Killing Geology in Florida

I have been in these types of positions before; my program was cut and I ended up leaving for another university. These are often agonizing decisions and involve a lot of factors that it is hard for outsiders to know anything about. Things like, how many majors the program pulls in, what is the funding situation, and (most importantly) how easy would it be to merge faculty into other departments.

This stuff is bad, but things can and will get a lot of worse. In particular, it is almost a given that a lot of liberal arts schools will be closing their doors permanently in the next decade.

all ya gotta do is talk floridians into paying more taxes.

Paying more taxes is hard to do when (1) the people have to vote to do this to themselves; and (2) a disturbingly large percentage of people are unemployed, meaning everyone else has to pay even more.

When the state income is greatly reduced, a lot of things have to suffer big cuts. HOW to cut is the challenge, because it's a zero-sum game - every dollar you preserve (for the geology department) must come out of someone else's program. Do you eliminate TAs? Cut faculty? Cut departments? Raise tuitions? Eliminate capital expenditures? Discontinue research? WHICH research?

I understand that Joe Meert wants somebody else's ox to get gored. Who doesn't?

From talking to some paleo-people here, Florida's loss is NCSU's gain. It seems like the students are being granted terminal masters, and are looking for new programs. NCSU paleontology has a late deadline for applications, and they are getting some good applicants from UF: one student already has two field sites, 6 papers (including 1 in Nature).

One of my good colleagues here is a UF grad and a huge supporter of the university. Well he used to be a supporter. He no longer supports them.

When I heard about this, I wrote an open letter to the president and dean at UF, and also submitted it to the Gainesville Sun, pointing out the importance of geology to UF, the state of Florida, and our society. I emailed it to the president and dean, but cc'ed it to several Florida legislators and other governmental figures (including Governor Crist). I've heard from several of the governmental figures (although certainly some of them were form letters), but neither the president nor dean.

If you want to read the letter, you can see it here:
http://www.gainesvillemoms.com/article/20090404/OPINION03/904041008

I don't think that Joe (or many other faculty from Geology or other programs receiving disproportionate cuts) are simply saying cut somebody else. I think the idea is that if you savagely cut a program as is being proposed here, you essentially destroy it. By cutting the staff and non-tenured faculty in Geology, you remove the ability of the labs to operate, and you drastically decrease the teaching of lower-level gen ed classes. Everyone that I've talked to feels that a better solution is to spread the cuts over a wider area, which would harm all departments by a relatively small amount. I've already heard that many of the Geology faculty are considering leaving. If the cuts were proportionate, I don't think this would happen, at least not to this extent. Of course, the best solution would be for the legislature to grow a pair and adequately fund higher education in Florida, but in the absence of that, at least distribute the cuts equitably.

At this point, I'm very close to being completely through with supporting UF in any way. If these cuts go through, I'm done with them. Even if the cuts are avoided, I'm letting UF know that I will not financially support the University until both a new president and dean are in place.

Here's some info on what the University of Central Florida may be doing in response to the budget cuts:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-locucfcuts23042309apr23,0,5722417.story

Cutting 500 jobs doesn't sound too serious but 25 academic programs is pretty nuts when you only have a few more than 200!

And UCF was just now starting to become a real up-and-coming university with their military connections that they'd acquired after the investment in that supercomputer (not to mention the football team is looking to have a good year!). I'm not in Florida, but if these cuts ever make it to my state, I'm thinking of starting a campaign imploring rich people (of which I am most definitely not one) to invest in education - but that's probably just a pipedream, the amount of money needed to stabilize the infrastructure in California is probably beyond even Bill Gates' grasp - oh if I still lived in Illinois...

I don't know about the particular case of Florida, but it was the case in the 2000s that many states expanded their budgets dramatically, and now a lot of those states are having to deal with budget shortfalls as those expansions now meet lean times.

I live in Tallahassee and I'm a grad of Florida State University. FSU is going through the same budget hell as UF. When the FSU president's office presented a list of proposed draconian cuts, I was angry that no athletic programs were among them. The adiminstration explained that the athletic department is self-financed through primarily football games, the associated TV revenue, and booster contributions.

I take a backseat to no one when it comes to supporting FSU athletics, but even I found this to be an absurd explanation. The primary purpose of a university is to educate a wide range of people on a wide range of subjects. Athletics is secondary. It should probably even be an afterthought. So when the educational side of the university is bleeding cash, money ought to be taken from the atheltic department to help the rest of the institution. Bah, nobody listens to me.

And just to make this relevant to the blog, FSU recently held a terrific "Origins" seminar that featured several big names in evolutionary biology, including E.O. Wilson and Donald Johansen. Videos of their lectures are available here:

http://origins.fsu.edu/schedule/index.shtml

fasteddie,
While I understand the frustration that athletics programs should sacrifice and even agree with you, I believe there are regulations against it. I think it comes down to the NCAA arguing that if there were allowed to be a money flow of athletics to academics, then schools like Notre Dame would have an unfair advantage or something and that it would also taint the academic world by tying it to athletics. I don't completely understand the reasoning nor can I make a good case for it, but I imagine someone here with more knowledge on the issue would be able to explain it better than myself.

Seward said: I don't know about the particular case of Florida, but it was the case in the 2000s that many states expanded their budgets dramatically, and now a lot of those states are having to deal with budget shortfalls as those expansions now meet lean times.

Flint said: Paying more taxes is hard to do when (1) the people have to vote to do this to themselves; and (2) a disturbingly large percentage of people are unemployed, meaning everyone else has to pay even more. When the state income is greatly reduced, a lot of things have to suffer big cuts. HOW to cut is the challenge, because it's a zero-sum game - every dollar you preserve (for the geology department) must come out of someone else's program. Do you eliminate TAs? Cut faculty? Cut departments? Raise tuitions? Eliminate capital expenditures? Discontinue research? WHICH research? I understand that Joe Meert wants somebody else's ox to get gored. Who doesn't?

Reed Cartwright,

No state that I know of expanded its budget in recent years.

Well, this is based on what I have read...

California is a pretty good example. Annual budget increases over the past six six or so has been at roughly a 7% clip, which is 2%-3% above what one would expect if the expansion were kept to costs associated with population growth, etc. I believe we also saw (if we average what the states as a whole were doing) increases in budget outlays between 7% and 9% in the middle parts of this decade up to 2008 (so roughly 2003 to 2008) and we will not be seeing any actual decreases in funding in most states as compared to the previous year's funding, though the increase in funding will be down in comparison to past increases in most states.

As for how that shakes out re: government funding of higher ed, I don't know much about that.

Er, the last six years or so.

Oh, I should also add that tuition at the University of Florida is (by far) the CHEAPEST of any of the AAU member schools. Florida could protect itself from major cuts if the University was allowed to raise tuition, but it's a catch-22 since most of the students are supported by state lottery dollars.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Seward said: I don't know about the particular case of Florida, but it was the case in the 2000s that many states expanded their budgets dramatically, and now a lot of those states are having to deal with budget shortfalls as those expansions now meet lean times.

Joe Meert,

Well, Florida has been privatizing a lot of its state services, so if you have seen budget cuts over the past few years that would be one reason why.

Joe Meert said: Oh, I should also add that tuition at the University of Florida is (by far) the CHEAPEST of any of the AAU member schools. Florida could protect itself from major cuts if the University was allowed to raise tuition, but it's a catch-22 since most of the students are supported by state lottery dollars. Cheers Joe Meert

Of course, the best solution would be for the legislature to grow a pair and adequately fund higher education in Florida

The strange thing is that even given the worst case scenario, there is a way for the university to get through the crisis without layoffs and without the closure of departments.

While I know best how the cuts will affect geology (and the state of Florida), I have been defending higher education in the entire state.

Secondly, the Senate has figured out a budget that will not devastate higher education so it would seem logical that the house could do so as well.

Flint said: I think we're talking around two basic problems here. The first is, state revenues in every state have been seriously reduced by the economic difficulties. Incomes, profits, sales, employment levels, all are down enough to hurt. And that means there MUST be cuts, because states aren't like the federal government, they can't legally run deficits.

If higher education isn't cut, who is? Law enforcement? Highway maintenance? Recreation? Many states are going to all state-funded operations and saying "OK, you're going to get a 10% total budget reduction, handle it however you want within the law." Should higher education get a free pass? At whose expense?

This is both true and misleading. The Japanese approach has been to cut salaries rather than lay people off, cut purchases but not stop them, cut services but not eliminate them, etc. This might be more humane, it might make ramping back up easier, but there's also some evidence that it also tends to push problems around.

eric:

No, states can't run deficits. Doesn't mean they don't weasel around this in various ways (pink IOU slips and the like). But long ago it was legally established that they can't legally do it. Sometimes budget estimates are inaccurate and the money runs out before the fiscal year, and there's some flexibility for keeping the lights on, but it must be made up quickly.

As for higher education creating more wealth, this is both probably true, and probably irrelevant. The state's job is NOT to create more wealth. It's to provide essential services.

Joe:

You also seem to be confused with ROI. But ROI is simply nowhere to be found in the law, the philosphy, or the practice of representative government. People who maintain roads, to pick an example, could find financial reasons why potholes are expensive. Also missing the goal of government.

What happens (it's probably obvious to everyone) is a budgetary ratchet effect. Something gets $X a year, with an increase of maybe 5-8% each year. Each increase is allocated somewhere, and that somewhere becomes sacrosanct. There was probably a time when UF didn't even HAVE a geology department. But once started, it's like every other government program - it CANNOT be cut, because [you name it - jobs, grants, current projects, education itself, ROI, whatever] now relies on it.

This is true across government as a whole. Every new or increased expenditure ALWAYS buys a constituency that relies on the program or increase. No matter the nominal purpose or actual allocation of the money, it buys a constituency. Which will be politically vocal when threatened - MY ox is more important than YOUR ox. You'd have a hard time finding any employee, of the state or otherwise, who'll say "my work isn't really very important, fire ME instead."

If politicians would actually save budget surpluses instead of spending them to impress voters, then budget shortfalls would produce less crises.

Flint, there was also a time when Florida didn't have a state government. So why don't the politicians just get rid of the entire thing to save the people money.

Reed A. Cartwright said: If politicians would actually save budget surpluses instead of spending them to impress voters, then budget shortfalls would produce less crises.

Flint said: No, states can't run deficits.

The state's job is NOT to create more wealth. It's to provide essential services.

eric,

There are ways for states (or at least some of them) to get around the various constitutional, etc. demands re: balanced budgets; having a sort of rolling budget where you borrow to fill any gap until the next year's revenue arrives is one way. Of course when funds for borrowing become more problematic to get - which is what is happening now apparently - that sort of thing doesn't work so well.

All the states except Vermont have a legal requirement of a balanced budget. Some are constitutional, some are statutory, and some have been derived by judicial decision from constitutional provisions about state indebtedness that do not, on their face, call for a balanced budget.

I think that’s an extremely minimalist view of government. And even under that very minimalist view, creating more wealth is pretty darn close to ‘promoting the general welfare,’ don’t you think?

Anyway, you asked why education should get a free pass. I don’t think anyone here is arguing it should get a completely free pass, only that there are rational reasons why cutting education is not a good idea. You’re arguing that higher education is not something the State is constitutionally required to do. That doesn’t mean cutting it is a good decision.

Flint said: I can assure you you're on the wrong track. You have succinctly described the role of private industry, not government.

I've been reading many discussion groups talking about budget cuts, and the same pattern repeats pretty much identically. Artists are convinced art grants should be the most protected of all expenses. Construction workers can't understand why anyone in their right mind would place education before infrastructure. And so it goes.

What I’ve been trying very hard to point out is, cutting MY LIVELIHOOD, whatever it might be, is universally viewed as a BAD IDEA by every individual regardless.

eric,

Well, you don't have to buy a condo; it is a voluntary arrangement. Government isn't voluntary, or it is at least not voluntary in the way that a condo association is (consider the dramatic differences as far as barriers to exit are concerned between the two). Anyway, what exactly constitutes consent re: the government and its powers over you is a hotly contested issue in philosophical circles, and has been for several hundred years at least.

In these areas people - faced with a problem or a demand for some service - can choose whether to use government or private industry or even some mule of the two to meet that demand.

Well, in the case of government actors making choices it is generally the case that what is happening is some minority or bare majority of the population is making a choice for everyone else. This is one of the reasons why one can be skeptical of just how useful such a decision making device is outside of a set of areas where we have a fair amount of data on the utility of government actors making decisions.

How does this observation create a balanced budget? Decisions still have to be made, which mean people have to argue the validity of their opinions. I fail to see how your observation invalidates or even is relevant to the arguments Joe and I have advanced.

I’ve argued against these cuts because they are bad for society.

Reed A. Cartwright said:

Seward said: I don't know about the particular case of Florida, but it was the case in the 2000s that many states expanded their budgets dramatically, and now a lot of those states are having to deal with budget shortfalls as those expansions now meet lean times.

No state that I know of expanded its budget in recent years. If any occurred, I highly doubt they went to higher education. There were budget shortfalls in 2003 and universities were forced to cut their budgets then. Those "temporary" cuts were never restored and now with new cuts being proposed, and increased costs, I've heard figures that, for instance, in Georgia the public universities have something like 17% less state funding than they had in 2000, but are not necessarily allowed to raise tuition to cover the costs.

And conversely, are you arguing that failing bridges are GOOD for society?

If I've been reading you correctly, you are a geologist. You are appalled that UF would cut the geology department. How terrible for society! What an incredible coincidence.

So, should we take a vote in Florida: check box A if you want a UF geology department, check box B if you want potholes forever? Would you accept the result of this vote as binding, or would you regard the people as enlightened if they chose box A and ignorant if they chose B?

Flint said: eric: I suspect you are playing word games, and I also suspect you are the one being gamed. If you sincerely don't know the difference at the margin between private and public, doubletalk won't solve this lack. If you have no choice but to be a member of your condo association, and if has the power to jail for breaking its rules (rather than appeal to outside legal authority), then you have a clue. Most people work for fairly large private organizations, which have internal control structures. But nobody wails that they are therefore hard to distinguish from the public sector. Even in education, there are distinct differences between private institutions (home schooling, private universities) and public schooling (where teachers are literally government agents.) I'm sure you know this. Government exists for reasons that are generally practical. BUT there is a bright, sharp distinction between the two. Find me anyone who works for the government but doesn't know it. Yes, we are all subject to law and regulation by government, taxation by government, etc. But is a scientist working on research paid for by a government grant therefore a government employee? No more than you are an agent of government when you drive on a public highway.

How does this observation create a balanced budget? Decisions still have to be made, which mean people have to argue the validity of their opinions. I fail to see how your observation invalidates or even is relevant to the arguments Joe and I have advanced.

The state budgets can only be balanced by reducing expenses. I already agreed that this is a political process. You and Joe are saying that education is a more pressing need than competing demands for shrinking funds. I'm not arguing that you are wrong, merely observing that you are forging political arguments in support of your self-interest - just like everyone else. Now, if I were in charge of allocating tax dollars, I can assure you I'd start identifying things government least needs to fund, and start chopping them out - should have been done long since. BUT this shouldn't render me oblivious to the fact that my boondoggle is my neighbor's livelihood. Joe:

I’ve argued against these cuts because they are bad for society.

And conversely, are you arguing that failing bridges are GOOD for society? If I've been reading you correctly, you are a geologist. You are appalled that UF would cut the geology department. How terrible for society! What an incredible coincidence. OK, you have your priorities. I can understand this. Other people, no less patriotic, informed, or thoughtful, sincerely differ with your priorities. By that same incredible coincidence, they marshal what they consider compelling arguments why their priorities are unquestionably more important than geology, or even than higher education. These folks are no dumber than you or eric, and no less sincere. So, should we take a vote in Florida: check box A if you want a UF geology department, check box B if you want potholes forever? Would you accept the result of this vote as binding, or would you regard the people as enlightened if they chose box A and ignorant if they chose B?

John Kwok said: Flint - As a former geologist, I have to note that your observations are risible. If nothing else, for modern society to understand how we can use land effectively in problematic areas such as active plate margins (e. g. earthquakes and volcanoes), on rapidly coastal lands, etc. etc., then we need to have some understanding of geology. A state university which aspires to some notable measure of academic greatness - such as the University of Florida - is only begging to have its overall academic quality lowered by destroying a department as important as its geology department:

Flint said: eric: I suspect you are playing word games, and I also suspect you are the one being gamed. If you sincerely don't know the difference at the margin between private and public, doubletalk won't solve this lack. If you have no choice but to be a member of your condo association, and if has the power to jail for breaking its rules (rather than appeal to outside legal authority), then you have a clue. Most people work for fairly large private organizations, which have internal control structures. But nobody wails that they are therefore hard to distinguish from the public sector. Even in education, there are distinct differences between private institutions (home schooling, private universities) and public schooling (where teachers are literally government agents.) I'm sure you know this. Government exists for reasons that are generally practical. BUT there is a bright, sharp distinction between the two. Find me anyone who works for the government but doesn't know it. Yes, we are all subject to law and regulation by government, taxation by government, etc. But is a scientist working on research paid for by a government grant therefore a government employee? No more than you are an agent of government when you drive on a public highway.

How does this observation create a balanced budget? Decisions still have to be made, which mean people have to argue the validity of their opinions. I fail to see how your observation invalidates or even is relevant to the arguments Joe and I have advanced.

The state budgets can only be balanced by reducing expenses. I already agreed that this is a political process. You and Joe are saying that education is a more pressing need than competing demands for shrinking funds. I'm not arguing that you are wrong, merely observing that you are forging political arguments in support of your self-interest - just like everyone else. Now, if I were in charge of allocating tax dollars, I can assure you I'd start identifying things government least needs to fund, and start chopping them out - should have been done long since. BUT this shouldn't render me oblivious to the fact that my boondoggle is my neighbor's livelihood. Joe:

I’ve argued against these cuts because they are bad for society.

And conversely, are you arguing that failing bridges are GOOD for society? If I've been reading you correctly, you are a geologist. You are appalled that UF would cut the geology department. How terrible for society! What an incredible coincidence. OK, you have your priorities. I can understand this. Other people, no less patriotic, informed, or thoughtful, sincerely differ with your priorities. By that same incredible coincidence, they marshal what they consider compelling arguments why their priorities are unquestionably more important than geology, or even than higher education. These folks are no dumber than you or eric, and no less sincere. So, should we take a vote in Florida: check box A if you want a UF geology department, check box B if you want potholes forever? Would you accept the result of this vote as binding, or would you regard the people as enlightened if they chose box A and ignorant if they chose B?

John Kwok:

As a computer geek, I have to note that your self-serving defense of geology is risible. By preserving their computer department, cleary the UF has selflessly placed the good of society far above the petty concerns of those married to dirt and rocks.

But more seriously, I'm saddened that you have carefully sidestepped the point of every post I've made here - that to save geology, SOMEONE'S PREFERENCES MUST BE SLASHED! Yes, yes, a thousand times yes, YOUR preferences are near and dear to your heart. You know, deep down in your very soul, that the loss of YOUR pet departments and programs are terrible, terrible things.

But your emotional response would elicit more than chuckles if you would be so kind as to explain exactly WHO should be cut instead, and WHY the love of their life is so much less important to the world at large than the love of your life. Oh, and you should explain this to the satisfaction of the victim of the budget cuts YOU are unwilling to suffer because YOUR preferences are so much more important than his.

I have never said geology is an appropriate target of budget cuts, or that UF's approach is anything near optimal however you might define optimal. I've only kept asking, over and over, who should get cut instead and why you'd cut them. And all I get in response is geologists telling me how goddamn important geology is!

OK, explain to me, in detail, WHY the computer department should be eliminated instead of geology. SATISFY me that MY profession is less important than yours. Go ahead, should be interesting.

What you must understand about Florida is that the constant harping on education by Republicanites is a big fat lie. Their objective is the same as always: a low wage, easily duped and beholden to the bosses work force too stupid to see the obvious. It has worked well for a long time. Eat the rich.

Flint said: John Kwok: As a computer geek, I have to note that your self-serving defense of geology is risible. By preserving their computer department, cleary the UF has selflessly placed the good of society far above the petty concerns of those married to dirt and rocks. But more seriously, I'm saddened that you have carefully sidestepped the point of every post I've made here - that to save geology, SOMEONE'S PREFERENCES MUST BE SLASHED! Yes, yes, a thousand times yes, YOUR preferences are near and dear to your heart. You know, deep down in your very soul, that the loss of YOUR pet departments and programs are terrible, terrible things. But your emotional response would elicit more than chuckles if you would be so kind as to explain exactly WHO should be cut instead, and WHY the love of their life is so much less important to the world at large than the love of your life. Oh, and you should explain this to the satisfaction of the victim of the budget cuts YOU are unwilling to suffer because YOUR preferences are so much more important than his. I have never said geology is an appropriate target of budget cuts, or that UF's approach is anything near optimal however you might define optimal. I've only kept asking, over and over, who should get cut instead and why you'd cut them. And all I get in response is geologists telling me how goddamn important geology is! OK, explain to me, in detail, WHY the computer department should be eliminated instead of geology. SATISFY me that MY profession is less important than yours. Go ahead, should be interesting.

Flint said: I'm not arguing that you are wrong, merely observing that you are forging political arguments in support of your self-interest - just like everyone else.

if I were in charge of allocating tax dollars, I can assure you I'd start identifying things government least needs to fund, and start chopping them out - should have been done long since. BUT this shouldn't render me oblivious to the fact that my boondoggle is my neighbor's livelihood.

Flint said: ... But more seriously, I'm saddened that you have carefully sidestepped the point of every post I've made here - that to save geology, SOMEONE'S PREFERENCES MUST BE SLASHED! ...

And honestly I still don’t see your point. Are you saying geologists shouldn’t call their state representative about this? Are you saying that the state representative should ignore their opinion because of potential bias? Or, are you merely saying we should take note that we might be biased? Okay, we’ve noted that. Super. Guess what, your observation changes nothing. No opinions, no actions, nothing. We already knew it.

Look, your previous post made the point that people no less patriotic, sincere, intelligent, etc… may disagree about priorities. Well Flint, why don’t you believe your own advice when it comes to politicians? Just because they disagree with you about funding priorities does not mean they aren’t patriotically, sincerely, and intelligently doing their best. And if their list of priorities doesn’t match yours, instead of immediately assuming ‘bias, or ‘politics,’ or incompetence, you might want to think about the fact that they have more information than you do about the impact of various cuts at their disposal.

But Flint, why must someone’s preferences be “SLASHED”?

The point I tried to make earlier is that it would make much more sense to make more equitable cuts across the board. These cuts would be smaller, and would spread the pain across a much wider set of departments.

Historically, government has never existed to create wealth, to show a profit, or to provide positive ROI.

harold:

Well, my intent here isn't to teach political science.

You're partially correct. The purpose of (Western) government, considered generally, hasn't been to increase social wealth, but rather social welfare. At the very least, this means providing for common defense and for conflict resolution. Public education of course benefits social welfare generally, as does the provision of infrastructure, public safety, and the like.

Your discussion of the goal of "lower taxes" is also somewhat of an oversimplification. What underlies this is a philosophical debate as to the appropriate role of government. Shoud government properly be limited to providing essential services essentially impossible for private enterprise to provide (by "essentially impossible" I mean, hopelessly inefficient, like half a dozen competing providers of firefighters, etc.)

Or should government be the proper means of doing almost anything that COULD be done privately, but requires too large an investment, or too much risk, or too slow or uncertain a return.

Or, at the other extreme, should government provide ALL industry and service, with minimal or no role for private enterprise at all? All of these have been tried, and all have advantages and disadvantages.

So the quest to minimize taxes translates into a quest to minimize government itself - fewer departments, fewer programs, less regulation, elimination of entitlement programs and wealth transfer programs, and so on.

But hopefully we recognize that the private sector will be oriented toward the short term - no longer than the fiscal quarter. No results in a quarter? Move investment elsewhere! Government, meanwhile, operates according to a different reward structure - power rather than profit, popularity rather than effectiveness. Planned economies are NOT sensitive to last month's or last quarter's bottom line, and so the USSR could continue building boats nobody wanted for decades on end, then towing them out to clog rivers where they rotted.

So how short a term is too short, and how long is too long? Short-term interests can be painfully short-sighted, but short-term interests are also MUCH better at pulling the plug when something clearly doesn't work. Compare with the government's war on drugs, which has been having the exact opposite of the intended effect, at huge expense, for generations. And it's impossible to stop.

While I can't answer these questions even to my satisfaction, I'm still of the personal philosophy that government should be ultimately answerable to popular input - not instantly, not necessarily directly, but still the process should be formal and transparent.

I don't think the current economic slowdown will last more than a few more years, then there will be slow recovery. I'll be interested to see which cost-cutting strategies prove most resiliant. I think it's probably good that different schools are using different approaches. Kind of like genetic variation is valuable when disease hits.

Flint said: Joe:

I’ve argued against these cuts because they are bad for society.

And conversely, are you arguing that failing bridges are GOOD for society? If I've been reading you correctly, you are a geologist. You are appalled that UF would cut the geology department. How terrible for society! What an incredible coincidence. OK, you have your priorities. I can understand this. Other people, no less patriotic, informed, or thoughtful, sincerely differ with your priorities. By that same incredible coincidence, they marshal what they consider compelling arguments why their priorities are unquestionably more important than geology, or even than higher education. These folks are no dumber than you or eric, and no less sincere. So, should we take a vote in Florida: check box A if you want a UF geology department, check box B if you want potholes forever? Would you accept the result of this vote as binding, or would you regard the people as enlightened if they chose box A and ignorant if they chose B?

How about phrasing it more like: Check Box A if you want to reduce your child’s educational opportunities; Check B if you want to reduce potholes.

Shoud government properly be limited to providing essential services essentially impossible for private enterprise to provide (by “essentially impossible” I mean, hopelessly inefficient, like half a dozen competing providers of firefighters, etc.) Or should government be the proper means of doing almost anything that COULD be done privately, but requires too large an investment, or too much risk, or too slow or uncertain a return. Or, at the other extreme, should government provide ALL industry and service, with minimal or no role for private enterprise at all? All of these have been tried, and all have advantages and disadvantages.

Flint said: Once again, my point was that budget allocations (and specifically budget reductions, which are painful) are decided on political grounds, there being no visible grounds of merit to a politician. Simply a matter of power, and of votes.

I only obvserve how that game is played. I don't select my preferred winner.

harold said: In retrospect, the arbitrary limitations of both of these - the government "must" or "can never" do certain things, purely on the grounds of arbitrary ideology - make their failure inevitable.

harold said: All successful societies today utilize a balanced and pragmatic blend of free markets, elections, guaranteed human rights, and a government with the power to take actions that address the common good.

But for you to imply that voting decisions are based purely on political gamesmanship is to ignore the fact that congresspeople and senators employ thousands of subject matter expert staffers specifically to give them advise on the substantive merit of political votes. Now, my experience is at the federal level. Maybe Florida state representatives employ no scientific staff whatsoever and do, as you claim, make all of their voting decisions based purely on political gamesmanship. This would suprise me, though I have to admit its possible.

It is, I believe, an observational fact that free markets (combined with democracy) is successful as regards standards of living for all included. So minimizing regulation has a lot of observational support.