Slashdot Mirror
US Federal Budget Proposal Cuts Science Funding (washingtonpost.com)
hey! writes: The U.S. Office of Management and Budget has released a budget "blueprint" which outlines substantial cuts in both basic research and applied technology funding. The proposal includes a whopping 18% reduction in National Institutes of Health medical research. NIH does get a new $500 million fund to track emerging infectious agents like Zika in the U.S., but loses its funding to monitor those agents overseas. The Department of Energy's research programs also get an 18% cut in research, potentially affecting basic physics research, high energy physics, fusion research, and supercomputing. Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E) gets the ax, as does the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program, which enabled Tesla to manufacture its Model S sedan. EPA loses all climate research funding, and about half the research funding targeted at human health impacts of pollution. The Energy Star program is eliminated; Superfund funding is drastically reduced. The Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes cleanup programs are also eliminated, as is all screening of pesticides for endocrine disruption. In the Department of Commerce, Sea Grant is eliminated, along with all coastal zone research funding. Existing weather satellites GOES and JPSS continue funding, but JPSS-3 and -4 appear to be getting the ax. Support for transfer of federally funded research and technology to small and mid-sized manufacturers is eliminated. NASA gets a slight trim, and a new focus on deep space exploration paid for by an elimination of Earth Science programs. You can read more about this "blueprint" in Nature, Science, and the Washington Post, which broke the story. The Environmental Protection Agency, the State Department and Agriculture Department took the hardest hits, while the Defense Department, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of Veterans Affairs have seen their budgets grow.
Cost of security for Trump Tower: $183 million/year
Budget for National Endowment Arts/Humanities: $148 million/year
You are welcome on my lawn.
In fairness, there are parts that are clearly designed to attract all the protest and anger and then have it evaporate when they drop it. The NIH cuts are part, possibly all of that scheme. Newt Gingrich and a lot of other people in the Trump party are strongly in favor of INCREASING funding the NIH. They likely realize that what the NIH works on will benefit them more than an additional 100 warplanes on top of the fuckload we already have would.
I mean, it could turn out to pass that the NIH does get cut, dumber things have happened with this administration. It might have been a mistake that Trump will just run with.
And not just the right, or the left. Not just Dems or reps. This is how the whole world sees you all, as a nation.
"the average american" didn't and doesn't want for Trump, and didn't vote for him, let's remember that. You're right that the rest of the world, like an unfortunate amount of americans don't care about the important details, they just want to seem above political fights. Americans are, after all, pretty average people. People in general don't like jumping into a political fight because it makes us feel unclean. Makes it harder to pretend we're superior to both sides. But when facing the consequences we're facing now, it's more than just arrogant. People who can't or won't tell a difference between the party of Trump and the party of Obama/HRC are the people responsible for the current administration doing what it is doing right now. Whatever passes will be because of people like you who don't care to call someone right and someone wrong and risk being wrong yourself.
Ask any credible economist about balancing the budget and they'll tell you it's not a huge priority.
They will pretty much flat out tell you to drop all tarrifs, engage in free trade, and issue tax credits to those affected by jobs shifts associated by free trade. That will raise productivity and that will in turn bring in revenue and the debt issue will correct itself. No amount of jiggling and shuffling spending around will amount to shit.
I think economists support free trade the same way a Marxist supports communism. It will solve all ills if only it were implemented just right. And if the people play along perfectly. And while implementations of it have caused lots of problems, if only it were done right then everything would be perfect. It just isn't so. The middle class declines ever more, inequality swells regardless of D or R being in charge, and now it's gotten bad enough that it's causing instability. Trump is a warning. If things decline even more then expect the person or two after him to make him look mild. I don't expect good things for my kids based on where we're currently headed. Not that I think Hillary would have been much different, though Bernie might have been.
And that pesky EPA which does nothing but stop the red states from turning this country and planet into a toxic polluted cesspool.
There is some moronic stuff studied with federal funds. For example:
I'm sure the Senator means well. But the full list would only represents about .1% of the NIH annual budget altogether. I say would because it's actually less since the dates of these are going to range around and because they're also not all actually funded by the NIH. Also, you merged the NIH and NSF/DOD lists, obscuring things somewhat. Also, I note that you took away the footnote explaining that none of these actually cost that much. Every one of these is just one study out of a set paid for by the same grant. For example, the bee sting study was a graduate thesis paid for by a graduate fellowship grant supporting studies by many graduate students. It didn't actually cost anywhere near $1 million. Let's take a look at the headliners of this list.
Why some people see Jesus’ face on toast ($3.5 million)
Actually a neurological study on pareidolia. The Jesus' face on toast thing was just an easy example to put in the title to explain what pareidolia is.
Do drunk birds slur when they sing?
This study is about finding an animal model for studies on how alcohol affects humans. Notably on how inebriation affects speech. Basically another neurological study designed to explore how our brains actually work
Does cocaine make honey bees dance? ($243,000)
Basically another animal study of the effects of drugs.
What type of music do monkeys and chimpanzees prefer to listen to?
More neurology research applicable to humans
Why is yawning contagious?
Seriously? They don't think that's worth researching?
The rest of this list is actually funded by NSF/DOD grants.
Where does it hurt most to be stung by a bee? ($1 million)
Graduate study. Probably angling for an Ig Nobel prize. Potentially useful as a study in baseline pain levels on different parts of the body. Mostly though, just an academic exercise. Boo hoo. Public money used towards education. The tragedy!
Why does walking with coffee cause it to spill? ($172,000)
This study obviously barely cost anything. Reading the description in the report seems to pretty clearly indicate that, aside from this being a graduate student again, this was pretty clearly done to gain experience with some of the equipment they were using. The actual equipment was already paid for for other purposes. The only cost was the time it took to do the study and write it up and frankly, if someone probably already working 50 to 60 hours a week wants to spend a couple of extra hours on a little bit of fun, I'm absolutely fine with that.
You know, I'm sick of going through these. Most of these are just little studies with real merit or graduate studies and the price figures next to them are all ridiculous exaggerations. I'm only shelling out what? 30 cents a day for the entire NIH budget. Even if these studies did cost $35 million (which they didn't) I'm perfectly happy to pay my 12 cents a year share for these experiments. I'm not happy to pay for ridiculous, useless trophy walls, overpriced boondoggle jets, or the president's weekly golf trip.
Which is a bullshit argument right out of the fucking stupid supply side economics (aka: fucking idiocy). Higher taxes, such as we had in the 40's and 50's, leads to more investment in business because they're looking for someplace that can store their money so they don't have to pay heavy taxes on it. It's one of the reasons those years had such high growth. The reduced tax rate since the 70's is what's caused owners to pull profit out instead of reinvesting it, hence why growth has been half what it should/could be.
Let me give you a primer.... Supply side economics = stupider than shit.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
There is some moronic stuff studied with federal funds. For example: Why some people see Jesus’ face on toast ($3.5 million) Do drunk birds slur when they sing? ($5 million) Does cocaine make honey bees dance? ($243,000) What type of music do monkeys and chimpanzees prefer to listen to? ($1 million) Why is yawning contagious? ($1 million) Where does it hurt most to be stung by a bee? ($1 million) Why does walking with coffee cause it to spill? ($172,000) Are cheerleaders more attractive in a squad? ($1.1 million). Who will be America’s next top model? ($2.9 million) What makes goldfish feel sexy? ($3.9 million)
http://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=AB366D8A-118F-4A01-B20E-47A0EC459A9F
With trillions in debt, uncertain future for entitlement programs, diseases we cannot treat, and financial gridlock, this seems like low hanging fruit to cut to save money.
Just because Senator Flake thinks his constituents are stupid enough to fall for the flaky misrepresentations does not mean the research described is "moronic". Unless you think understanding the effect of a drugs on organisms is not important (numbers 2, 3), or the operation of the image processing system is all understood and/or irrelevant, of course (number 1), or how pain reception works, or how resonances affect fluids (maybe coffee in a cup, but maybe water in a reservoir during an earthquake).
Stephan
Would it surprise you to learn that this guy regularly misrepresents the purpose of studies to make his political point?
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
How about you let the states figure out how toxic and polluted they want their state to be, instead of dictating it from Washington?
When the state next to mine pumps toxins into the air they don't magically stop at the state line. Isn't the federal government supposed to handle inter-state matters?
I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
Water will stay clean, air will stay fresh, fewer industries will be crushed by pointless over-regulation
Your view is very short sighted, and quite frankly, contraindicated by reality.
The EPA and regulations like the Clean Water Act didn't just spring forth from some left-wing conspiracy. They were developed in response to real problems. Maybe people forget blankets of smog over major cities, trash lining major roads, rivers catching fire. The things we're talking about here are not luxuries, are not options. Air to breathe and water to drink are basic necessities.
Sometimes solutions outlive the problems they are intended to address and should be removed, but there's no reason to expect that to be true here. We continue to see people make short-sided decisions. I'd say "over-regulation" is a statement of opinion, I'm not going to argue your opinion, but "pointless" is a statement of fact, and you have your facts wrong.
As an analogy, it's easy to think vaccines are unnecessary or not worth their risk because, hey, when's the last time you saw someone with polio or small pox? But it's precisely that vaccines are so effective that you don't see those things.
So sure, we have for the most part air we can breath and water we can drink, but it's because of the EPA. And when the EPA goes away, so will those things.
Damages. "They did thing X which cost me $Y. Give money pls." That's how civil lawsuits work.
IANAL but wouldn't I have to prove that "thing X" was wrong in some way before I would be entitled to damages. For a civil suit this usually means demonstrating either a civil infraction or a civil injury.
A civil infraction is defined as "a non criminal violation of a rule, ordinance, or statue". This does not apply because in this hypothetical scenario the polluter didn't break any law in the area where they were operating.
A civil injury is defined as "any physical harm or damage done to person or property by breach of contract, breach of duty, negligence, or by a criminal offense".
There was no contract between me and the polluter so breach of contract does not apply.
The polluter does not have any specific duty that they owe to me so breach of duty does not apply.
The polluter did not break any laws in the jurisdiction in which they operate so criminal offense does not apply.
That just leaves negligence. Negligence is defined as "[failure] to act as an ordinarily prudent person would act under the circumstances". I think you'd have a tough time making that argument in reference to a legitimate business that obeyed all the rules and regulations of the jurisdiction in which they were operating.
In reality, most states already regulate themselves pretty well, and cutting EPA funding for more climate change research...will have no effect
That may be. I'm far from an expert on what exactly the EPA is responsible for. If you'll notice I didn't say anything about what the EPA's funding should or shouldn't be. I was specifically responding to your assertion that it should be up to each state to determine what level of pollution they wanted to allow.
Trump will be re-elected, and you will remain eternally assblasted for all time.
Well, I'm Canadian, so that was probably a given in any event.
I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything