Slashdot Mirror
Science Programs Hit Hard By Proposed Budget
BJ_Covert_Action writes "The House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations has released a list of proposed spending cuts for the US Federal Government. The proposed cuts include reductions in spending on many science organizations and funds such as NASA, NOAA, nuclear energy research, fossil fuel energy research, clean coal research, the CDC, the NIH, and numerous EPA programs. There are also quite a few cuts proposed on domestic services, such as Americorps and high speed rail research. The House Appropriations Chairman, Hal Rogers, acknowledges that the cuts go deep, and would hurt every district across the country. But they are still deemed necessary to rein in Congressional spending. Notoriously absent from the proposed budget cuts are two of the largest spending sinks in the federal budget: the Department of Defense and Social Security."
The DoD is the sacred cow to end all sacred cows, the only way it's ever going to get budget cut is if there is nothing else left to cut.
Keep your defense and social security spending as is, and kill all yoiur basic research and science. That's the way to the future.
Defense spending will not be cut because it's *one of the few legitimate and constitutionally required functions of government*. And political suicide.
Social security will not be cut because it would be political suicide. Instead, they will keep collecting for it, using the money for something else, and go bankrupt sometime in the not-to-distant future.
To paraphrase, "If you think knowledge is expensive, try ignorance!"
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Defense and security: In 2010, some 20 percent of the budget, or $715 billion, will pay for defense and security-related international activities. The bulk of the spending in this category reflects the underlying costs of the Department of Defense and other security-related activities. The total also includes the cost of supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is expected to total $172 billion in 2010.
Social Security: Another 20 percent of the budget, or $708 billion, will pay for Social Security, which provided retirement benefits averaging $1,117 per month to 36 million retired workers (and their eligible dependents) in December 2009. Social Security also provided survivors’ benefits to 6.4 million surviving children and spouses of deceased workers and disability benefits to 9.7 million disabled workers and their eligible dependents in December 2009.
Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP: Three health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) — will together account for 21 percent of the budget in 2010, or $753 billion. Nearly two-thirds of this amount, or $468 billion, will go to Medicare, which provides health coverage to around 46 million people who are over the age of 65 or have disabilities. The remainder of this category funds Medicaid and CHIP, which in a typical month in 2010 will provide health care or long-term care to about 64 million low-income children, parents, elderly people, and people with disabilities. Both Medicaid and CHIP require matching payments from the states.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
money may simply be an indicator that new things are welcome -
but it is not the media good science grows on.
-
the best fertilizing media for science is the readiness to accept surprising results when they are beinf presented and proofed!
Weren't we supposed to be pulling out of this "war" by now? I thought that would help a lot with our overzealous spending.
Some of that is obviously ideological (EPA, Clean *, etc.), but the rest is just stupid.
In addition to the long-term hazards of cutting back science (and education), austerity programs are exactly what government's *shouldnt* do when the economy sags. Every dollar they cut from a program is a dollar someone isn't going to be spending next year, so tax revenues will drop even further.
A government with any sense would establish a sustainable cost of operations, borrow money when times are bad, and pay off the loans when times are good.
Unfortunately, a republic (representative democracy) tends to become a 'politicianocracy', and politicians buy votes by spending money on stuff their supporters want. So nobody wants to pay down debt when times are good; they just want to take the opportunity to spend more.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
a lot of other things are going to be on the "chopping block" so to speak as this depression unwinds.
Now that the bankers have stolen everything and are using the money to jack up prices and accumulate limitless power and wealth by toppling governments, expect lots of things to be on the chopping block.
It will sweep the globe, and many of the elite and puppet governments will fall.
Then you can start to worry about WW III because when people have empty bellies, things get nasty.
All for a bunch of bankers.
What a waste.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Speaking as a civil servant, I've seen this before. Politicians don't like cutting. They REALLY don't like cutting things that actually matter.
They're not serious about balancing the budget. They never are. Being serious about it means that you have to go after the big ticket items. Unfortunately the big ticket items are also popular, and that makes it hard to do politically. It doesn't help that your average voter is a moron who doesn't understand anything that takes longer then ten seconds to explain.
So, what we get is politicians who want to look like they care about balancing the budget and "shrinking government" nibbling around the edges while overseeing massive expansions in the government in the form of bullshit like TSA.
Just business as usual in politics.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
This is a good start. Now it's time to get some balls and cut entitlements and defense. As a true fiscal Conservative, I want the federal government gutted.
Let's cut the budget in anything that sets up a definite investment, and make sure we keep blowing money on weapons and a deparmtent of defense to make sure no one can invade the burned out wasteland left after the GOP wins in 2012.
For my part, I'll be investing overseas - maybe if I make enough money I can corrupt their government into forgetting to educate their citizenry too!
Remember, whoever gives heavy metal poisoning to their children last, wins!!!
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Is this the same budget that is proposing cutting to zero the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? These programs provide far more social good and support democracy (a viewpoint I am still not quite jaded about, yet)
If you agree with their bias, yes. I don't want my tax dollars going to support an agenda. I wouldn't want my tax dollars going to Fox News, either.
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
Social Security is self-funding.
It does not come out the general budget.
It does come out of your paycheck.
Congress has even been known to raid the Social Security trust fund to support its own budget.
--------------
This radically different from the "Defense" budget, both in purpose and in funding source.
Really? Social Security?
Let me pose a hypothetical. Let's cut off all social security. No one gets social security.
Now, lets also get rid of the OASDI(social security tax). We wont have to worry about this huge problem anymore
Now, watch as the Tax Revenue of the Federal government drops by more than the spending reductions. Oh, and we had better pay back all the "excess funds" for social security that have built up over the years, but were borrowed to cover other gaps in the budget. Its only fair since most retired people have put 6% of their lifetime income into that tax revenue.
Look, I am not against cutting social security...but it is a bit misleading to claim that social security is a strain on the budget.
And what bias would that be? Truth in reporting?
God is imaginary
Part of the problem is that anybody who proposes DoD cuts is immediately labeled a dangerous agitator who wants to embolden our enemies and put American lives at risk. There's a large and well-funded industry that's dedicated to perpetuating this myth, and they're frighteningly effective at their job. If we're to ever get the deficit situation under control, it will require a certain degree of maturity from the electorate -- along with the realization that there's enough pork in the defense budget to make a bacon replica of the Hoover Dam.
We also need a certain degree of maturity and a solidly-grounded perspective on taxes, as well -- but that's neither here nor there.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Take the Internet and cell phones away from these numb skulls and remind them how it used to be.
Politictions and people need to get out of the mindset that Social Security is part of the Federal Budget. It isn't. The law that introduced it said it would be separate from the federal budget. Look at your paystub sometime. Notice why the tax is not included in the withholding? Because it's not a tax. The author of this blurb is showing pure ignorance of how SS works.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
Great.. So in ten years we will all be sitting in our dark un-air conditioned /un-heated homes while billion dollar bombers try to force the last of the worlds oil from the middle east. I don't think we have the luxury of canceling ANY energy research projects.
NASA..well It's difficult to justify the space program at this point, some wonderful advancements in technology have come from this sector, but I would rather have sustainable energy and transportation on Earth first.
Social Security is OUTSIDE the general fund and people need to realize it was designed to be completely separated from the rest of the system - they are only lumping it in because it is under attack and they keep trying to STEAL money from it as if it were general revenue - which is is not.
Social Security is paid for and only needs occasional rises or declines to adjust to population changes. Its almost a FLAT tax except that it exempts the rich. It is about as much of a "lock box" as we've ever had legally; politically, its been under heavy assault from day one. If you thought private health insurance was bad, just wait for them to get their hands on social security... Of course, we've had additions made to Social Security to increase its costs and we've refused to make it adapt with the times - trying to subtly sabotage the program.
Social Security is extremely popular and the PEOPLE can mandate THEIR government to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare." The constitution only really limits government, if not prohibited by law, its legal. Its not the other way around - it need not say what it CAN do only what it can not do. Elementary school basic government covered this. Basic logic also covers this, as you have an infinite set of possible actions and a finite set of prohibited actions -- you list the negative set.
Now we talk like social security are general fund welfare programs but these are things WE ALL (except rich) pay into our whole lives and for generations now and we deserve to get what we paid for / invested in! I PAID for them and I'm fucking going to get my money back when I need it!
If the government can't pay back then the situation is so bad that the currency and economy are so bad that the alternatives are not going to work either (except for an elite minority.)
Medicare and the others are general fund programs and they do not operate the same way; they have problems because of their closer connection with the political machine.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
That may be the only thing on the list that I don't disagree with cutting. We won't end up implementing high speed rail in this country any time soon, and in another hundred years after our country falls apart, rebuilds, and then realizes the value of high speed rail, we can just as well borrow the plans of a better organized and managed country. And maybe if we're really on the ball then, we'll borrow their health care system, too.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
You look at the bills, you look at laws, you look at the decisions.
It is obvious that most of congress has very little to no understanding of science
If they think that scientific theory and hypotheses are just guesses, why should they fund it?
Especially the ones that believe that evolution doesn't exist and that intelligent design is either science or the equivalent of science.
Money is just a means to a cause.
Long before the last 3 decades of living on debt Americans could support a very high median level of living ... they did it with a very small trade deficit, about the same level of workforce participation, a nearly equal government budget to GDP ratio and with FAR less productivity. What has changed fundamentally that it's impossible now?
This is why our country is bankrupt. Everyone has their little pet programs that simply shouldn't be touched, ever.
Well, that and because tax cut mania has resulted in the lowest percentage of GDP going to federal taxes since the 1940s.
Keep the poor from rising up and keep the means available to squash them should they still do it.
C'mon, it's not like that some kind of major financial insight. Every tinpot dictator works by the same budgeting rules.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Pity? Sounds great to me, I can't stand this repressive government. Better we end it before it gets worst. I am entirely tired of hearing all the sanctimonious BS about what a free country we are, and how great we are. This country has supported brutal dictators, has started war after war after war, spends in ways that would give drunk sailors a bad name, throws people in cages for growing plants... and yet.... with all that... in many ways is better today than its ever been... which is pretty damned sad.... because up to this point, we forced gay people into "treatment", had the "red scare", and all this, AFTER having to go to war over slavery, starting wars to take land, not allowing women to vote, not allowing black people to vote, not allowing white men who didn't own land to vote,
To me, all that overshadows ANY good this government did for us or the world. Time to start over. This is not a few isolated incidents, this is a long standing pattern of malicious behavior, which has never stopped and shows no sign of stopping.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Note that the press release is poorly formatted for web, mixes equally things with 50 million dollar and 1,600 million dollar cuts, and gives no relative scale (% of total budget, % of program) and in many cases the acronyms are unitelligble what a disgrace for our public servants to communicate in this manner. and the only contact is a phone number what a joke
A lot of people don't realize that when you cut research money, people get fired. In fact, the single largest cost to a research program is salaries. Most of the staff in a university research lab (grad students, undergrads, post-docs, and technicians) are on soft-money. This means when a grant goes away, they are all terminated. I'd guess these cuts result in the loss of a few hundred-thousand jobs.
What a load of BS in the summary. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html
The defense complex cost not being the BIGGEST expense for the USA -- this argument is a Red Herring. Its a trick to get us to dismiss a HUGE factor simply because it is not the biggest contributor. Yet, we are led to believe that cutting tons of small programs to the bone or eliminating them will do anything meaningful when those will not. You can't have it both ways.
ALSO its not that we just over spend - the government revenue is DIRECTLY tied to the economy; which the government helped destroy. The deficit would go away if we boosted the economy; the debt we never will get rid of because surpluses never mean "pay off debt" it means "lower taxes" (usually mostly for the rich.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
>But perhaps the rest of us could have separate classes in science appreciation, the wonder of science, scientific ways of thinking, and the history of scientific ideas, rather than laboratory experience. Richard Dawkins
The web site is fine, I'm not sure what you think is 'wrong' with the format.
It's just a generic list before putting the bill together. Mostly to inform their own party.
That's all. Read the bill when it comes out.
It's a call to cut all the programs they never wanted under the guise of 'tax cuts'
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Repeat after me: social security is deficit-neutral. social security is deficit-neutral. social security is deficit-neutral.
Why is this so important to remember?
Because the people who want to gut social security are liars and thieves, plain and simple. There's nothing wrong with social security. The only wrong is the thieves who want to poach it to divert more money to the rich.
As the saying goes, "They only call it class warfare when we fight back."
What has changed fundamentally that it's impossible now?
People believe that paying anyone for anything (taxes for the general welfare, workers for work, etc.) is for suckers. The very wealthy have convinced the Congress to go along with this idea. Any other questions?
That is all.
That does, in part, also depend on how one defines "implement" and for that matter "high speed rail". If you consider a 200 mph train from San Francisco to Sacramento to be a good implementation, then great.
I don't, neither does anyone else, no such a thing has not been proposed as a "high-speed rail" project.
We could possibly do that before most people reading this today are dead.
Or we could do either of the proposed actual, much longer and more useful, initial operating segments of the California High Speed Rail system by the end of the decade, along with building regional high-speed rail in several other places.
On the other hand if you want to see 250+ mph trains going cross country linking the most important cities from the interior of the US to the coastal cities, nobody should count on that happening any time remotely soon.
Nor has anyone proposed that as a high-speed rail project. Essentially, you seem to think that the two things that people could mean by "high-speed rail" are two things that aren't what the actual proposals are about. The near term goal has been building high-speed rail in a number of regional corridors that offer the most bang-for-the-buck from intercity arrangements. In the long term, those might interconnect, but that's not really key to the goal of providing a more efficient and, in long-term costs, economical alternative to cars and aircraft for high-traffic regional intercity routes.
However, even if the project was funded, it would inevitably end up quickly de-funded as well.
Inevitably? How?
Considering President Lawnchair will sign just about anything that crosses his desk,
You mean, President Obama, who vetoed two bills passed by the Congress in which his party had a majority in both houses even before the Republicans took a majority in the House? Clearly, this is not a President who will "sign just about anything that crosses his desk."
Basically anything environmental was targeted: NOAA, USGS, NASA Earth Observing Satellites, BLM, Forest Service, etc. During the Bush era these would pass, then be partially restored with earmarks. But the current government is only 1/3 Republican controlled. So I am not as worried.
a nearly equal government budget to GDP ratio
Government (at all levels) takes 44% of GDP today. It was 22% immediately after WW2. Not sure why you think it has remained 'nearly equal'.
about the same level of workforce participation
The labor force participation rate increased from 59% to 67% from the end of WW2 to ~2000. Not sure why you think it has been 'about the same.' At 67% you've pretty much tapped out the work-capable reserve. This reflects putting the wife to work to make up for shortfalls in real earnings; competing with third-world labor ended real wage growth and employee leverage as evidenced by the annihilation of industrial unions.
What has changed fundamentally that it's impossible now?
The capital that funded growth in the workforce and kept people employed and credit worthy has evacuated to Asia. It isn't just the 9%-10% unemployment or 18% 'underemployment'; the people with work have no leverage and are seeing no wage increases because there is another 700 million Chinese in reserve and a business friendly government one freighter trip across the Pacific.
Government spending, meanwhile, grows unabated, thus giant deficits that crowd out lower priority spending in order of political feasibility (i.e. entitlements, defense last.) This nonsense will keep spinning until the debt gets past 150% or so of GDP (5-6 years) and the creditors walk away. Then the fed prints money to keep the bennies flowing. Then the currency collapses.
That is the only politically feasible future we have.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Are they sure about that? I know a couple people in aerospace, and they are having 10% layoffs this month due to one program being pushed way out and another being reduced in scope. R&D dollars (called "technology programs") have been cut back, too.
I agree with you about Go, but ultimately we need to move past the irony of using tools of abundance to fight over artificial scarcity in the real world, like the irony of using nuclear weapons to fight over oil fields, or using military robots to force people to work like industrial robots, etc...
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
So, ironically, cutting science and feeding the war machine out of fears about scarcity would just make the problem of this irony worse...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Social Security spending is big because it's the retirement programme for everyone in our entire big country. It pays for itself. It doesn't contribute to any deficit or debt - to the contrary, Social Security is the largest lender to our debt, which is driven by war spending (that never dips, even in "peacetime").
Social Security doesn't need any changes to accommodate retiring Baby Boomers - it was already tweaked to collect enough for them, starting back in the 1980s. There is no projected problems with Social Security until at earliest 2039, which is a lot longer than any other programme. And if we want to fix that, all we have to do is collect Social Security payments on income above $105K, which limit currently makes Social Security a regressive tax.
None of the lies they're telling you to cheat you of your guaranteed retirement plan are true. They're preying on the post-Boomer generations' innuendo that "we'll never get Social Security", because they've been trying to steal it from you your whole life. Don't let them. Make them cut the $TRILLIONS in "defense" and "intelligence" budgets that are mostly waste, corruption and investments in war instead of peace and growth.
--
make install -not war
This...exactly this... Republicans have made no effort to hide their disdain for intellectuals? Why? Because people who can actually think critically never vote Republican. They might not necessarily vote democrat either, but they certainly aren't going to vote republican. Republicanism thrives on ignorance.
Monstar L
fixed that for you
....we can't afford to borrow money from China for this type of stuff.
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
We could, you know, raise taxes...
/., are staying away from that as a possible solution.
I'm surprised so many people, even around
Oh no! Whatever will we do!? Who will do real science research now to further our great nation!? Afterall, nobody else does scientific research and innovation except for government funded labs! /sarcasm
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
Depleting resources, global competition, weaker unions, and lower taxes on the rich.
When there's oil bursting out of the ground wherever you bury a pickaxe, when you're the only country with any factories left after the war, and when redistribution via government and unions means the workers all receive the benefits growth, then the country can enjoy very high living standards.
Maybe in the 70s that view was correct, but modern republicans HATE science because it contradicts what the "moral majority" is trying to promote.
Also listen to any republican talk about academics. They are pretty open about their disdain for them. Probably comes from the fact that Republicans have about 0 empirical evidence for any of their programs, they just use some vague ideological arguments for tax cuts and crusades against public health care despite the overwhelming evidence that shows a moderate tax rate and public health insurance tends to result in much healthier economy and populace.
Monstar L
Is this the same President who was on Mythbusters a few weeks ago saying how cool/important science is?
No sig today...
2010-30 = 1945? How do you figure that?
The current government budget isn't caused by pet programs, it's caused by stimulus and TARP, before that the increase was a couple of percent from the 60s and 70s.
Social Security does not cost the federal government a single penny! Yes that is right Too date not a single penny of tax money has been spent on social security All payments and cost have been paid from contributions and interest. stop with all the agendas please john
Eliminate ONE of those and you can eliminate the cuts to NASA, NOAA, as well as some of the smaller cuts.
Hell, the USAF doesn't even want them for crying out loud.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Bullshit. In 1940, Federal revenue was only 6.9% of GDP. It shot up to as high as 23.85% at the tail end of WWII, then dropped down again. In the 50s, it averaged around 18.12% of GDP, then went down again until the 90s. The first decade of this century was about the same as the 60s, and higher than the 70s. The last few years it's gone down again, but not by much.
No, the only problem we face is our addiction to spending. It's what's going to destroy this country, if it hasn't already.
Source: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1920_2013&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Why would "cynicist" bother to post a cynical statement about the future when its not going to convince anybody or change somebody's mind.
You may not realize this, but the social security trust fund is running on SURPLUS because of the boomers paying in all their lives and are just now retiring and drawing from their fund-- they were supposed to DIE before the trust fund ran out at the rates they were paying in. Its their money. Previous generations GOT PAID back my parents are now, if that is a scam....
Now maybe we don't want to pay the gap from the underestimates in cost of living, lifespan, and unregulated medical costs... but they deserve their money back they put in.
Maybe they shouldn't have added onto the program and we should have let all the retards and autistics starve and die. Maybe its the kids fault his parents generation polluted etc and made them early social security net-losses who have been draining the system prematurely at higher than predicted rates... (or they didn't want to pay what they agreed to support while possibly feeling guilty for contributing to higher rates of needy.)
Since I'm paying into the trust fund most my life I want my money back later and it SHOULD be enough money because I do not live in a baby boom and the population is NOT shrinking. I'd rather they took it and kept it safe than me manually save X amount every paycheck with greater risk and no ability to "sponge" on anybody should I end up a cripple or something.... my bank collapses...etc.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
needs to lead that fight. That is the only way cuts would actually happen.
The disdain Republicans hold is for the silly notion that you're promoting here.
Nobody HATES science. Republicans (purport to) hate socialist ideas that attempt to increase and centralize government. Republicans do hate the snotty attitude coming from academics who have never run a business or had to meet a payroll, but what do you expect the reaction to be to a bunch of sneering elitist that can't hold a real job. Your own statement )"overwhelming evidence that shows a moderate tax rate and public health insurance tends to result in much healthier economy and populace"), belies your hubris and refusal to consider anything outside of your educational sounding box. Britain is moving away from their socialized medicine model due to cost. Reports of inconsistencies in costing models between the US and other countries are buried. The evidence may be overwhelming to you, but the people that don't want to live in a nanny state have a lot of questions that never seem to get answered with anything more than a sneering "We KNOW better than you, because WE'RE smarter."
There is a lot of disdain in conservative circles. It is not for science.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba