What's Getting Cut From Science Part of the Federal Budget

Kristina at Science News writes "As part of the announcement of its proposed fiscal year 2010 budget, the Obama administration released a summary (called 'Terminations, Reductions, and Savings: Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2010') that includes which science-related programs are getting cut. Two big programs are the nuclear waste storage project at Yucca Mountain in Nevada and a second prototype airborne laser missile-defense weapon." Update: 05/07 23:03 GMT by T : On the other hand, reader Dusty writes, "The NASA budget for 2010 has been announced, up 5% on 2009. Human space flight plans to be reviewed."

Comments

Congressional Districts

[mdsolar]

Nuclear waste needs to be stored in the congressional districts where it is generated for now. Transporting the waste is very hazardous.

I highly disagree with General Eisenhower

[Crazy Taco]

Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

I highly disagree with this statement from General Eisenhower. While it may or may not have been debatable back then, I don't think there is any way you can claim this is true now, at least in the modern United States. According to IRS statistics, the bottom 40% of Americans have no income tax liability. They pay no federal taxes. Zip, zero, nada. Yet the warships, guns, missiles, etc, are paid for with federal tax dollars.

So if Americans in the bottom 40% income-wise do not pay any taxes, then how is it robbing them of their food or clothing when guns are purchased? How is it robbery when the other 60% spend their own money that they earned on missiles?

Now, one could argue that the bottom 40% commit robbery, because they often vote for missiles and don't have to foot the bill (while some in the top 60% don't want to spend any money on missiles), and those in the bottom 40% often vote for social and welfare programs that they don't have to pay for, but I digress. The point is that, if anyone in America is starving or without clothes today, they are certainly in the bottom 40% of income earners, and they don't pay a dime for missiles, so clearly they aren't the ones being robbed. And if their argument is that that money could have been spent on social programs for them instead, well, sorry, but someone else choosing not to give their money to you (via a social program) is not robbing you. It is only robbery if they take what you rightfully earned and is rightfully yours.

nuclear power helps to solves Global Warming.

[TimSSG]

It is clear to me that President Obama is an person is does not really believe Global Warming to be a major problem. Because nuclear power is a workable way to reduce Green house gases; but Democrats want nothing to do with real solutions; they just want reasons to tax and tax and tax. Tim S

Re:nuclear power helps to solves Global Warming.

[TimSSG]

So, I am guessing that in your opinion Global Warming is not a major problem. Because if it was the three things you listed are possible for the government to develop solutions. The waste storage solution that the Man in the White House decided to stop funding was an valid medium term solution. Tim S.

Re:nuclear power helps to solves Global Warming.

[TimSSG]

So you think Global warming is a major problem; but, the politicians are not going to try to solve the problem with a real solution. Does this mean you agree the politicians are just using Global warming as a reason to tax and tax. NOTE: The president if he really thought GW was a major can solve the NIMBY issue without a lot of effort. Tim S

Re:what this has to do with science...

[u38cg]

And that's a bad thing why? 1600 acres isn't a lot in abasolute terms; it would be better off managed as part of a larger farm anyway. I can never understand why farming gets the free ride that no other industry does. It's not as if people are going to stop eating any time soon.