First is so the Lege could resubmit bills such as this passel vetoed by Gov. Helmethair, Rick Perry. (From the 2005 79th regular session; we do not have a full list of vetoes from this year yet.)
Second is as I mentioned in a newspaper column last summer, during the education funding crisis and multiple special sessions — you wouldn’t have monster craps like that being left on a special-session plate.
Third is so that well-meaning but somewhat badly written laws, under the press of time, wouldn’t get sent to the gov for likely veto.
Fourth and related is so that well-meaning but really badly designed bills wouldn’t get lost in a black hole for two years.
Fifth, and related to three and four, is that knowing a bill could come up again in a year, would allow more thought to be placed into it.
Sixth is knowing that someone like the Monarch of Midland, Tom Craddick, would be more accountable to the House with a session every year.
Seventh is that Texas, were it an independent country, would have one of the world’s 20 largest economies. Would you run a country like this?
Now, I know Texans will never sign off on a full-time legislature, though. But, take a lesson from the neighbors to the west, at least.
Be like New Mexico. Have a long-term session in odd-numbered years, and a shorter session, with a narrower focus, in even-numbered years. Say a 110-day session and a 40-day session, at minimum. That would be two more weeks than now, plus a slower pace over two sessions.
Governance would surely be more productive.
June 08, 2007
I don’t think treating Texas colleges like businesses is the answer to skyrocketing tuition
Texas state Rep. Lois Kolkhorst spoke in Navasota yesterday. Among her topics was the spiraling cost of college tuition.
She said she thinks more and more future college and university presidents will NOT be faculty working their way up administrative ranks, but rather, business professionals. She didn’t say whether they would necessarily have previous college administrative experience, let alone with the college or university that hired them as president or chancellor, just that they would be business people.
And, she said she thought it was a good idea.
As for the idea of treating universities more like businesses, it might have its high points, but could easily be taken too far. Will a academic program of study, or major, be deleted not just from one college but across most or all of the University of Texas, Texas A&M or Texas State University systems if it doesn’t perform well enough financially? If so, how tough will the criteria be? What will that do for learning for learning’s sake? Will private businesses be invited to be “sponsors” of college academic programs? What would that do for learning? Would, or will, businesses attach more strings to their donations in the future? Instead of “teaching to the test,” as primary and secondary public schools here do with the TAKS, will colleges and universities “teach to the business”? Wouldn’t that make them the white-collar equivalent of vo-tech institutions? (There’s a snarky slam for you!)
No, colleges and universities shouldn’t be financial black holes. But, the university as business institution idea should be approached carefully.
Let’s ask a couple more rhetorical questions, first, now that the 80th regular session of the Texas Legislature is now on the books.
How did we jump from the original version of the Texas Tomorrow Fund, to diminishing state support for public universities, to deregulated tuition with its attending quashing of reopening the TTF or the possibility of any successor version of it?
What will members of the 81st Legislature do instead of making our state colleges and universities even more capitalistic? Will they even discuss some form or degree of re-regulation? Will they consider increasing non-loan state financial aid or other things?
She said she thinks more and more future college and university presidents will NOT be faculty working their way up administrative ranks, but rather, business professionals. She didn’t say whether they would necessarily have previous college administrative experience, let alone with the college or university that hired them as president or chancellor, just that they would be business people.
And, she said she thought it was a good idea.
As for the idea of treating universities more like businesses, it might have its high points, but could easily be taken too far. Will a academic program of study, or major, be deleted not just from one college but across most or all of the University of Texas, Texas A&M or Texas State University systems if it doesn’t perform well enough financially? If so, how tough will the criteria be? What will that do for learning for learning’s sake? Will private businesses be invited to be “sponsors” of college academic programs? What would that do for learning? Would, or will, businesses attach more strings to their donations in the future? Instead of “teaching to the test,” as primary and secondary public schools here do with the TAKS, will colleges and universities “teach to the business”? Wouldn’t that make them the white-collar equivalent of vo-tech institutions? (There’s a snarky slam for you!)
No, colleges and universities shouldn’t be financial black holes. But, the university as business institution idea should be approached carefully.
Let’s ask a couple more rhetorical questions, first, now that the 80th regular session of the Texas Legislature is now on the books.
How did we jump from the original version of the Texas Tomorrow Fund, to diminishing state support for public universities, to deregulated tuition with its attending quashing of reopening the TTF or the possibility of any successor version of it?
What will members of the 81st Legislature do instead of making our state colleges and universities even more capitalistic? Will they even discuss some form or degree of re-regulation? Will they consider increasing non-loan state financial aid or other things?
June 07, 2007
Déjà vu explained, no spirits or souls needed
Not that I have thought that a non-materialist explanation was needed, but now we know it isn’t. Memory parallelisms in the hippocampus, a structure deep within our brains, explains the issue.
Most neuroscientists and neuropsychologists have thought for some time that some brain mechanism was the cause of déjà vu, but their explanatory accounts failed. Some said it was a slight difference in firing, or signals recognition, between one eye and another.
But now, we know what’s actually happening.
The scientists tested mice with mutant genes that affected one part of the hippocampus, and saw them unable to distinguish between two similar but not identical cages. They noticed differences in brain activity from healthy mice and worked from there.
It makes more sense to me than some older explanations. The hippocampus is involved with the consolidation of episodic memory into long-term memory. Given the great variety of human memories, the malleability of memory, and the emotional overtones of many memories, it’s a wonder that déjà vu episodes don’t happen more in normal, everyday people’s lives.
Most neuroscientists and neuropsychologists have thought for some time that some brain mechanism was the cause of déjà vu, but their explanatory accounts failed. Some said it was a slight difference in firing, or signals recognition, between one eye and another.
But now, we know what’s actually happening.
U.S. researchers have identified the part of the brain responsible for this sensation, and they think it may lead to new treatments for memory-related problems.
They said neurons in a memory center of the brain called the hippocampus make a mental map of new places and experiences, then store them away for future use.
But when two experiences begin to seem very much alike, these mental maps overlap and start to blur.
“Deja vu occurs when this ability is challenged,” said Susumu Tonegawa, a professor of biology and neuroscience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, whose work appears in the journal Science.
The scientists tested mice with mutant genes that affected one part of the hippocampus, and saw them unable to distinguish between two similar but not identical cages. They noticed differences in brain activity from healthy mice and worked from there.
It makes more sense to me than some older explanations. The hippocampus is involved with the consolidation of episodic memory into long-term memory. Given the great variety of human memories, the malleability of memory, and the emotional overtones of many memories, it’s a wonder that déjà vu episodes don’t happen more in normal, everyday people’s lives.
Some talking points for how national healthcare might rein in costs
Via Washington Monthly, Ezra Klein’s “It’s not about age” post on the rising cost of healthcare got me to thinking about possible ways a national healthcare system done right could generate some real savings. That’s whether it’s a straight-up single-payer system or we allow some room for private insurance companies.
Things like this are why any Ron Wyden-type proposal doesn't well meet my smell test. It’s not so much the issue of single-payer or not, it’s the incrementalism. And, with Fortune 500 companies begging for relief, progressives who really want to do something different on healthcare have them by the short hairs.
That said, this is an area where a presidential bully pulpit can be a big help. So, rather than a Wyden-type proposal being brought to the current Congress, it would be much better, in terms of the big picture, to wait until 2009, assuming the election of a non-Republican, non-Libertarian president.
Several thoughts on savings:
First, national healthcare would mean, or should mean, standardized paperwork, whether we have a single-payer system, or let insurance companies be part of the game, or whatever. Big administrative savings right there, I think.
Second, if it means the government regulating the amount of fMRI machines in a certain area, or saying that it's only going to be a payer to 12 out of 17 hospitals in a major metropolitan area that have fMRI equipment, so be it.
Let's go further and think of this in terms of medical market care pooling in broader ways.
Third, that in turn may drive some doctors away from some specialties. But, many doctors go down that road in the first place to recoup the high U.S. cost of medical school. This backdoor pressure itself wouldn't be enough to drive down med school costs, perhaps. Maybe other things would, such as higher student loan rates for specialization, or to flip that, lower student loan rates for non-specialization. Expansion of programs, such as working in Indian Health Service hospitals, to ameliorate loans, could be part of this.
Fourth, national healthcare, to me, implies at least some degree of national regulatory standards superceding state ones, such as state insurance boards (at least the health insurance regulatory part; a national insurance regulatory system in general might be a good idea but that's neither here nor there).
Yes, I know big-business conservatives, and the AMA, will both call this “rationing.” On the other hand, people who aren’t knee-jerk worshipers of the myth of Adam Smith, including a fair amount of doctors, surely would buy off on the reduction in paperwork hassles, overhead, etc.
Things like this are why any Ron Wyden-type proposal doesn't well meet my smell test. It’s not so much the issue of single-payer or not, it’s the incrementalism. And, with Fortune 500 companies begging for relief, progressives who really want to do something different on healthcare have them by the short hairs.
That said, this is an area where a presidential bully pulpit can be a big help. So, rather than a Wyden-type proposal being brought to the current Congress, it would be much better, in terms of the big picture, to wait until 2009, assuming the election of a non-Republican, non-Libertarian president.
Ras-Putin outthinks Shrub on missile defense
Russian President Vladimir Putin, aka Vlad the Incarcerator (or Vlad the Polonium Poisoner, take your pick) today countered President Bush’s proposal to site a U.S. missile system in Eastern Europe with an almost grand-slam almost grand-slam bridge play:
Why do I characterize this as “almost grand slam”?
Basically, because Putin shows he's got more smarts and mojo in working the PR angles on this issue.
Bush has to either put up or shut up as to the actual targets of this system AND as to whether he really wants to be a multilateralist in the so-called “global war on terror.”
Plus, if Shrub WOULD bite on this, building it in Azerbaijan lets Ras-Putin outflank Chechnya, Georgia, et al on the southern flank and expand Russian hegemony.
Thank doorknobs Ras-Putin is not OUR president; he would run fricking circles around both parties in Congress.
Russian President Vladimir Putin told President Bush Thursday that he would drop his objections to a U.S. missile defense system if Washington substantially altered current plans to base it entirely in Europe and instead involved Russia through a Soviet-era radar system in the central Asian nation of Azerbaijan.
....Putin said he spoke yesterday with the president of Azerbaijan, who agreed to host elements of a missile defense system there to protect all of Europe. If this is accepted, he said, he would have no need to carry out his threat to retarget Russian missiles or place offensive units along the country's European borders.
Why do I characterize this as “almost grand slam”?
Basically, because Putin shows he's got more smarts and mojo in working the PR angles on this issue.
Bush has to either put up or shut up as to the actual targets of this system AND as to whether he really wants to be a multilateralist in the so-called “global war on terror.”
Plus, if Shrub WOULD bite on this, building it in Azerbaijan lets Ras-Putin outflank Chechnya, Georgia, et al on the southern flank and expand Russian hegemony.
Thank doorknobs Ras-Putin is not OUR president; he would run fricking circles around both parties in Congress.
June 06, 2007
The naiveté of an AP economics writer
Thinking that should means either “ought” or “will” on employers hiking wages when productivity rises.
If not naiveté, it’s stupidity.
Rising productivity means that employers can boost salaries because of workers' increased efficiency. It is the single most important factor supporting rising living standards.
If not naiveté, it’s stupidity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)