Slashdot Mirror
Obama Budget Asks For 1% Boost In Research
sciencehabit sends this excerpt from ScienceInsider:
"One of the big three research agencies appears to be lagging behind its doubling peers in the president's 2013 budget request released this morning. The $4.9 billion budget of the Department of Energy's Office of Science would rise by 2.4%, to $5 billion. In contrast, the National Science Foundation would receive a nearly 5% boost, to $7.37 billion, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology a hike of 13%, to $860 million. These three agencies were originally singled by President George W. Bush in 2006 for a 10-year budget doubling, a promise that President Barack Obama and Congress have repeatedly endorsed despite the current tough economic times. ... Obama is
asking for a 1% increase in overall federal spending on research, to $140 billion. Within that total, the White House seeks a similar 1% hike in the $30 billion devoted to basic research."
Thanks a lot, /. And just how do you propose that I cram this datum into the politically-convenient narrative of science-hating Republicans that the internet has been spoon-feeding for years?
More energy research? But how will that impact our fossil-fuel overlords?!
On a serious note, my only real hope is that either patents won't be granted, or else they'll be granted and licensed at essentially no charge to American companies for the advances, and that companies would have to compete based on their efficiency and ability.
Of course, I'm probably living in a pipe dream.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Well should it happen? The religious conservative of US will say no, but will claim "no way" with the budget deficit.
I mean we should all know by now, Ronald Reagan the last fiscal conservative died. All the political conservatives today are un-American religious-oppression right-wing-nuts.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
And a 1% increase is actually a decrease. You have to talk in inflation-adjusted numbers for it to mean anything. That said, just maintaining the status quo is somewhat generous; we do need to back off govt. spending as the economy improves.
Better to cut defense spending and fix the tax laws than to cut research spending. The last thing this country needs is to fall further and further behind the rest of the world.
Research is food for the economy. We won't be able to balance the budget if there's no revenue, and there won't be revenue without businesses providing jobs, and there won't be jobs without innovative new technologies and products.
Your proposal for the economy is like balancing a household's budget by eliminating all spending on food. Sure, if you can do that over 10 years you'll go a long way towards balancing your budget, but more than likely by that point your household's members are either all dead or spending all their time subsistence begging while living under a bridge (with a household budget of $0).
And if research is food, education is water. Sorry this is a food analogy instead of a car analogy.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
With a car analogy, that would be like removing the engine to reduce the weight.
Since he knew his fellow conservatives would want to cut the research budgets, he offered up a less-than-inflationary offer for an increase. He'll likely cave on either no increase whatsoever, or a small cut.
Thanks a lot, President Lawnchair. Maybe some time in my lifetime we'll get an actual liberal in the white house (though I can't think of when that would be)?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Cutting defense spending and fixing the tax laws can't produce enough money to balance the budget.
Never happen. Anything less than the expected increase (always above inflation, of course) counts as a "cut" by the politician's opponents, and of course you can't "cut" welfare or defense, which means you have to increase the spending on those programs well beyond inflation. Since those are the biggest spenders in the budget, the result is an ever-growing budget with absolutely no chance of being balanced anytime soon.
You are absolutely right, what is needed is someone to say "everything gets a cut (a genuine, less-money-spent-than-last-year cut), no exceptions, period." The trouble is, no one has those kinds of balls, except maybe Ron Paul, and his election is doubtful.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Ah the old "you have to spend money to make money" business adage. Too bad big business is the only beneficiary of government R&D spending; everyone else pays twice over... first as a taxpayer and then as a consumer.
A more financially responsible move would be to "INVEST" in R&D (with selection possibly based on a tender process), so at least the taxpayer can get some dividends.
The National Institutes of Health would also see its budget remain flat, at $30.7 billion
Thanks a lot. And for those of you who think you don't care, it's worth pointing out that NIH is the first funding agency to require publications coming from its work to be put in open-access or publicly-accessible journals. The other agencies are still allowing their work to go into paywalled journals at the time. So even if you don't agree with their mission of health research, you might want to at least take notice that they are trying to ensure that the work the taxpayer pays for is in a place where the taxpayer doesn't have to pay again to see the results.
And being as NIH grant success rate is at an all-time low (same source), the odds of more great original research coming from their effectively-reduced budget is miniscule.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
False.
In other news China's technological espionage department has just petitioned Beijing to allow them another 1% more funding to help steal the extra technology discovered from America's 1% tech research spending increase.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
How do you grant an X prize for basic science research? Basic science is the area where the government is absolutely needed because no company can afford to fund it as there is no payback in the horizon that a companies shareholders will find acceptable (excepting those with a government granted monopoly like Bell Labs). Most practical research should be left to the private sector because as you say the government is not particularly effective at picking the right horse.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
But cutting a far smaller research budget will? Where's the logic in that?
And who says that a balanced budget is the right thing to do? Economists will tell you that a balance budget when you are trying to grow the economy is a bad idea. People just think blanketly that you always have to balance your budget but it just doesn't work that way on the scale and scope of a government our size.
Now that's not to say that things aren't out of whack. You just need to prioritize things.
No research means no advances means buying more from other countries means lower GDP means less taxes means decrease in currency value means increase in debt.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
With a car analogy, that would be like removing the engine to reduce the weight.
And you'd get better gas mileage to boot!
Double win!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Then hurry up and balance the budget so we can afford research then.
Sure they can, just allowing the Bush era tax cuts to expire gets rid of basically all of the growth in the deficit (as a percentage of GDP, which is what matters) for the next twenty years or so. Science research is a self funding line item in that it increases GDP pretty much as fast as you fund it (within reason, mythical man month applies to science just as well as programming).
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
The govt should invest in anything that provides broad public benefit and requires a massive capital expenditure .. because you won't find private capital to do that.
Why do you think the founding fathers required the government to setup post offices and roads? Why didnt they put that solely in the hands of the private sector? Its because the private sector can easily monopolize it.
For example you know how the oil cartel restricts the supply to inflate the gas prices .. imagine if we ran out of oil and someone invented a workable solar cell (that is, with an energy buyback measured in days) .. if the inventors have a patent enforced monopoly on it. .. they too will pull the diamond mafia & OPEC style pricing on it. Just for inventing something a year or two ahead of some other independent inventor. How is that correct? This could happen with batteries too. .. a patent run out in 20 years .. why would anyone invest $25 billion to build a Fusion test facility for research over 15 years and then another 10 years to build a multi billion dollar demo power generation facility ? by the time they have a working facility the patents on the original ideas would have expired .. the fusion facility uses existing unpatentable theories why would the capital market pour billions to prove that a public domain idea works? It will give an advantage to competitors who didnt spend their capital.
Second example
Third example
More efficient spending, not more (or less) spending, please.
This is what I'd like to see... Spend on whatever gives us more bang for the buck... Somehow, I don't think war is giving it to us, it's spending a lot of money with little return, when there's a million other things the same money can be spent on that'll help people and help boost the economy. All that we're spending on war is just like burning bucks for bangs, with very little return back into the system.
But cutting a far smaller research budget will? Where's the logic in that?
The budget can't be balanced until people learn to give up things. That means everyone. If you want to say "my pet program is exempt", then so will everyone else. Then no one gives up anything, and the problems just get worse.
And who says that a balanced budget is the right thing to do? Economists will tell you that a balance budget when you are trying to grow the economy is a bad idea.
When do we not want to grow the economy? Apparently, the answer is "in the future, when the bill for the spending comes due". Ask Greece how well borrowing and spending works to permanently sustain economic growth.
You just need to prioritize things.
Says the guy who wants money spent on his pet programs.
You can't assume that inflation is constant; in fact, in the past few years the cost of everything has pretty much stayed the same or decreased, so we very well may have had close to 0 inflation.
You are either 1) Still in your basement and you mom keeps leaving food at the door or 2) you're in jail.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Republicans love science as long as it's something they can monetize and doesn't conflict with their social agenda.
Social agendas like battling AIDS in Africa?
"President-elect Barack Obama doesn't often offer praise for President George W. Bush's foreign policy, but on Monday he offered the outgoing head of state accolades for battling AIDS in Africa. "I salute President Bush for his leadership in crafting a plan for AIDS relief in Africa and backing it up with funding dedicated to saving lives and preventing the spread of the disease," Obama said in taped remarks to the Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health.""
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-12-01/us/world.aids.day_1_aids-relief-anti-retroviral-president-s-emergency-plan?_s=PM:US
Sure they can, just allowing the Bush era tax cuts to expire gets rid of basically all of the growth in the deficit (as a percentage of GDP, which is what matters) for the next twenty years or so.
False.
My guess is ARPA continues to use the money on stuff like better batteries, but I agree, this should be $0 until the budget is balanced - in fact, I would take it one step further - is at a surplus to pay back debt and start funding social security and medicare for the future. I personally wish they'd do research on the types of Gen IV reactors that burn nuclear waste instead and turn a storage problem into an energy solution. That said, there are a lot worse things for the federal government to waste money on.
And speaking of balancing the budget, why not close some of the loopholes that people use not to pay taxes? Let's make Senators fly coach instead of first class, stay in hotel rooms not suites, not get lifetime pay for doing a job even after they stop working, etc - I'm sick of footing their bills for luxury living - they can foot their own bump to first class. And even though the wealthiest people pay 70% of taxes, 50% of them don't pay - figure that out. We could use a bit of austerity here, starting with cutting perks to the rich who don't need those perks in the first place and are abusing power to have them. And I completely disagree with taxing the rich more - fix the tax code and collect taxes already. I realize that isn't an overnight process, since the damn thing is a wall of tomes (over 70k pages), but start with some big ones and work your way down.
A 5% increase, devoted mostly to energy research would make sense. Diverting all money from the Mars/Moon budget would certainly help. Near Earth orbit is research. Until we have a money-positive, energy positive use for the moon or Mars, they're hubris and nothing more.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
A more financially responsible move would be to "INVEST" in R&D (with selection possibly based on a tender process)
Like Solyndra?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Current politics has pushed out all rational discussion of good debt vs. bad debt. Nationally and individually we would all suffer with lower quality of life if not for good debt.
Good debt produces a return on that debt greater than the interest paid on that debt. Who here paid cash for their house, or for their education? Both are considered good debt (generally speaking) since wise purchasing using that debt results in accrued equity (the house) or increased income (education). Assuming you don't buy a McMansion at the height of the market or pay $100k for a university of phoenix degree, both debts produce value over the long run.
At the national level, research and infrastructure - even when funded by low-interest debt - produce returns far greater than the intrest paid on those loans. Infrastructure makes our economy attractive to business, and basic research gives us a technological edge in every field.
These are two areas of spending that SHOULD be funded via low interest debt, and our creditors don't seem to think that the US is in danger of default any time soon based on recent US Treasury auctions.
Why do you keep calling it my pet program? Do I look like a politician to you? And what makes you think that science and research is a pet program? You wouldn't be debating on this website with me if it wasn't for government spending on science and research.
Yes you usually want to grow the economy but you definitely don't want to shrink it now.
Cutting defence spending would actually make things worse, not better. The government, no matter the programme, is a giant mechanism to pay its own citizens money from other citizens. If you cut defence spending by 500 billion dollars that 500 billion dollars worth of people who now collect unemployment, income supplements etc. And there's no other jobs eagerly awaiting those people unfortunately, oh and all of the stuff they were working on no longer exists to try and sell to other people.
It seems odd, but governments should more or less do the exact opposite of the economy. When the economy is doing well they can trim spending and cut employment, since the private sector absorbs all of those people. And when the economy is doing badly they hire more people to do things to make up for lost jobs and because they're paying unemployment insurance anyway, you may as well pay people to actually do something.
The US deficit is only about 1 trillion USD. (Not debt, deficit), which is about 6%, but the economy is growing by about 3%, so the net is a 3% of GDP increase in relative debt. Even with debt 100% of GDP lots of countries have sustained themselves quite well for a long time with much higher debt than that, and the US deficit is a two fold product of unnecessary tax cuts and the economic downturn moving people from paying into the government to taking from in in the form of unemployment and various reduced income benefits they now qualify for. Raising taxes by 200 billion a year, and having 200 billion dollars worth of benefits no longer necessary due to those people working again suddenly puts your debt back to relatively shrinking. And even a few years of 3-4% economic growth shrinks the US debt as a percent of GDP a lot.
It's not spectacular, but overall the US debt situation really isn't that bad. The vast majority of debt is owed in your own currency, to your own people, and with a growing population and economy it doesn't take very long for things to get sorted out pretty well.
My raise taxes by 200 billion and cut spending by 200 billion is arbitrary, but not far off from raising taxes by 150 billion a year (i.e. clean up the tax code, considering you collect almost 3 trillion in taxes), cutting defence on foreign wars by their current 150 billion, cut medicare and medicaid expenses by everyone having health insurance, slightly reduce US regular defence spending and in not too long the situation is pretty good.
If you want to actually have any economic growth or job creation in the US you need publicly funded research. Those are the people who create industries that create jobs and who train the people who can lead those industries.
Research doesn't balance the budget.
That's like saying college tuition doesn't pay for your salary after you graduate.
That whole internet economy? Government funded research built it (insert stale Al Gore joke if you must).
Interstate highway system, infrastructure 'investment' without which this country simply wouldn't be a shadow of itself today. And you know how they built it? Using research paid for by the government.
There isn't enough money to balance the budget through cuts. The only way to balance the budget is through growth. And research investment is a tried and proven way to increase growth.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
How do you figure that? Did he create the deadlock in the Congress? You really need to look up what presidents can and cannot do before you spew such nonsense.
Why do you keep calling it my pet program?
Every program is someone's pet program. You're defending this one.
Yes you usually want to grow the economy but you definitely don't want to shrink it now.
But you want to shrink it next year? Or when? When can we have a responsible level of spending. Over 10 years? Then balance the budget over 10 years.
Infinity miles to the gallon if I'm not mistaken.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Really, do you have better numbers than the nonpartisan CBO?
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I don't care who's president; I fully endorse this. If anything, they're not putting nearly enough money into these programs. This sort of thing is where our tax dollars should be doing. This and infrastructure. But I don't mean the kind of crap infrastructure programs like we've been seeing these past few years that do nothing but keep a few construction workers employed and puts money into the hands of companies that would have gotten business anyway.
What I mean are public works projects like those seen in Japan, South Korea and China; programs that have a long term positive impact but that actually make sense for the region. Of course, that pointless high speed rail that's been bandied about is not one of them. Unless we were developing our own high speed train and not just buying something overseas. We don't even have the expertise in this country to build our own high speed rail.
Absolutely money should be shifted away from defense spending, but I'd also like to see less spent on wasteful, shortsighted social programs. There are people out there who need the help, but many of these programs don't provide any long-term benefit for the country and merely increase dependency. Change the cultural mindset in this country and teach these people to fend for themselves and you'll see a much more profound improvement.
Of course, a lot of jobs have moved overseas and there's no bringing them back. The real challenge is to strike a good balance, something like Japan or Germany has managed. But I think the mindset in those cultures is quite different to what we have here in the US, at all levels. Unlike the average American workers, the lowliest employees still have a strong work ethic and take pride in what they do. And at the other extreme, upper management still has a lot of pride and maybe even nationalistic tendencies. And they still have a drive to actually make something. American management, however, seems intent on finding with quickest and easiest way to make a buck at the expense of everything else. But then, sometimes you can't blame them. I've got friends who complain that you spend several times more getting someone in the States to make something, but you don't even have a guarantee of quality.
Look at something as simple of toys. The nicest, highest quality stuff routinely comes out of Japan and Germany and often it's still made domestically. Compare that to American toys which are always made in China, usually poorly conceived and where the cost-cutting is always evident. With the vast majority of "American" products it's only a matter of time before China builds brand strong enough that they can stand on their own. At that point why bother with the middleman? The middleman being the American corporation that does nothing but own a brands, logos on the box, basically.
And that's where the fundamental problem arises. Will we be able to maximize the benefit of this investment in science if we end up offloading all of the actual design and manufacture to a foreign company? Are we just going to end up making a bunch of guys at the top even more wealthy? But then, I guess we have to start somewhere.
A pet program implies that it only benefits the person interested in it and a small constituency. Like a senator from idaho might have a project that gives tax credits for purple potatoes. That would be a pet project of his. Advancing society through science and research is everybody's project.
We should have balanced the budget during the last boom. Instead we went to war and cut taxes for the wealthiest people. Now we are in the shit and can't afford to. Best we can do is hold out until things get better and then hope that congress will get off its ass and actually do something.
Come on, man, how can you be against research funding? It doesn't matter how much debt it generates - it's an investment. We can patent the resulting technology then hand it over to the Chinese to build it for us. Be sure to send your grandchildren to law school so they can become IP lawyers and sue the Chinese companies for infringement, that way they might make enough money to pay off all the debt.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
space programs are not terribly expensive in the big picture, and they are one of those things that have long term benefits but only if consistently funded.
Another program that needs consistent funding is healthcare for those who cannot afford it. You could save money in the short term by cutting off programs, until everyone gets sick and you end up spending more in the long run. Maintaining good health is cheap compared to curing disease.
Letting rockets and engineers rot because you were not able to produce viable long term plans is bad leadership in my opinion.
Well, the US spends about $150 billion on science research per year. That works out to about $1,000 per income tax payer per year. If you didn't have to pay taxes, how much would you voluntarily donate each year to a private "basic research" organization?
This is why the US is doomed. $15 trillion in debt and and $117 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and the /. crowd is so opposed to cutting any spending that just mentioning the idea gets you unfairly moderated into oblivion.
I guess I need to learn Mandarin or Hindi.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Keynesian Economists will tell you that a balance budget when you are trying to grow the economy is a bad idea.
FTFY
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Hell, if they just for a START, would let the Feds negotiate for drugs for medicare/medicade like the VA system does...a lot of $$ could be saved in on quick step!!!
Why don't they do something like that? Hmm.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Why do you think anyone is against research funding? It is possible to be against "government-determined" research funding, there are alternatives.
A common argument against a private alternative is that there is no profit motive. But if taxes were lower people may donate to a private non-profit that serves the same function as government in funding basic research. We could argue about how likely people would be to voluntarily donate, and whether a private organization would be more or less efficient than the government... but that would be a different (and much more productive) argument.
It's not about pet projects. It's about ROI. Investing aggressively in R&D, especially when the economy is stalled is not only good for economic recovery, but it helps us to create a better place to live. The return on investment is massive. Think the Internet, GPS, combustion engine, weather prediction, antibiotics...and that's just the current stuff. Wait until you see how current research get's used 5 yrs or 10 yrs out. China understands this and they will be the next Super Power if we don't keep pace with them.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
This is exactly right. With reference to your earlier mention of:
You are first of all grouping all economists together (don't do that). Second, the economists who will tell you deficit spending is a good idea will nuance it by saying that the debt needs to be paid off during a boom. Deficit spending without paying off the debt is what has been happening, and I don't think any economist will tell you that is a good idea.
So if we have consistently observed that, in practice, deficit spending occurs but no budget balancing happens, should anyone really be supporting deficit spending?
How can he say this when he is letting the powers of darkness snuff out the Mars programs at Mars so the the monies can be wasted on manned-spaceflight pork?
It's like saying, let's cut funding for the development of a self powered carriage (a car!) because we need to allocate our money towards hey and iron shoes for our horses. Cutting research is like shooting yourself in the foot - or head.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
A pet program implies that it only benefits the person interested in it and a small constituency.
So you're misunderstanding the meaning of "pet program" and that's distracting you?
Best we can do is hold out until things get better and then hope that congress will get off its ass and actually do something.
And your solution is to wait and hope. Great.
FTFY
Ok, so you're going to take your own analysis of information on Wikipedia over analysis done by the policy wonks at the Congressional Budget Office? Yeah, that's the way to win a reasoned argument...
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I think the presidents primary function has become a political "negativity sponge". Congress is far more to blame than any president.
Hmmm... either my hints were too subtle, or you switch off you sarcasm detector before reading my post.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Says the guy who wants money spent on his pet programs.
I have a hard time believing that basic research is a pet program. Science research puts America ahead economically. It's an investment. I feel like pet programs generally benefit the few, and aren't of great concern, and generally lose money. Major infrastructure, like bridges around New York City, aren't pet programs because they must be taken care of for the good of the economy as a whole. Major bridges that are built when small bridges would work - those are pet projects. Basic science research in pretty much all areas is for the advancement of the whole economy.
We think of "research" as a collection of buzzwords like NASA, Stem Cells, and Genetic Engineering. Really, there is such a wide range of stuff that you can't cut out anything with a broad brush.
Whether you are researching the reduction of phosphates in cleaners (which affects all manufacturing - hard goods and food, as well a agriculture, waste treatment, and river systems) or living on Mars (a complete study of "quality of life" in a manufactured environment) - basic research and technology is an investment more than an expense.
Expenses? Those are things like tax subsidies and every bit of government that isn't "doing" something - like Congress.
Pretty sure we're beyond that point already, certainly if you count unfunded liabilities. The current "fiscally conservative" budget proposals still add about a trillion dollars of real every year for the next 10 years, which will likely put the US over 100% of GDP.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Hmm, I see what you are saying but it is more complicated. I think there is plenty of evidence out there that third-party payer systems lead to inflated prices. Easy loans have led to high tuition and thus more debt held by individuals than would have otherwise existed. Also you seem to be assuming that just because the government funded something (internet, highways), these things would not have been created otherwise. Do you have any evidence for this? Are there any countries that had privately funded highways, etc.
Also, just because a government solution is ideal doesn't mean a federal government solution is ideal. Could states have handled these types of projects better?
I don't really have answers, I am just pointing out your hidden assumptions. If anyone does please contribute.
I agree, the politicians took Keyne's ideas and immediately started misusing them. Now we are nearly 100 years in and far beyond a situation in which deficit spending should apply. Not enough economists have spoken out against this.
Wow. Two guys who can't link to any numbers are arguing over which set of un-cited numbers are right and which are wrong.
If your research will create growth, then it should be easier to create a 10-year balanced budget by factoring in a reasonable value for that growth. But you (and the rest of the "research creates economy" crowd) just keep repeating your "investment" nonsense.
It's not an investment if you can't even try to predict a return.
My bad, I think I replied to the wrong post...
You are mistaken. Zero divided by zero is not inifinity.
The 2011 deficit was $1.299T. The 2011 military budget was unauditable it was so literally out of control, but nearly $1.3T even using the government's (surely undercounting) numbers. Of course cutting the military isn't the only cut, but if it were cut to $400B that would require raising taxes only $400B to balance the budget.
Just making capital gains for people collecting over $250K income the same rate as regular income would raise over $200B of that. A 0.1% financial transaction tax would raise over $100B more. Ensuring that people earning over $1M paid at least 30% taxes, regardless of deductions and loopholes, gets another $35B a year under the Buffett Rule. The remaining $50B or so can be raised by closing loopholes like the scam of borrowing against shares, never selling them until your heirs do when you die. Making "carried interest" by stock traders taxable as income instead of capital gains is another $18B.
That's not many tax changes. They're all already in Congress, including in Obama's budget sent there today, except the financial transaction tax is only proposed at a piddling 0.03%. You can argue about whether any or all of them are worth doing. But it's perfectly clear that cutting defense and raising taxes can produce enough money to balance the budget, and indeed to pay down the debt until the interest no longer generates its own sizeable deficit demanding more debt.
--
make install -not war
This budget will not pass just like the others did not pass. The GOP house will not pass anything but last second extensions after Obama licks their boots. What is sad is that he is only doing 1% for show.
Screw mars. We don't have the money and if we did I'd be 150% against it! We should be working on better robotics and planetary science both which will do more faster and cheaper than pushing for a man on mars in our lifetime. Unless you build a permanent base, mars is not worth going to and even then the robots are better than humans now; in 20 years they'll be more ahead of humans. Many ignorant people think we'll colonize Mars; but that is not worth doing without a lot of progress in multiple areas-- remember on Mars in winter, the air freezes. We don't stay in Antarctica all year around yet.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Mars is dumb. We know more about Mars than we do about the ocean floor... and there is actually resources, land, water, oxygen, and food there.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Then tell me how much economic growth we're all pretending we're going to get from this research.
So far, the only amount that fits what everyone is suggesting is "enough to fix any possible problem and let us spend as much as we want on anything we want". Are you really saying this?
The CEO of Boeing isn't going to go on unemployment. You will certainly see reduced wages and layoffs in the military industry complex if you cut that budget, but the impact to the economy will be significantly less than what was cut, and the gains significantly better if the money is invested in something that actually grows our economy.
The Amundsen–Scott polar station has been manned year-long for a long time now:
http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/wo.html
We can keep people alive in orbit, which is much harder. It's simply a matter of resource dedication.
Whether we have the money is not the right question- we definitely do, and a whole lot of ignorance is required to believe otherwise. The question is what do we expect to gain by spending the money, and how important is that compared to the things on which we are already spending money.
People just think blanketly that you always have to balance your budget but it just doesn't work that way on the scale and scope of a government our size.
So, governments are "too big to fail"? Why don't you take a look at Greece and see how that sort of thinking is working out?
Economists will tell you that a balance budget when you are trying to grow the economy is a bad idea.
Economists will also tell you that pushing your debt higher and higher, past 100% of GDP and beyond, is a bad idea, especially when the problems driving the debt will only keep getting worst for 50 years. "To infinity and beyond!" might be a great tag line for a toy spaceman, not so much for an earth-bound government sinking in debt. (Social security, medicare, medicade + debt payments + an aging population bulge + growing longevity will ultimately crush the US unless something changes. Adding in the growing price of Obamacare will bring the problem forward in time.)
Now that's not to say that things aren't out of whack. You just need to prioritize things.
Avoiding ruin might be a good place to start.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
There is a rather large body of literature already on the dangers of GMO crops. It is well known that certain of these crops can cause dramatic resistance to evolve in both insects and in other non-crop plant species, not to mention the economic problems associated with contamination of natural seed stocks with GMO seed.
One would think after Fukushima and Chernobyl any sane person might find reason to consider being cautious about nuclear power. There is a very good chance that radioactive isotopes from Fukushima are already incorporated into your body even though the size of the leakage was relatively small.
Likewise, there is abundant evidence that eating organic food can be far healthier than eating "factory" and processed foods.
As for cell phones, lets hope you are right. Although the energy levels seem to be far too low to disrupt DNA, its still far too early for epidemiological studies of cell phone use to be likely to statistically show any subtle, but potentially harmful effects. Give it another 30 years, as was necessary for similar studies dealing with the effects of tobacco products.
There is no real equivalence here. The GOP has been far behind the democrats in promoting science. In fact republicans still like to joke about Al Gore inventing the internet, when what Gore really did was become one of the very first early champions for increasing federal funding to develop the internet beyond its DARPA roots. The fact they now use the internet to do so evidently doesn't even enter into their consciousness.
Show me a 10 year plan for a nationwide highway system in a country where hardly anyone had cars that could drive very far.
Show me the 10 year plan for a national communication system that covers everybody. By that I mean the Post Office. No private corp would *ever* do that.
Hell show me *any* plan for going to the moon that made financial sense. Yet doing so created massive new industries and things we hadn't even imagined before.
Investment and research is how we move forward as a society. If you waited until it was 'profitable' it would never happen or happen so far down the road as to be non-existent. And no, you don't always know where it's going, but the other option is just sitting still while other countries are plowing money into research and development. The Chinese are spending something like 10x the amount of GDP we are. Are you really sure you want to just wait for them to come up with things?
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Even though Bush is history, the same GOP mindset remains. Obama proposes a 1% increase in science/research funding, which the GOP promptly and loudly aim to block. With so much money going into tax cuts for the already wealthy, funding in sciences since Reagan have gone done about 40% as a percentage of the total budget. So even this meager proposal by Obama is likely to be caught up in GOP election year politics.
Can anyone realistically argue that any of the GOP nominees now will actually increase science funding? Personally, I don't count a Moon Base as a science project, but rather a throwaway line for those eager for technological pork spending. While it might push the boundaries of technology, there would be relatively little science likely to come from it compared to investing that kind of money in pure research. For example, if that kind of money were directed at ocean studies and ocean exploration the benefits to mankind would be far, far greater, particularly since we know probably less about the oceans than we do about Mars relative to what there probably is to know given that Mars has no biosphere. Who knows, maybe ocean studies might provide a way to prevent anyone who spends to much time in space from permanently loosing visual acuity as recent studies apparently demonstrate is a serious impediment to any proposals for long-term human extraterrestrial habitation.
To make matters worse, GOP attitudes toward environmental science aren't merely anti-science. They border on on suicidal and homicidal.
What has made so many republicans who depend upon science, so unwilling to stand up to the anti-science rhetoric that seems to be the standard fair for GOP politicians these days? Is it simply because most scientists have become democrats out of necessity? This sure is a far cry from the GOP of the Eisenhower administration. What has happened to the modern GOP that now prevents it from leading science policy? Does the average GOP voter think our scientific infrastructure can be outsourced to China and other countries such as India simply for economic reasons without consequence?
All the world's green industries combined couldn't generate anywhere near enough sucking action to actually amount to the size of the oil depletion allowance or that the huge tax deductions for rolling stock (ie rail cars that carry coal) the coal industry gets. So enough of the false notion that the conventional fuels industry isn't sucking on quite a few more, very much larger government teats.
"But if taxes were lower people may donate to a private non-profit that serves the same function as government in funding basic research."
Right and if we just lowered the taxes for the "job creators" [euphemism for already wealthy and corporations] again and again and again as we have over the past 20 years and just let all that new wealth trickle down, we would be awash in jobs and money.
Wake up. Republicans are cutting jobs in the sciences left and right and there are very few republicans standing in line to donate at rates that even begin to approach the amounts lost, whether counted in jobs or in dollars. You only have to look at jobs in wildlife and fisheries management, public health, and at universities, where tens of thousands of science jobs are being lost at the state as well as the federal level to begin to appreciate the magnitude of the GOP's willingness to slash and burn the scientific infrastructure upon which our future depends.
Yes of course, defense spending is only about 40% of the entire budget, whereas science programs don't even account for 2%.
Essentially, your argument is that a budget of 0 is the perfect Utopian budget. The notion that you are going to improve the deficit problem by cutting the budget will only lead to contraction of the economy and more deficit cutting until you reach your 0 perfect Utopian budget. You are advocating for a vicious downward economic spiral.
If you want balanced budgets you need to take the money out of the hands of those who have it and pay down the deficits that have been created by allowing them to accumulate it. Otherwise, you are merely advocating that the perfect system is the one in which eventually one person owns everything.
When are republicans finally going to start admitting that taxes are essential to civilization? Conservatives, not being a creative crowd, I suspect it will be a very long time.
Defense is 19% of the 2011 Federal Budget. And zero percent of state and local budgets, of course.
So your prediction is an infinite return on investment over 10 years then? Fantasy numbers add up to whatever amount makes you feel good.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development isn't essential to civilization. Taxes to pay for HUD aren't essential to civilization. Can we get rid of it?
Why should anyone agree to pay an extra dime in taxes while HUD exists?
If you want an honest assessment of whether taxes are essential to civilization, stop flushing the money down the toilet first.
Oh yea, totally agreed. The current political reality is that the average person will be taxed the same amount regardless, and so not have that extra money. I should start including that disclaimer in posts like the one above.
Yes, you are right about the "utopian concept" of a balanced budget. I wouldn't call it utopian necessarily, but yea. My idea would be to raise taxes on the wealthy and quickly pay off the debt. Many of them would be, at least in part, paying themselves. The US has been subject to an obfuscated bank tax for a long time now. Funds should be redistributed from wealthy to government to effectively cancel this. But, this entire plan will be in vain unless other debt-limiting measures are taken at the same time.
So, governments are "too big to fail"? Why don't you take a look at Greece and see how that sort of thinking is working out?
It's not that governments can't fail. They most certainly can. Greece has been a basket case for years due to the persistent refusal of politicians to face up to the reality of costs and taxes; that they're going down the pan is not surprising.
But a government failing is not a good thing. Governments, by their very nature, are entangled in a lot of society. When they fail, the collateral damage is huge even excluding the effect on direct employees. Particularly at risk are long-term investments and benefit schemes, such as pension systems.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
My idea would be to raise taxes on the wealthy and quickly pay off the debt.
You must have a very different definition of the word "quick" than I and most other people do.
You could tax all those making over $500K/yr at 100% and it still leaves a deficit of around $800bn-$850bn using these numbers:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/histab3.xls
That means the US would *still* be borrowing money and adding to the national debt.
There's simply no way to escape the fact that it's impossible to balance the US budget and stabilize or reduce the national debt by taxation. Reducing the amount of money government takes out of the system and simplifying and reducing government regulation & bureaucratic red tape, so that the economy can grow and produce enough wealth, in order for low and reasonable taxes along with reasonable regulation that does not stifle the generation of wealth to produce sufficient revenues to eventually eliminate the yearly deficit and start reducing the national debt, is the only way (other than a catastrophic collapse) the US can come out of this crisis.
Just look to Greece. We can either bite the bullet now, or wait until everything collapses and there is violence on the streets. Other countries won't "bail out" the US as they have with Greece.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
If you can't use Google here's a link to a nice pretty picture based on the analysis.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Growth balances budgets. Long-term commitment to research (notably fundamental research) yields long-term growth. In the long run, you completely depend on the research and education in your country.
If you truly believe the system has failed, stop talking, and take to the streets with your guns.
That's your governing philosophy? Steal from people and oppress them as much as you possibly can and dare them to shoot you if they don't like it? And call it a "social contract".
If that's the way you want to play it, then you better win the next election. Because you've eliminated right and wrong from decision-making. Anything goes. Absolutely anything.
Ah, so before somebody can assess whether taxes are essential to civilization, they must stop spending things on things which you have deemed to not to be essential to civilization?
It's that just another way of saying "no negotiations unless you do what I want first"? I can only think of one type of civilization where that flies: tyranny.
Letting people keep the money they earned is called "tyranny" by you. Forcing the people who earned the money to negotiate to keep it (or you'll arrest them) isn't "tyranny".
Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that some investments are worth it even if you can't see the finish line.
By your argument of profitability, we wouldn't have the internet or a national highway system. I don't see that as a plus for society...or the economy.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
The same growth that completely closed it back in the late 1990s perhaps? Couple that with a return to tax rates that actually tax fairly and you get a lot closer to a gap that is very closeable by growth.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
It's common to predict the return on investment for a road. This is the largest factor that decides which roads get built and which roads don't. A system of roads also has a predictable return on investment. So you are incorrect with regard to the highway system.
As to your major point, it refutes the people who say "research creates economic growth". If there are completely unknown returns, then that's not the same thing as "growth". Your argument is with them.
You don't need to be able to "see the finish line" to measure progress. All the counter-arguments to responsible budgeting seem to amount to "shut up about results and give us an ever-increasing amount of money for our gadgets and musings, regardless of whether you can afford it". If that's not what you're demanding, then where's the responsible justification? Why should we pay for research instead of (just to pick an example) a road? Or not paying at all?
And if research has indefinite benefits and takes an indefinite amount of time, then why can't it wait until the budget is fixed?
The Greek government funded research. How is that working out for them?
What if they had told their researchers (and everyone else) "no funding until we fix our budget"? What if that had happened 10 years ago, before the crisis?
That's what time it is now in the USA: before the crisis.
There is no comparison between Greece and the US. That you compare them at all only shows you have not the faintest idea what you are writing about. The are not comparable in size, in monetary policy, macro-economically, micro-economically, in terms of state structure, in terms of political culture, etc.
Also, the money spent in Greece that actually went to researchers was a rare example of money _not_ squandered: had this money not been spent, Greece would now be even poorer. But it's all irrelevant: it is a negligible part of the budget of any government.
You are probably one of these morons who applaud when the R&D budget of a (soon-to-be bankrupt) tech company gets slashed, on the grounds that it'll help the bottom line this quarter -- never mind that it means no products for the next. You probably think that the best time to start a diet is when you are famished.
Yeah, people who don't want their country to go bankrupt are morons. A tech company is exactly like a government. And all those Greek researchers are doing great right now; there's no way they'd be better off if Greece had budgeted responsibly for the last 10 years.
Thanks for that wisdom.
if its profitable, the government being a shareholder can't be as bad as just blowing it on grants that are only going to be squandered
I need to look into the numbers further, but yea government cuts should be part of the solution. The analysis should also include capital gain and corporate taxes.
I need to look into the numbers further, but yea government cuts should be part of the solution. The analysis should also include capital gain and corporate taxes.
It's a matter of scales of magnitude when you compare the amounts of money in the deficit and the debt, compared to what could realistically be received in total tax revenues. There's simply no way to reduce the deficit by any meaningful amount/time, never mind paying down the principle on the national debt, without massive reductions in government spending coupled with massive economic growth.
You won't get the kind of growth necessary by raising taxes. Tax rates must be formulated with the Laffer curve in mind, the point at which increasing the tax rate further does not result in more revenue but instead decreases the type of economic activity being taxed. If you want less of something, tax and regulate it. Taxes on corporations and the rich never get paid by them, the costs get passed down and are ultimately paid by individuals & families. All taxes are ultimately paid by individuals and families, whether they're paid directly or included in the cost of goods and services.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.