Slashdot Mirror


'YouCut' Targets National Science Foundation Budget

jamie writes "As some of you may have heard, the incoming Republican majority in Congress has a new initiative called YouCut, which lets ordinary Americans like me propose government programs for termination. So imagine how excited I was to learn that YouCut's first target — yes, its first target — was that notoriously bloated white elephant, the National Science Foundation."

19 of 760 comments (clear)

  1. Science ! by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    yes, that should be the first thing to cut money from indeed ! because, then, texas education board can claim that jefferson was a godless whore, and instead put the name of an obscure preacher in front of him as a founding father. of course, right after approving school curriculum books that say 'world has been created in 6 days' is a valid theory ...

    kudos americans. you have succeeded in giving a second chance to the morons who have awarded the world with a neverending war on terror, a turmoil in middle east, violation of all constitutional and modern civil rights, kidnappings, torture, wall street DEregulation (and corresponding scam), and body scanners and many, many more !

    heaven knows what they will do to you (and the world, if they can) with this second chance. maybe the first thing they will mandate will be mandatory cavity searches in airports.

  2. Re:Cut YouCut by AJWM · · Score: 5, Informative

    Agreed. That and cut congressional perks too.

    --
    -- Alastair
  3. Investing in the Future won't get you votes today! by Cordath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Private companies typically do not engage in long-term research that isn't likely to lead to directly commercializable results. I know this flies in the face of red-blooded 'merican "all socialism is evil" doctrine, but public sector research, funded by tax-payer money, is needed to build the foundations for tomorrow's industries. Quantum computing, like many other bleeding edge fields, is too immature, too high-risk, and with pay-offs that are far too distant for the private sector.

    Research and education are both investments that can yield fantastic returns, but they are long-term investments that require steady commitment rather than periodic outbursts of zeal punctuating long periods of apathy. A minor cut now might help balance the books today, but the lost opportunities down the road will more than negate that. Top researchers don't hang around after you cut the funding they run their labs and pay their students and post-docs with. They won't wait a few years until times are good again. What they will do is go where the money they need to work is, and if they can't find that in the U.S., they'll likely find it in Canada, China, Australia, etc.. The U.S. is far from the only country doing quality research in QC these days.

    Unfortunately, some U.S. politicians are of the opinion that they can make political hay by screwing over those "pinko" scientists. They're smart enough to know what they're sacrificing, but votes for them are a worthier cause! The only way to fight this kind of thinking is to call up your local representative/senator/etc. and let them know you're not buying it. The only way to make them stop this kind of thing is to make them think they'll lose votes today, because that's all they care about.

  4. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or we could tax the rich, close the loopholes on capital gains and outsourcing, enact tariffs against countries with environmental and labor protections weaker than ours, and use the revenue to put the unemployed to work on new infrastructure.

    Hah, as if. We'll continue to cut taxes (20 for the rich, 1 for the poor, 20 for the rich, 1 for the poor, etc), then hit the deficit cap and slaughter Social Security and Medicare, and finally end up a destitute 3rd world nation, under god.

  5. Better Idea by bky1701 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cut "defense" spending, airport security, congress critter perks, and tax breaks for those who least need them. That should bring our deficit to negative. The republicrats can thank me later.

  6. Drowning in the bathtub. by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is exactly the kind of framing that brings joy to those with a grudge against effective government - playing entirely in their end zone, scoring point after point when they're supposed to have the ball.

    Corporations have proven that, given the option, they will simply not do basic research. Now, we're using recent tax breaks (plus extra double tax cuts for the rich) causing further massive deficits to argue that huge swaths of basic research be eliminated, because they're too luxurious for us to afford (compared to the utter non-luxury of war-time double-tax-cuts for the mega-rich).

    Basic science is really our only path towards actually knowing how to solve a lot of deep, inherent, and growing problems in our world. Problems that will only get worse as more resources are pulled into the hands of the few who will never let that money out of their small investment circles and estate holdings by choice.

    The rich (frequently) aren't villains - they're just those that are good at gathering resources, the natural end result of selecting for people who can best acquire resources from others. The dynamic of a glut of rich getting more controlling over more resources is an ancient dynamic - the very word Crass is an example of this - take a little time to read up on Marcus Licinius Crassus adventures in emergency real estate acquisitions if you want a little insight into to today's real estate capitalism. Of course, he did die getting gold poured down his throat after his overreach - but he also created an empire too.

    Sacrifice research on the alter of making room for tax breaks, however, and you're selling the very soul of your nation's future. You're creating an empire at the cost of drowning your future in your acquired gold.

    Ryan Fenton

  7. Simple Solution to this Budget Problem by TheRedDuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, it's been said on /. a million times before: end the freakin' wars. Stop the runaway military spending. It's that simple. NSF's annual budget = $7.4 billion (source: NSF). That's about a week in a half in Iraq, if memory serves.

  8. Re:Cut YouCut by Minwee · · Score: 5, Funny

    So let me get this straight. The average American, who is not well versed in our own government, who doesn't really understand financial management, who can't locate Iraq on map, and overall isn't educated more than enough to make them a somewhat functioning worker...

    Gets to be a two-term President. Yes, we've already been over that. Can you just accept it and move on please?

  9. Re:Obscene by RockoTDF · · Score: 5, Insightful

    0123456, you ignorant slut.

    The advances of science are not something you can just measure overnight and call profitable. Knowledge spreads around, and benefits everyone. Not to mention the fact that a lot of this grant money creates jobs (lab workers, grad students, aka FUTURE SCIENTISTS) and is spent on equipment made by American manufacturers.

    --
    There is more to science than physics!

    www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
  10. Re:Obscene by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, when was the last time that a government science fund produced something worth $24,000,000,000? Every major invention I can think of came from a private company doing research for a specific need, not a government program doing research in order to keep scientists eating from the taxpayers' pork trough.

    How ironic that your ability to communicate that to us is only due to DARPA funding what was the initial Internet. Lasers, most of moden medicine, the Internet, all resulted from government research. Private companies don't want to invest in basic research because the time 'till return is "too long" for them (5-20 years out). In short, you're a fucking moron.

  11. Re:Obscene by toppavak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To add to your point- every vaccine produced in the past 20 years has made use of government-funded university research, roughly half of all AIDS drugs were discovered at universities, heck even the initial work on the plasma screen TV (a multi-billion-dollar-per-year product line) was done at a university.

  12. As an occasional NSF Reviewer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    From time to time, I act as a grant reviewer and panelist for the NSF. I can quite frankly attest that the NSF is anything but bloated. The number of excellent and virtuous projects that do not get funded is always a crying shame. Of course, some proposals are utter rubbish. However, far fewer projects get funded than are deserving of funding. Not only that, the NSF provide us with a small *per deium*, from which we have to pay our own hotel, meals, transportation and everything else, apart from travel costs. One is lucky to break even, when working for the NSF. In addition, it is hard work! Our lunch break is usually just long enough to run across the road to a food court and then we eat as we work. In the evenings, there are summaries to write. I only do it because I believe that it makes the world a better place. However, if this is what the Republicans are intending, there will be no need for more business bailouts, as they will just outsource the whole country to multinationals (who usually don't pay tax, due to off-shore 'arrangements'). Thus, this is a strategy only Osama bin Laden could rationally endorse.

  13. Re:Cut YouCut by Ziest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Excuse me, could you point to the private enterprise that developed TCP/IP ? Oh, right it was a wasteful government grant to those egghead liberals.

    --
    Another day closer to redwood heaven
  14. Re:Obscene by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The post I responded to said "when was the last time that a government science fund produced something worth....". I take that to imply all government research, not just the NSF. Quite frankly, the NSF provides funding for a huge amount of research:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a United States government agency that supports fundamental research and education in all the non-medical fields of science and engineering. Its medical counterpart is the National Institutes of Health. With an annual budget of about US$6.87 billion (fiscal year 2010), the NSF funds approximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by the United States' colleges and universities. In some fields, such as mathematics, computer science, economics and the social sciences, the NSF is the major source of federal backing.

    Emphasis mine. Think about that ~$7 billion dollars the next time Wall Street requires $800 billion to be bailed out from a disaster of their own making.

  15. Re:Cut YouCut by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about we start with lower hanging fruit like weapons platforms that the military doesn't even want or need first? I bet cutting one of those will fully fund the "fat" in the NSF budget!

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  16. Look up "CompuServe". by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In other words, the internet would have happened anyway.

    Bullshit. Instead of the Internet, companies were more focused on isolated, for-pay environments. Such as CompuServe and AOL.

  17. Re:Cut YouCut by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who cares where we start as long as we start. Waste is waste isn't it?

    I mean seriously, this is exactly the type of thing the democrats championed. I mean it's participation in the government by the people, it's the government (pretending at least) listening to the people, it's wet dream of sorts.

  18. Re:Cut YouCut by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Explain to me why the largest military in the world 'needs' another carrier or two.

    If we were to cut ALL military spending across the board by 80%, the US military would still be the largest military in the world by about 35% over China.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

    Maybe if the US military wasn't required to be the world's policemen by the US govt, we could get meaningful debt AND deficit reduction. Not spending half a trillion dollars a year might lead to some fiscal responsibility.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  19. Re:Cut YouCut by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well here's a hint, you don't target the hundreds of thousands per individual science grant, that people will oppose simply upon the basis that they don't understand the science behind them nor it's potential benefits. Just imagine some idiot decrying research into the genetics of fruit flys, how dumb can you be not to realise how that genetic research can be used in other fields and even used in that field itself to control a pest that destroys hundreds of millions of dollars worth of food every year hint dumb enough to be a vice presidential candidate apparently.

    Want to save money than tackle the big ticket items first, aircraft, ships and tanks designed to fight a world war the no longer exists and even if it did, would simply result in mutual nuclear annihilation. So no new planes, tanks or ships for a decade, make do with what is already in the arsenal which is greater than the rest of the world combined. Also an end the the exorbitant cost of militarising the police, the only result of which is to generate tens of millions of dollars of successful lawsuits for the excessive use of force.

    So what is YouCut all about, obviously one thing and one thing only to direct peoples eyes away from the billion dollar wasts, such as no bid contracts, the military industrial complex and bridges to no where and get them focused on things they don't understand and they feel superior about when they laugh at them. The ignorant wallowing in the ignorance.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen