Slashdot Mirror
How the U.S. Sequester Will Hurt Science and Tech
Later today, the U.S. government will enter the sequestration process, a series of across-the-board budget cuts put into place automatically because U.S. politicians are bad at agreeing on things. "At that moment, somewhere in the bowels of the Treasury Department, officials will take offline the computers that process payments for school construction and clean energy bonds to reprogram them for reduced rates. Payments will be delayed while they are made manually for the next six weeks." The cuts will directly affect science- and tech-related spending throughout the country. Tom Levenson writes, '[s]equester cuts will strike bluntly across the scientific community. The illustrious can move a bit of money around, but even in large labs, a predictable result will be a reduction in the number of graduate student and post – doc slots available — and as those junior and early-stage researchers do a whole lot of the at-the-bench level research, such cuts will have an immediate effect on research productivity. The longer term risk is obvious too: fewer students and post-docs mean on an ongoing drop from baseline in the amount of work to be done year over year.' The former director of the National Institute of Health says it will set back medical science for a generation. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden has laid out how the cuts will affect the U.S. space program. He said, "The Congress wasn’t able to do what they were supposed to do, so we’re going to suffer." The sequester will also prevent billions of dollars from flowing into the tech industry. This comes at a time when there's a pressing need in the tech sector for professionals versed in the use of Linux, and salaries for those workers are on the rise.
Your payroll tax increased 2% on Jan 1, if you work. That is a 2% paycut to you, period.
The sequestor is effectively a 1% reduction in spending this year for the Federal government.
Translation: You need to do with less and not complain, if you force the government to reduce spending by a tiny amount doom will come for you.
Wait! You don't think.... No! Surely politicians wouldn't play games with government services for political gain? Say it isn't so!
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
A less than 3% cut in funding is going to set medical science back a generation? By that logic, if we were to increase funding by 3% (as we have more than done) we should have seen a generation's worth of progress. So where are my medical tricorders?
Methinks somebody is fearmongering. I'll be the first to say cutting research funding is a dumb idea, but is it too much to ask that the former head of the NIH assess the situation based on the facts and not Chicken Little "the sky is falling" theater?
Wrong, its the failure of leadership to get something done and the leadership is the President. If he cannot build a culture where people can agree to disagree but come out with a win-win then its his fault 100%.
It was "the government shutdown" a few years ago. And all sorts of people got on their soap box and blamed everyone else for it. Now it's called something else, the "sequester". And again let's point fingers and blame. However none of that has to do with the real problem - the US is spending more money than it takes in, spending more money than it can print, even, and has been doing this for YEARS. They scream at the federal banks to keep interest rates near zero to "stimulate the economy" meaning that everyone must bear the cost of the devaluation including those smart enough to put their money to work, and then they wonder why all the wealth is leaving the US dollar.
The US will be buried under its Keynesian nightmare. I just hope it doesn't take the whole world with it.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
> because U.S. politicians are bad at agreeing on things.
If you think the budget problems (and resulting cuts) are only due to disagreement, you're an idiot.
You sir are a fucking retard. You can't build compromise with people whose sole purpose is to disagree with you no matter what you say.
I'm sorry, but if a 2% cut to expenditure is crippling, then the system deserves to fail.
Know what a government with 2% less money looks like? Take a look at the budget from 2010. That's what it looks like.
I know, using the 2010 budget for 2013. Complete madness!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Total_outlays_in_recent_budget_submissions
If you are really brave, take a look at the budget from 2001 (Clinton). 1.9 trillion.
You mean the House Republicans who passed not one but two bills as alternatives to replace sequestration while the Senate Democrats did nothing (except to complain that the Republicans hadn't agreed to raise taxes even more) and when the President finally actually proposed something it included mostly more tax increases and a lot of "cuts" that were undefined.
Of course, the other part of your post that I have to challenge is the idea that cutting the amount that government spending increases will somehow "cripple" the government. Not only are the cuts in this sequestration not significant, they are merely reductions in how much federal spending will increase not reductions in actual amounts spent.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I don't trust the Republicans in government further than I can comfortably spit a rat, but take off your partisan blinders for a moment and look around. The world is both weirder and more wonderful than your blinkered view will allow in.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Hate to say it, but the House Republicans take the majority of the blame for this one.
Wait - So the whitehouse bluffed and the Republicans called them on it, and you blame the Republicans?
IANAR, but just no. Both sides may take the blame for failing to come up with real cuts, but the full burden of responsibility for the sequester rests solidly on Barry's broad shoulders.
House Republicans passed two bills to address this last year and the Senate didn't even bother to look at them.
Obama has threatened to veto a couple or proposed solutions.
So, who get's' the majority of the blame?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Well, if the Senate would pass a budget then we would have some idea of what sort of budget might pass the Senate (and if it is reasonable to expect the House to pass such a budget). Since the Senate has not done so in somewhere around four years, the House has no way of knowing what kind of budget would pass the Senate and have reason to believe that the answer is that NO budget will pass the Senate. If the Senate will not pass any budget, how is the House supposed to pass one that has a chance to pass the Senate?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
the Republicans have failed to budge from their stance against taxing the wealthy.
I thought they already gave Obama the tax increase he wanted at the beginning of the year. Obama was claiming that if they gave him a tax increase during the "fiscal cliff" negotiations than the sequester negotiations would be all about budget cuts.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It is, in fact, a real cut to the currently-appropriated spending and the current spending rate. While it is often the case that reductions in projected increases are sold as "cuts" in government budgets, this is not one of the cases.
The sequester has nothing to do with baseline budgeting, it has to do with cuts to funds that are already appropriated for the current period.
Also, nothing in the federal budget happens automatically. If an appropriation isn't passed for each year, there are no funds, period, full stop. Baseline budgeting has to do with how budget proposals are drafted and presented, it doesn't mean that if no legislative action is taken an appropriation automatically remains in effect indefinitely.
You know it's possible to dislike both Bush and Obama, right?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The Repubs ideologically oppose the ACA because it is ideological in its conception, and practically unaffordable. Dems were hiding the real costs by doing things like not counting the Doc fix, and the bill was full of new measures that would add real costs to employers, like the extra billion per year supermarkets would have to pay for new food labeling requirements (I know, Nancy told us we didn't need to read it, so I don't blame anyone for not knowing this was in there). And what about the new taxes on medical device manufacturers? That impacts everyone!
But you give yourself away with the phrase "for-profit medical industry". Don't like profits, huh? Neither does anyone in the administration. The people who wrote and pushed this law don't like this "for-profit medical industry" or any profitable industry, for that matter, and would like to turn the whole thing eventually into a government enterprise. Like good Marxists, they want to blame the increases in costs that the consumers are currently seeing and will continue to see on the "greed" of industry, while they re-distribute wealth and buy the votes of the dependent masses. Ultimately, the private insurance industry cannot compete with a government that can borrow infinitely and would collapse. Hello, single payer system.
It's not an interpretation; it's in their own words. They give speeches plainly stating that the ultimate goal is a single payer system. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=926bPZiQhgY. Keep browsing; you'll find all their speeches. They're not exactly shy behind closed doors. Here; have some more. Donald Berwick, one of the architects of this law stated in a speech that "Excellent healthcare is, by definition, redistributional." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIK7duK9ACE.
By the way, to your last point, did you see the election results? It wasn't anywhere near a landslide and it shows that nearly half the country is against raising taxes. Maybe the same half that is not in the "protected class" and actually has to pay them?
Ultimately ACA is a spike in the heart of the economy and will only drive long term liabilities sky high. It was never meant to be paid for, because nothing is these days. That's why these "cuts", as trivial as they are, are a necessary first step.
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
... and they should establish budgets. The Democratic-controlled Senate has not approved a budget in 4 years.
This is such a load of crap. The Democrats are using the excuse that unless they have a filibuster-proof majority, then they can't even think about passing a budget. They haven't even proposed a budget to see if it would be filibustered. How did all of the Senates before this Senate operate without filibuster-proof majorities? The Republicans would be glad for the Democrats to vote on a budget, as it would expose them (the Democrats). There is no reason to filibuster.
No, it is not lying with facts. I appreciate your adding context, but to pretend that the Democrats are resolved of their responsibility to put forth a budget proposal because of the possibility of being filibustered is propagandizing. It also ignores the fact that they didn't propose a budget when they controlled the Presidency, both houses of Congress, and had a virtual filibuster-proof majority. If they could get ObamaCare passed, then they could have passed a budget.
It's crippling to the economy. Government spending is what is keeping the economy from taking an even worse nosedive. In case you haven't noticed, we've been a recession with high unemployment since the banks crashed the economy in 2008. In my state there are 5 people looking for work for every job that's available. Spending equals jobs. Government is one of the biggest spenders. Cut government spending, you kill jobs. These things have a multiplicative effect. You kill jobs, those people who lost their jobs can't spend as much, more people lose their jobs. 2% is a lot of jobs. An analysis put that at 2 million jobs lost.
I expect the real reason the GOP pushed to let Obama choose is so that they could turn around and blame him for any unpopular cuts. They tried to further abdicate responsibility, because it's Congress's job to choose funding levels.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
So if you took a 5% pay cut you would pay 5% less of everything? Call up your bank and tell them you'll only pay 95% of your mortgage? Would you pay only 95% of your internet and phone bills? Would you go the gas pump and only fill up your tank 95% of the way? Would you only pay 95% of your health, home, and auto insurance?
The fact of the matter is that all departments have fixed and variable expenses. They can't touch the fixed expenses (including contracts already awarded) so brunt of the cuts occur on the variable expenses as big or as small as they are.
So if 80% of your budget is unalterable then the remaining 20% of the budget will bear the whole of the 5% cut (or a 25% cut to those expenses).
This is why training (as an example) would be cut 75% and govt employee hours would be cut 20% for a limited number of weeks in the year.
Rash changes and cuts cause all sorts of boneheaded decisions, like taking out hugely expensive bonds or selling off govt assets and services to private companies only to have the sold back to the govt' at a higher cost (all for a short term boost).
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.