For some reason I don't see discussion of federal spending in the Salon article or the cited NYTimes article, except for a few offhand comments in the former wh

For some reason I don't see discussion of federal spending in the Salon article or the cited NYTimes article, except for a few offhand comments in the former which seem suggestive, not substantive (e.g. rumors about what the Deficit Commission may propose 4 months from now). Why am I missing them? I agree about California; there seems to be plenty of evidence of exceedingly high salaries and pensions. Administrators might reasonably claim that they raised comp in order to hire top talent (for example at the UCs) and that they were successful in doing so. But they ratcheted up way past levels that could be sustained in a downturn, and at this point it seems short-sighted to the point of crazy.