisalmer Air Force Base, Utarlai Air Force Base and Bhuj Air Force Base maintain a threatening-offensive posture. India is actively supporting anti-Pakistan Baloch elements as well as anti-Pakistan Taliban factions. India is bent upon projecting power into Afghanistan thus encircling Pakistan. And, India -- post-Operation Parakram -- has been investing into a "Cold Start War Doctrine" involving joint operations by the Indian army, air force and navy; eight integrated battle groups with armour, artillery, infantry and combat air support.
For FY 2009, India's defence spending will rise by close to 50 per cent to a colossal $32.7 billion (according to Jane's Information Group). India is planning its biggest-ever arms purchases; $11 billion fighter jets, T-90S tanks, Scorpion submarines, Phalcon airborne warning and control system, multi-barrel rocket-launchers and an aircraft carrier. At $32.7 billion India's defence spending translates into 2.7 per cent of GDP.
For FY 2009, Pakistan's official defence spending is set at $4.3 billion while unofficial estimates go as high as $7.8 billion. If Pakistan were to match India's rise we would have to spend more than five per cent of our GDP on defence. For the record, Iraq, Somalia and Sudan spend an overwhelmingly large percentage of their GDP on defence. Iraq, Somalia and Sudan are all -- or have been -- in a state of civil war. For the record, the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia use to spend an overwhelmingly large percentage of their GDP on defence. Soviet Union is no more. Czechoslovakia is no more.
The US and the Soviet Union fought a 50-year Cold War during which the Soviet Union stockpiled some 13,000 active nuclear warheads. In 1991, the US won without even firing a shot. The Soviet Union raced a race that it couldn't win. The Soviet Union split into 15.
Over the past century, economic development has been all about intense trading. Pakistan has two population centres; central Punjab and Karachi. Central Punjab is a thousand kilometres from the nearest port. Between Karachi and central Punjab is a desert in the east and on west is an area that does not -- and cannot -- support population concentrations. To develop economically, we must trade. Trade we must. And, the only population concentration to trade with is on our east.
Time -- and money -- is on India's side. Composite dialogue among civilians means little -- if anything at all. What is needed is a strategic dialogue. How can India be persuaded to pull back its offensive formations? In return for what? How can we use our America leverage in our longer-term interest? We cannot win an arms' race with India. We ought to race a race that we can win. We can continue to race a race that we are bound to lose. Or, begin a new race that we may be able to win -- or at least not lose.
The writer is the executive director of the Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS).
Posted by: john frum ||
07/19/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
how about quit trying to infiltrate terrorists into India and J&K? How about not attacking India? How about not cozying up to India's other enemy, China?
That could be a start, but Jihad and graft and corruption and Islam is your choice. Reap the consequences
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/19/2009 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#1
They sound surprised that Obama is going to be openly antagonistic to Israel and the Jews. I guess they weren't paying attention before the election when it came out that for decades he attended a church that wallows in it.
#2
maybe not actually muslim, but EXTREMELY open to their issues, huh? Perhaps America's Juice will start to figure out that party loyalty should work both ways?
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/19/2009 20:05 Comments ||
Top||
#3
ION TOPIX > IRAN READY TO TEST NUCLEAR BOMB.
IRAN has the CAPABILITY, iff NOT the INTENTIONS, to do such within six months.
D *** NG IT, MORIARITY, ala THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN TV Series = "THEY HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY...BETTER, STRONGER, FASTER"
#5
Obama and his foreign policy advisors would prefer seeing Labor at the helm (remember the 'casual drop-in' when Ehud Barak was in a meeting at the White House).
However, they figure that if there's to be a so-called peace agreement that's agreeable to the Israeli Right (it'll be agreeable to the Left in any case), it has to be done by Likud, a la Begin and Sadat's Camp David Accord.
But Carter lucked out; a combination of naivete and near-fanaticism. He talked both sides nearly to death and got an agreement. Obama and his advisors have nearly the exact opposite characteristics. Hence the Chicago-Way.
When Obama said "there is a narrow window of opportunity for advancing the peace process", it could also have been in reference to Likud having a tenuous political-hold. The White House reckoned that Netanyahu, when this first started, didn't have the political capital to long resist, that either he would eventually capitulate, or his government would fall. Either would have been preferred by the White House.
As it stands, not only is the Obama adminstration not getting what they want, but it appears they're running ito domestic oppostion as well.
Kind of ironic that American Jews would help elect a President who would love nothing more than to witness the destruction of the Zionist Entity.
Keep in mind that Obama pretty much ignored them (among other Democrat interest groups) during the primaries, especially in Pennsylvania. They voted for him anyway.
#8
Mos people who voted for Obama are what I thought they were: blind fools.
I thought seriously about voting for him. McCain and most of the Republicans would simply slow-walk us down the same path that Obama has us on now with the only difference being that the Republicans would have taken as generation to inflict as much damage as Obama has already. At least this way the crash will be close enough to the policies and the shift radical enough that there's some chance that blame will be levied on the proper parties.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
