There’s a psychological phenomena that rears its head especially around budget talks. The problem is that our minds value something more if we have it more than if we don’t. Getting something and losing it hurts far more than trying to get something and failing. In both scenarios, you start and end without it, but losing it hurts a lot more.

I feel that we go about our budget discussions in the wrong way. Instead of getting off on non-argument tangents about someone’s grandmother, we should instead be addressing the actual issues. I think that the best way is to look at our state and build up what we actually need instead of getting caught up in what we’re losing. Because at the end of the day, you’ve covered your needs so the remainder is not actually needed.

We shouldn’t ask “Why are we cutting X?” We should instead ask “Why do/did we need X?” Here is an example that I think makes this distinction clear: Why should gays be allowed to marry? Why does the government define marriage in the first place? Matt Johnson

senior, mechanical engineering