There is nothing more annoying than going into a store to find a rude, unhelpful salesman. You are reminded of this when you walk into Store A. He talks over you when he has no idea why you’re in his store. It would be so much easier if he just listened. After telling you to wait, the guy tells you he doesn’t want to fix your TV for some reason you know cannot possibly be true. It’s one of those stores that would rather sell you something defective and profit when you need it replaced. Wonderful.

This isn’t going anywhere, so you leave. But you still need to get your TV fixed as you’re having guests over tomorrow, and it’s too late to cancel. Your friend is bringing that cute girl you’ve been meaning to talk to. Failure is not an option. With no other choice, you go to the other guys across the street, hoping your luck changes.

Thankfully these guys actually know what they’re talking about. Store B works much better than Store A. You explain what you need, and they get it for you. They treat you with respect and actually listen to what you want. You’re even told its ok to call if you have any further problems. You give a sigh of relief because this is how business is supposed to be done.

We come to college to, among other things, get a degree. The university runs the business, and we are the customers. We need this degree to get a well-paying job. The university needs our tuition to keep going. As students, we would hope the university would be like Store B and not Store A. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

Recent decisions by the administration have been troubling and deserve attention. In particular, their current plans to expand the Residential College in the Arts and Humanities Program and cut Deaf Education Program are especially ridiculous. It makes no sense and is concurrent with a troubling trend of short-term thinking the university has chosen to take in their fiscal affairs.

I understand there need to be cuts when there are limited funds. A weak economy in Michigan means less revenue for the university. I don’t blame them for having to pick between bad and worse when it comes to cutting back. It’s times like these when they must see which programs are truly needed. But the university is willing to hedge its bets on a program that they are selling well to prospective parents and students. It’s true that they’re going to make a quick buck in the next few years, but they are also willing to ditch a sound program that graduates qualified and skilled students every year for one hasn’t had a graduating class yet.

I have nothing personal against the RCAH. However, when compared to Deaf Education, the marketplace does. There is a market demand for those in Deaf Education for a reason. American Sign Language is the third most used language in the United States. Our Deaf Education Programs offers a unique bilingual experience that cannot be found anywhere else in Michigan. Thus, there is a reason why students enroll in the program. Prospective employers know this specialized program prepares them well for the workforce.

On the other hand, RCAH has a much less marketable potential for their graduates. It’s a young program that already has a dismal retention rate compared to any other residential college on campus. People are leaving the program not just because of the lack of academic rigor, but the uncertainty for job prospects when they would finally graduate. I would be hard pressed to compare RCAH’s retention, job placement, and graduate school acceptance rates to that of Deaf Education. You would think such a weak program would be cut if we were running low on funds, not the program that has already proven itself.

And when these numbers come in in the next few years, the consequences of such a decision will become evident. They will have to cut RCAH as parents will stop sending their kids to a program that does not prepare them for a global economy. What then will the board say to those students who couldn’t get into Deaf Education?

They’ll be speechless, like the big businesses that took bailouts last year. The banks’ short-sighted, high profiting loans, and the crisis that followed, should rebut any notion that focusing only on the short-term is a viable business model. GM and Chrysler put as little quality in their cars as possible to squeeze out as much profit as they could, only to have the world watch them topple into bankruptcy.

Michigan State’s administration is acting like these bad characters. They have Store A Syndrome. What they value is quick profit, not the quality of the education they are providing.

What comes from this kind of irresponsibility is an annoyance with institutions we feel should be able to do much better.

I can’t think of a Democrat or Republican that doesn’t have some kind of disdain towards the banks after what they just put the county through. I can’t think of one Michigander who was proud to see GM and Chrysler pleading to Washington for emergency funds. And these days, it’s hard to find people who really believe the university’s board is looking out for the students’ best interests. We hear hopeful language but are slapped in the face with boneheaded, shortsighted proposals – like cutting the Deaf Education Program. We have all seen the narrative before, and the plot gets old quick.

The real tragedy here is that there does not have to be a contradiction between the university profiting and looking out for what’s best for students. There are plenty of common sense decisions that would benefit everyone. As a sports fan, it would be nice if they wouldn’t try to change the Spartan Logo when it is broadly disliked by the student body. As someone who lives in the dorms, it would be nice if they wouldn’t charge obnoxious sums of money for meal plans. As a Resident Mentor, I would rather the absurd amount they spent on “Live On” events be used to fund scholarships for students. And as a friend of some in the Deaf Education Program, I would appreciate it if the university used some rationality and prudence when making budgetary decisions.

These are decisions that prompt people to live off campus and sometimes leave Michigan State all together in the long run. This is what ultimately makes them lose profit. The university must realize there are no short term profits that can trump a deficit of trust students have with administration board members.

Conversely, small changes to show their concern with students’ long-term interests would incentivize people to stay. That would bring sustainable profit over the next few years. The university would be running the right kind of business. We’ll be glad to bring our TV in if we’re being treated right.

If the University can afford to keep the RCAH, by all means they should do so. But in such a deep recession when an education means more than it ever has for employment opportunity, they need to have their priorities in check. Expanding RCAH and abandoning Deaf Education is a terrible idea; board members should know better.

In the end, they need to do some serious soul searching. Everyone knows how the global economy operates. The quality of education students receive is critical for finding a job. Businesses thrive because they care about their customers, not because they can cheat them out for a quick profit. I sincerely hope they reverse this decision and show they want to run the right kind of business we can all be proud of.

Michigan State University students will again be voting in 2010, this time probably less enthusiastically than in 2008 when many supported Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama and others were ill-motivated by the weak Republican ticket.

However, students concerned about the role and direction of government would be wrong to “sit out” this election cycle, and especially to fail to realize the importance of the 2010 gubernatorial race. Whoever the eventual candidates may be, and whatever policies they advocate, students need to soberly rue the disaster that has overtaken this beautiful and formerly prosperous state (now with an average family income $5000 below the national average), mostly the result of misguided policies pursued by the current governor during her abysmal eight-year tenure.

Jennifer Granholm, elected governor in 2002 and re-elected in 2006, promised we would all be “blown away” by government-sponsored programs and businesses. The governor was right in one respect. Between 2005-2008, Michigan lost over 550,000 jobs, its economic output declined annually, and out-migration has continued unabated. Blown away, indeed. MSU graduates who hope to find work in Michigan now must turn to states with more economic opportunities and fewer punitive policies making it hard to do business. There are some bright spots, however. Two Men and a Truck continues to move MSU grads to their new, well paying out-of-state jobs.

So, what happened? We were supposed to have “cool cities” to attract our best and brightest. Instead we got bulldozers flattening swaths of uninhabited urban no-go zones in places like Flint and Detroit, and maybe soon in Lansing, too.

We were supposed to “diversify”, “modernize” and “upgrade” the state’s economy as the auto industry declined, but instead we subsidize already grossly profitable Hollywood movie companies and other favored businesses cherry picked for special tax breaks by connected bureaucrats and government functionaries looking out for their own.

The governor was going to improve our public education system in which high school graduates complete a “rigorous” slate of courses to “prepare them for college and the workplace.” But we still have over 60% illiteracy in Detroit and other similarly dysfunctional school districts, thanks partly to teachers’ union protection of incompetent teachers and their opposition to any market-based competition, all with the support of a governor whose two campaigns were largely union financed. MSU students would do well to assess their own high school teachers and programs and then ask if the state’s education (and the teachers union) prepared them adequately for higher education and work.

MSU students are doubtless familiar with those infamous on/off/on again “Promise Grants.” Certainly the $500 a semester helped with books and other marginal expenses for those who qualified. But in the end, the program essentially required taxpayers of Michigan to subsidize the education of future MI emigrants abandoning the state for jobs, work and well-lived lives elsewhere.

The governor was going to work in a “bi-partisan manner” to accomplish all manner of objectives. But instead of focusing on “Job One” – the economy that will or will not create jobs for MSU graduates — she has focused (?) on thousands of meddlesome issues, including banning smoking in public spaces and cutting loose thousands of (hopefully non-violent) criminals from state prisons. She never failed to back the unions, state or private, who have priced the average Michigan worker out of the market. She never took on the teachers union which has helped disable generations of Michigan’s young people.

Certainly there is blame enough to go around. The state Legislature easily comes to mind! Ultimately they too need to make serious proposals and bare their teeth when necessary: our state cannot continue to provide outlandish lifetime pensions to workers who “retire” in their 40s. But if MSU students are to find jobs, it will not be in a state-employed workforce paid for by tax dollars. MSU students will only find jobs in Michigan when state expenses are slashed so small-business tax breaks can grow large enough to make a difference.

The famous phrase, “the buck stops here,” has acquired a cruel and unusual twist in Michigan: the bucks are fleeing to other states. After eight years of Gov. Granholm, the state is worse off, and Michigan is a far less attractive state for MSU graduates to find work and raise families.

If they truly care about their home state MSU students should stay involved in politics, including the 2010 election. “Hope” and “change” are just evocative one-word phrases, which we all now know are empty phrases. The state needs radical tax policies that make Michigan at least as competitive as Indiana when it comes to attracting and keeping businesses. The state needs an overhaul – and reduction of – its punitive business regulations. In addition, Michigan must develop its energy resources – tried and true resources like coal, gas and nuclear – and shelve the delusional notion that “green energy” alone will solve our business and jobs problems.

In 2006 and more recently in 2008 MSU students heard the Pied Piper’s music, and many followed. In 2010, it is time for MSU students to come out of their trances, shake out the cobwebs, sober up, and make voting decisions for “hope and change” that are based not on fantasy but reality.

—-
I. S. Wichman is a professor at the Michigan State Department of Mechanical Engineering

A new trouble may be looming over the State of Michigan, and this time it has less to do with the economic climate in the state and more to do with the coveted freshwater wonders from which the state derives its nickname: the Great Lakes. These lakes are threatened by an invasive species of fish that could possibly have catastrophic results on all five of the Great Lakes. This fish is commonly known as the Asian Carp.

The Asian Carp were brought to the United States as a food source but are now overpopulated in many lakes and rivers. This poses a problem to Michigan because the species has recently become dangerously close to entering the Great Lakes. It is the mass damage that they create which poses the problem of them entering the lakes.

This species of fish is known to be able to jump out of water eight to ten feet in the air, due to disturbances in their environment. They can be easily scared by boats and other recreational watercraft, causing them to jump. Each fish has the possibility of hitting fishermen and passengers on watercraft. When an impact occurs, it can create severe damage; even bruising the passengers greatly. In addition, these creatures can grow up to 40 pounds or more on average. This can create a potentially dangerous situation for all watercraft operators. Besides this, the Asian Carp also destroys many habitats, killing other fish in the areas where they locate themselves.

Michigan’s tourism and fishing industries could be greatly affected by an invasion of these carp into the Great Lakes. These multi-billion dollar industries would most likely take a turn for the worse, making the Great Lakes nearly impossible to fish in or use for recreational activities. And although the fish have not made their way into the Great Lakes, they are making steady progress.

Currently, the fish have the possibility of entering through the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The Army Corps of Engineers has placed an electric barrier in the canal so that the fish would not cross over into Lake Michigan. However, 2009 data shows that Asian Carp DNA was found past the barrier, leaving only one lock as a barrier before entering into Lake Michigan. It is possible that without an immediate closure of the canal in Chicago, these fish could invade and destroy the Great Lakes ecosystem, affecting numerous states and Canadian provinces.

With a limited market for carp today, there is little that can be done to stop these invasive fish due to small harvesting. However, Michigan’s Attorney General, Mike Cox, has proposed that the Chicago canal be immediately closed and is fighting for the future of the Great Lakes in Washington. In addition, Senator Debbie Stabenow and Congressman Dave Camp have spearheaded legislation to close the canal as well. The fight continues today with the U.S. Supreme Court and President Obama, both of which find it unnecessary to close the canal. For more information and to sign a petition to close the Chicago canal and stop the Asian Carp visit www.stopasiancarp.com.

The sun is out, the birds are chirping again, the Red Cedar is no longer a big sheet of ice; this can only mean one thing: SPRING is here and so is spring fashion. Don’t get caught walking to class without wearing the latest trends for spring 2010.

1. Bright colors and floral patterns – After a dreary winter, spice up your wardrobe with some bright colors and floral patterns. It is a time to celebrate the end of winter and anticipate the beauty of nature. Why not show it your clothing? Put on your favorite colorful t-shirt or go out and buy a floral pattern top to go with some jean shorts. You will be all set for this coming spring.

2. Bulky jewelry – The bulkier the better. This season, catch that cutie’s eye with an over the top necklace to strike up a conversation. Bulky bracelets can add that extra flair to a plain white t-shirt. And don’t forget rings- the small details make a good outfit great.

3. Vera Bradley – This designer epitomizes spring fashion. Big purses, messenger bags, totes, laptop cases, accessories like head bands and more will make any outfit pop. All of her designs are colorful, floral and extremely unique. You will definitely be the one to stand out at a party.

4. High heels – Don’t be afraid to go beyond casual by dressing up and wearing a cute pair of slingbacks. Heels accentuate a cute sundress or a skirt. They will also make your legs look longer. Who doesn’t feel sexy wearing a trendy pair of heels?

5. Big sunglasses – Make them big and colorful. When driving around or simply walking to class, you do not want to blinded by the sun. Whether you are wearing aviators or cheap sunglasses from the dollar store, you will always add an air of mystery.

Used over a century ago by communists to disparage regnant European (Western) bourgeois values, the accusation of “racism” has recently been deployed to demonize minor offences, intentions, preferences, even thoughts. You’re a “racist” if someone alleged to have once heard you utter an imprecation on the basketball court; you’re a “racist” if you want to live in a low-crime suburb; you’re a “racist” if you prefer metal to hip-hop; you’re especially a “racist” if you are skeptical about that ill-defined concept called “diversity” on college campuses, or the value in society of race-based preferential treatment, a.k.a. “affirmative action.”

Nowadays, you don’t actually have to do anything to be called a “racist.” Unlike the convicted rapist the alleged “racist” is often a person who someone, or some organization, doesn’t like. Someone once said a “racist” is someone with whom a liberal is losing an argument.

What do “racists” actually say or do? Probably nothing to merit such a malicious label unless, of course, what they say or do is just made up. Consider the incident with radio celebrity Rush Limbaugh, who tried to become part-owner of the NFL’s St. Louis Rams. Labeled a virulent racist and hater, he was prevented by a smear campaign led by Al Sharpton and, disturbingly, the NFL player’s union boss, DeMaurice Smith. The inconvenient truth: Limbaugh’s alleged “racist” statements were fabricated. In Limbaugh’s own words, his “controversial” racial views amounted to his “belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to race.” Sorry, Mr. Limbaugh, a compassionate and logical counter-argument won’t work. And no amount of bowing and scraping, wallowing, groveling, begging or pleading will help.

This is why crying “racism” to invoke Collective White Guilt is such fiendishly brilliant strategy.

White Guilt has given the “racist” label weapon its power. Who in his right mind wants to be called such names? Who are The Guilty, you ask? They include hundreds of millions of European-Americans, whose English, German, Italian, Greek, Polish, French, Scottish, Irish, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Swiss, Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian,… ancestors never profited one iota by Negro slave ownership or, indeed, had never seen blacks before they immigrated to the USA. In a stunning feat of historical disingenuousness, racial demagogues and shakedown artists have lumped them with a small caste of long-dead Southern slave-owners and labeled them “racists.” Their descendents, many of whom gave their lives to protect our freedoms, including some 15,000 Sons of Michigan in the Civil War, are now characterized on college campuses and in society as “oppressors,” “bigots,” and “haters.”

Frederick Douglass, born a slave, said “I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong.” Part of “doing right” is to discuss all of the facts, no matter how inconvenient or politically incorrect they may be. As a member of the Conservative Faculty and Staff at Michigan State University (cfsatmsu@gmail.com) I concur with this sentiment. We should honor the contributions of all Americans who strive to propagate and advance the ideals and virtues of our culture and civilization.

Conversely, we should take a hard, clear-eyed and truthful look when persons use explosive accusations like “racism” either for their own financial gain or to smear their opponents in order to terminate discussion. No surer way exists for guaranteeing the destruction of civility, human amity and the dispassionate rationality required for good public policy and, indeed, for the propagation of civilization itself.

—-
I. S. Wichman is a professor at the Michigan State Department of Mechanical Engineering

The goal of science is to gain enough understanding of causal interconnections so that we can make deliberate changes in those connections to produce desirable outcomes for our lives. Climate Science, however, has evidenced a toxic quality in the “climate-gate” and “glacier-gate” scandals that has undermined its credibility and distorted the journalism reporting climate change.

The disaster for science and public confidence occurs when the scientists themselves cannot agree on the “facts,” when data are manipulated to support theories, and, more fundamentally, when the data themselves are withheld from scrutiny. So some explicit and transparent rules for conduct by climate scientists are necessary to produce both quality science and to restore the public confidence in such science if it is to underlay public policy decisions.

First, data, especially “raw” data, must always be shared and open to public inspection. In fact, both those who believe in human-caused global warming and those who most deny it should come together to inspect these data in order to best expose shortcomings and agree on the appropriate measures of climate change.

Second, all attempts to alter the peer-reviewed journal process that validates scientific research as competent must be stopped. The peer-review process depends on the anonymity of the researcher to the reviewers and the anonymity of the reviewers to the researchers. It is obvious from the East Anglia ”climate-gate” scandal that both researchers and reviewers compromised this process, resulting in the appearance if not the reality of a major breach in the process meant to validate the competence of climate-change research.

Third, scientists who may have hidden data (“climate-gate”) to buttress some research hypothesis or misrepresented it for political purposes (“glacier-gate”) should be appropriately disciplined. The special problem with such behavior in Climate Science is that the public policy stakes are very, very high. Climate change legislation and regulation should never be made on the basis of poor or biased science.

Moreover, the journalists who have been reporting Climate Science also need to consider the implications of these scandals for their own conduct.

Most fundamentally, if the peer-review process has been compromised in the Climate Science journals, then the only scientific basis on which journalists have chosen Climate Science sources to interpret research has also been compromised. Journalists need to make sure that journals employ proper peer-review procedures for validating the research of scientists they choose to interview.

But even with properly validated climate-science research, journalists need to look to the science rather than to the scientists for the basis for their reporting. First, “consensus” among scientists is no more a valid route to what’s true than consensus in any other area. Second, reporters should look more than they do to the science itself. Scientific work identifies hypotheses whose predictions enable assessment of the goodness of Climate Change models, and the conclusions sections of studies identify shortcomings as well as successes in this effort. Journalists must be familiar enough with actual studies to probe scientists more carefully not just on the implications of their work but also on the limitations of their work.

Related to this, journalists need to realize that science sources, like other sources, can and will “spin” what they tell journalists, especially when their money and prestige are at stake. Certainly, the East Anglia emails indicate the creators of the climate-change models privately had more doubt about the precision and reliability of those models than they publicly expressed. And the “glacier-gate” scandal illuminates deliberate attempts to influence publicity and opinion. And the admission of blatantly political motives to influence opinion on the part of the scientist involved in “glacier-gate” should give any journalist pause.

Finally, journalists need to remember to “follow the money” as part of their effort to find out what Climate Science targets. The grants in Climate Science are as much on the side of affirming man-made climate change as is the money on the opposing side of the debate. Reporters have been correctly been concerned about “industry” money biasing science; that concern must be balanced when it comes to the “government” money on the other side.

Both science and journalism seek to better understand reality. Science must take a skeptical view of theories in order to make them better at knowing and explaining that reality. Journalism would better inform citizens by restoring its skepticism in reporting the climate-change debate.

—
Fred Fico is the Chair of Conservative Faculty and Staff at Michigan State University, he is also a Journalism professor.

Dear Christmas-Confused
I understand meeting the parents is a big step, but all you need to do is show them your true self. Ask your boyfriend if when meeting them if it is going to be a formal occasion or a casual one, so you know what to wear. Personally, I would just wear a nice pair of jeans and a nice top. With the gift situation, I believe you do not need to take a present because you are meeting them for the first time, but if you are really concerned you can also again ask your boyfriend what he thinks. Now the part about showing affection, if you feel comfortable showing affection by holding his hand go for it. They know you are dating their son, so holding his hand should not be a big deal at all. Do not stress about meeting his family, just act like yourself and enjoy spending time with him and his family

xoxo
Lisa

Dear Lisa,
My boyfriend and I will have been dating for a year this December. Our anniversary is just a few days before Christmas. Do you have any gift ideas for our one year anniversary? Also, do you think I need to get a Christmas gift and an anniversary gift? This would mean setting aside two days to celebrate the two dates separately. I’m so confused, and I’m afraid to talk to my boyfriend about combining the days because he will probably think I’m being a money-saver by skimping out on buying him two separate gifts. What do you think I should do?
Sincerely,
Afraid-of-appearing- Christmas-Cashless

Dear Afraid-of-appearing-Christmas-Cashless,
I think combining your anniversary with Christmas is acceptable, I do not believe that buying two separate gifts is necessary. What you could do is buy him two gifts or buy him one expensive thing. Like buy him his favorite Xbox game that he wants and buy some CDs or DVDs. Also, making him Christmas cookies along with the present would be a sweet touch. You should never be afraid to talk to your boyfriend about this issue at all, he should understand if you want to combine Christmas and your one year it is a totally rational idea especially when you will be seeing him a lot anyway during Christmas break there is no point in making the anniversary one day and then celebrating Christmas another.

xoxo
Lisa

Dear Lisa
I love Christmas, but my girlfriend absolutely hates it. What should I do about this? Should I continue liking Christmas even though it annoys my girl? Should I try and get her to like it just as much as I do? Should I take her to see Christmas movies or to pick out a Christmas tree with my family? I’m really concerned because my family also enjoys Christmas a lot and my parents expect me to have her over to bake Christmas cookies with them and decorate the tree with lights and ornaments. I’m afraid my girlfriend will break up with me because of my family’s Christmas cheer. Do you have any ideas as to what I should do?
Sincerely,
Boyfriend-with-a-Christmas-Cheerless-Girlfriend

Dear Boyfriend-with-a-Christmas-Cheerless-Girlfriend,

I believe that you should not change the way you look at Christmas. Everyone looks at it a different way. Do not push Christmas on your girlfriend. Do not play loud Christmas music, and do not talk about it all the time because that may make her break up with you. Ask her if she wants to come over for Christmas and help your family, even though she does not like Christmas that much. If she truly loves you, she will come and help your family. Do not fret about this. It is still early to get into the Christmas mood, a lot of people do not feel the Christmas cheer until later in December. Give her some time. Don’t push her to do anything she does not want to do because that will lead to conflict, not so much the Christmas cheer.

xoxo
Lisa

Coming from backgrounds across the state, country and world, MSU students each have a different story to tell about what they are doing this winter season. With winter upon us, some students are eager to hit the slopes or absorb the natural beauty of crisp snow flakes falling on a brisk early morning. Others can’t wait to leave to warm weather and beaches, something that is far from Michigan at this time of the year. Either way, students are getting a reprieve from class work, extracurriculars and sleepless nights in the library.

Lovelesh Chawla, a senior majoring in Computer Science and Engineering, will be spending winter break studying for and taking the GRE to prepare for grad school. When he finishes taking the GRE, he will be escaping to Florida with friends during the last week of December.

“Instead of studying, what about just going to the Florida and catching some rays?” Chawla said.

Many Spartans are going home for the holidays. Home for Spartans is as diverse as the activities they will be doing. For Matthew Swartz, an Arts and Humanities junior, he will be resting from the stress of classes by going home to Downers Grove, Illinois. Like Swartz, Carena Townsend, junior, will be going home to Ann Arbor to catch up on sleep and hang out with family and friends. She looks forward to enjoying her break by reading and being close to her family.

Others, such as Jai Rawat, will travel across the globe to see their families during winter break. Jai will be traveling to Jaipur and Udaipur, India to visit with family and friends and go to Thailand for ten days to take advantage of two of his favorite hobbies: traveling and photography.

For others, winter break is about getting an advantage in the job market.

Emily Pawlak, an Advertising and Design senior, will be spending her time during winter break filling out intern applications, sending out résumés and preparing for her last semester at MSU.

“Living in the dorms I’ll be going home for the semester break, visiting friends and networking for jobs come April and May,” Pawlak said.

For Joe Larsen, a senior in Media and Communication Technology, winter break will be spent doing humanitarian work in impoverished communities of Tanzania.

“I will be going to a village outside of Arusha in Tanzania where I will help provide internet connectivity to a secondary school and installing software that allows the students freer access to the internet,” Larsen said.

He is also hoping to visit a wildlife preserve during his time in Tanzania.

“[Winter break] is many things. It is a time to take a break from school, see friends and family, to earn some money, and, being a technology major, apply some of the skills I have learned in real world applications,” Larsen said.

Whether they are traveling, staying at home, or getting ahead in the job market, Spartans will be taking advantage of their time away from campus and the stress associated with college life.

By: Tom George

Prior to going bankrupt, General Motors and the Chrysler Corporation were paying more for health care than for steel. They had drifted from their mission as automobile manufacturers to become health care purchasing agents. The State of Michigan is headed in the same direction, with health care now being the single biggest expense within the state’s budget, surpassing the amounts spent on education, public safety, and the maintenance of state infrastructure.

Despite spending billions of dollars on health care for the poor and disabled through Medicaid, and for state employee’s via their health insurance, Michigan remains unhealthy, with very high rates of infant mortality and death from cardiac disease and stroke. The liberal response to this dilemma has been to expand Medicaid eligibility requirements in an attempt to cover more individuals and purchase even more health care services. As a consequence, Michigan’s Medicaid enrollment has grown from 1 million in 2000, to 1.7 million today. One in every six Michigan residents is now a Medicaid recipient! This has resulted in a decade long explosion in government health care spending.

In order to feed the growth of Medicaid and maintain a balanced budget, dollars have been diverted from other priorities. While Medicaid funding has nearly doubled since the start of the decade, needed tax cuts to businesses have been put on hold, while appropriations to public libraries, local governments, universities, and even K-12 funding, have all been cut.

How is it that despite health care services becoming the state’s top expense, Michigan isn’t healthier? It’s because the largest determinant in the health of a population is not how many health care services it purchases, but its behavior. Unfortunately, a lifetime of smoking, lack of exercise, poor compliance with treatments for diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol cannot be remedied by good hospitals and doctors.

In order to change Michigan’s direction through investments in education, tax cuts for businesses, and fixing the states infrastructure, it is necessary to reduce state spending on health care. Successful businesses have found ways to do this by encouraging employees to keep themselves healthy. They use incentives to reward good health behavior so that employees keep themselves healthier and are less likely to need big-ticket health care.

As governor, I would change Medicaid and health insurance for state employees, so that recipients would have incentives to change their own behavior. When Governor John Engler took office in 1991, he changed Welfare by requiring recipients to look for jobs. In the same way government health care programs are ripe for reforms. They must be designed to encourage healthy behavior, not simply pay for services; otherwise the State of Michigan will go the way of General Motors and Chrysler.

—
Tom George is a Michigan State Senator from the 20th district. More information on his gubernatorial campaign can be found at GeorgeforGovernor.com.

The Spartan Review is a non-profit organziation and therefore cannot endorse any candidate for political office. We extended the opportunity to write an op-ed for this print edition to all five republican candidates for governor. Only the George and Hoekstra campaigns responded with articles for this edition. The invitation for the Cox, Bouchard, and Synder campaigns to write an op-ed piece for print never expires. We hope that those campaigns will accept our offer so we can provide our readers their points of view.

I hear people all over campus complaining about their hard-earned scholarship being taken away. They cry out, “This is a violation of our rights!” But let’s be rational. How did you earn your “Promise Scholarship”? Oh, yeah—by making patterns on MEAP test scantrons.

I’m a college student too, and I would love to get $2,000 for free. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as free money. There is, however, something called redistribution. This happens when the government taxes its citizens and then uses that money, among other things, to hand out to certain groups of people under the guise of lofty, feel-good names.

Euphemisms and promises aside, when there’s a $2.8 billion budget deficit in Michigan, we need to see the Promise Scholarship for what it is: not a promise, but an unsustainable social program that shouldn’t have implemented without first considering how to fund it.

This may be a bold claim, but the Promise Scholarship is a pretty bold program. People everywhere are mad that their “promise” has been taken away—but this is the heart of the problem. Nothing has been taken away; the money to fund the Promise Scholarship was never there to begin with. How can you take something that doesn’t exist in the first place? Furthermore, in order to have the money to fund something, our elected officials have to take money from us.

People just don’t seem to get it: social programs are not an inherent right. They aren’t this constant, primordial force of society—they are evidence of tax dollars at work. So, when government officials don’t fund a program, they’re not cheating you out of your rights. And, if you want to make the argument that you’re being cheated out of your hard-earned money, then you should complain on April 15.

Governor Granholm re-vamped the Michigan Promise scholarship program in 2007 when the state was facing a budget deficit of $600 million. That’s right, when the state had negative $600 million, she offered up to $4,000 per student for the Promise Scholarship.

Republicans did the responsible thing by cutting this year’s Promise Scholarship funding—it turns out that you cannot fund things when you do not have funds. For this fiscal year, maintaining this program would require an increase from $80.5 million to $140 million. Democrats can call Republicans heartless for cutting funding, and Republicans can call Democrats heartless for getting people’s hopes up by making false promises. But more importantly, when you look past party politics, it doesn’t matter how many promises politicians make. Because government doesn’t operate on promises, it operates on money.

Michigan simply does not have the money to afford the Promise Scholarship this year. What if, for once, we stopped looking to the government for a solution? What if tuition was lowered? Then, instead of subsidizing education to make it more affordable, it could be directly more affordable. (Plus, one could make the argument that the Promise Scholarship is actually inflating tuition costs). Or, what if taxes were lowered? Then, people could use the money they saved to put toward education directly, thereby eliminating the government middleman.

While Americans may not be ready to accept these Republican principles, the Michigan budget crisis has shown us some of the gaps in the Democratic ideal. Government-intensive social policy is inefficient, and as the lack of Promise Scholarship funding has shown us, it is also unreliable. The unfunded Michigan Promise Scholarship is not a broken promise. If anything, it’s broken idealism.