Serious discussions of fiscal reform are usually dominated by the big ticket items: health care spending, Social Security, and taxes. This is sensible — these are the areas responsible for the vast majority of our budget shortfall. But the efficiency losses from these programs are small relative to their size. When we debate them, we are rightfully concerned over the drag they create on our nation’s productivity through disincentives to work. But the broader question, the one that makes reform difficult, is one of wealth redistribution: How much will we borrow from future generations to finance present consumption, and how much will we take from the rich to give to the poor?

The moment was ripe with promise. China, after years of careful diplomacy and a burnishing of its image as a gentle giant, had spent the past year bullying its neighbors in territorial disputes and rattling its saber over territorial waters. Pakistan had proved itself an incapable ally in the war on terror, and a re-alignment in Central Asia was needed. North Korea had grown erratic, and a conference with regional allies was needed to determine what should be done. This was a moment of great potential, an opportunity for the U.S. to position itself as a power broker and balancer in the Pacific, to court India as a hedge against Chinese power and promoter of stability in the region, to draw contingency plans with South Korea, and to create the institutions and ties that would solidify a lasting American influence.

We all have policy crushes. For Republicans it’s ending earmarks — you can point out a million times how inconsequential earmarks are in the grand scheme of the federal budget, but if your audience is John Boehner or Tom Coburn, you might as well be speaking to a wall. For myself, it’s nuclear power — so what if natural gas is currently so cheap that nuclear has no practical hope of being economical? It’s the principle of the thing, and the principle of nuclear power is that it’s the sexiest way of generating electric charges ever conceived by man.

Your vote doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t. You can do the math yourself — imagine a close House race in which each voter has a 51 percent chance of voting for one candidate, 49 percent for another, and around 300,000 voters are expected to turn out. What are the chances that the marginal vote matters, i.e. without your input, the race would split exactly 150,000 to 150,000?

I don’t like writing about social issues. In part, this is because they seem so insignificant. Why should I care about the passage or overturning of Prop 8 (a gay marriage ban in California) when that state already offers domestic partnerships that provide all the same rights as marriage? Does it really matter whether a violent criminal spends his entire life behind bars or is put to death? How can the issue of marijuana legalization rate more highly in anyone’s mind when Social Security is insolvent?

In this Sunday’s edition of the New York Times, Paul Krugman PhD ’77 has written a little piece called “Rare and Foolish.” In it, Krugman laments the concentration of rare earths mining industry in China, saying it has given them extraordinary leverage over other nations, and lambasts U.S. leaders (particularly Bush) for letting the industry slip away into foreign hands.

The Republicans are going to take back the House of Representatives. With a little luck, and some defections by moderate Democrats (both “R-Nelson” and “R-Lieberman” have a certain <i>je ne sais quoi</i> about them), they could assume control of the Senate as well.

Global warming is real. It is predominantly anthropogenic. Left unchecked, it will likely warm the earth by 3-7 C by the end of the century. What should the United States do about it?

In the 1990’s, Christine O’Donnell dismissed evolution as “just a theory,” and compared masturbation to adultery. More recently, she claimed scientists “are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains,” and said China was plotting to take over the United States. She has lied about her education, misused campaign contributions, and has a history of tax problems. She is an incompetent reprobate with a world view that is as simplistic as it is atavistic. She is the 2010 Republican candidate for Delaware’s open senate seat.

The pundits have called it a superweapon, a guided missile, and the herald of a new age in warfare. It’s a computer worm called Stuxnet... and they’re right.