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.
Total, utter morons.
THANKS, Trump voters.
While everyone will bitch about (with merit) or rave about (maybe with merit) the actual details of the budget, the big requirement this time, MIGHT be, it actually be a budget.
Or at least, soon.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view...
I'm not sure if the current proposed budget seriously expects the debt ceiling to remain in effect. What is sure is that the debt ceiling has been punted in the past: hence it being suspended until yesterday. Talking about the budget without any decision on the debt ceiling is pretty stupid, but we will do it anyway. If the debt ceiling is real, we probably need to cut more than 18% off of a few things, and eliminate more than just a few programs- we probably need to axe at least one department over the next few years. If instead it is just another punt to younger people to pay off our national credit card, then you can go ahead and parse the proposed budget through a petty and partisan lens.
I know every budget has to be criticized by 'the opposing party' with a list of all the wonderful things that are going to be cut, but you all DO realize that the US government is nearly $19 TRILLION in debt - or more than $50k per person in the country?
Every single program that we're paying for, essentially we're living off credit cards. We are the wealthiest nation in human history, and we still cannot afford all the crap we want.
At some point, someone has to be the grownup in the room and say "you know, that would be really nice, but we simply can't afford it".
-Styopa
Starting with the biggest area of discretionary spending:: the military.
Also, spending isn't the only way to affect the problem. Taxes on the wealthiest Americans could be increased.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Your comment, and the attitude it exhibits, is a perfect example of the reasons why so many Americans chose to vote for President Trump.
Republicans aren't "anti-science". In fact, many Republicans work as scientists, engineers, medical professionals, and as executives in businesses that depend very heavily on technology and science. They aren't dumb, contrary to how you mistakenly portray them.
What they are upset about is poorly done science that's driven by biased politics and ideology instead of the objective and impartial scientific method. Climate "science" is a good example of this, with data that's "corrected"/"massaged" and predictions that prove to be wildly inaccurate, decade after decade. Republicans don't like "science" like that. They have much higher standards than what we've seen from leftist scientists. They demand fact-based science, not politically driven "science".
They're also against pointless regulation, especially when it's regulation that causes more harm than benefit. But they aren't against sensible regulation that provides a social and economic benefit. They want the nation's water supplies protected. They want the air clean. They want immigration controlled so that criminals can't enter easily. But what they don't want are useless regulations like carbon taxes, or worse, like absurd vehicle emission standards that can't be economically obtained.
As for religion, many Republicans aren't religious at all. Yes, there are some Republicans who are Christians. But there are many who aren't. In fact, there are Republicans who practice Islam. There are Republicans who practice Hinduism. There are Republicans who practice Buddhism. It's absurd for you to label all Republicans as Bible-thumping idiots, when that just isn't the case.
Leftists such as yourself have been shitting all over Republicans for decades now, without any justification. Just look at your comment. It's hyperbole and one unsubstantiated ad hominem attack after another. You attack and attack and attack people who have done absolutely nothing to you other than have higher standards and maybe have slightly different religious beliefs (which ends up being irrelevant in practice).
Yes, when people like you unjustifiably ridicule and insult and harass and demean millions upon millions of Americans who are actually decent, hard-working, industrious people, of course they'll turn against you politically. It's unbelievable how badly we've seen leftists treat their fellow Americans, especially when these other Americans really haven't done anything to the leftists.
And before you start claiming I'm a Republican, or that I'm one of these other Americans, or that I'm a Trump supporter, let me inform you that I'm not. I'm just an impartial observer who has seen what has gone on for many years now, and it's quite clear who the aggressors are (leftists) and who the victims are (centrist and rightists who generally just want to be left alone).
If anyone was paying attention he is looking at everything. He is renegotiating everything. Hell before he even set foot in the office he renegotiated several billion out of the military budget.
It is all up for grabs. Basically since Nixon we have kicked the can down the road. Regan amped it up. Clinton 'paid it off' by swiping the money from SS. Obama put the crown on it. We are in serious financial trouble.
This is exactly what we need. Cuts across the board. This is going to impact everything. We are 20 trillion in the hole. With another 100 trillion unfunded. With a deficit of 600 billion. Even if we cut the *entire* military we are still short. We need to talk seriously about it. Military cuts and other programs are going to have to drastically be cut back. Even without the military we are still short about 200 billion PER year.
Still dont think we are in trouble? Compare for yourself http://www.usdebtclock.org/200... vs http://www.usdebtclock.org/
The fed has been playing a nasty trick on the people who loaned us money. We are at nearly 2x inflation since the year 2000. We are literally stealing peoples and other countries money. We are making up money to steal wealth. As that is what inflationary funding does. It steals wealth. It discourages saving. Banks are making up the money not from assets but from fed borrowing.
The only saving grace to all of this is the debt interest ratio is low or near 0 and we renegotiated a lot of it.
I am being 100% serious. If we do not fix this. Our gov will no longer exist eventually. They will not be able to pay the bills. No one will accept their 'money'.
I think it was the Lexington columnist for the Economist who said that Republicans are for small government, except when they aren't. And when it comes to defense, they aren't. Trump complained about wasted defense spending in the Middle East and complained about our allies not paying their fair share - so his solution is to spend more. Businessman my ass, now he's playing army with other people's money.
(first my disclaimers...) I'm a research scientist. I've worked in academia, for a government lab managing grants, and in private industry.
There are many good reasons to change the way science funding is done in the USA.
First, we all know here that there is a surplus of certain STEM labor, including a large number of the researchers (postdocs, grad students, etc.) funded by the government.
Second, there is a serious and long running lack of practical progress being made in science. By some metrics (# of degrees, # of papers), we are doing great, but by others (# of companies founded, return on investment, research efficiency) we are at a generational low-point.
Third, some practical STEM fields (i.e. medicine, manufacturing engineering) DO exhibit a labor shortage, and also rely on training programs largely outside the research grant driven model.
The budgets we're looking at in the government grant space are enormous. It doesn't seem that way to many researchers, but the annual NIH budget alone is about equal to all of the funding provided to all startup companies annually. There's a lot we can do with that, provided the right direction. NIH, for example, could be re-focused on grants for training medical doctors, PAs, nurses, etc., instead of researchers. Yes, that would slow research down, but it would also contribute significantly to lowering the cost of medical care, and it would be appropriate for the mission and people at the NIH. A mature approach to climate change might cut some climate research funding, but increase funding for faster roll-out of a power and transportation infrastructure free of fossil fuels. Surely such an infrastructure could be an obvious point of agreement between the right and the left; start the construction in coal country.
A thoughtful approach to science funding would encourage researchers to look beyond their next federal grant to other (private) funding sources, and would encourage (force) private funding sources to invest in transitional research. The UC pension system has been instrumental in fueling the startup economy for a long time by devoting 1% of it's money to funds investing in startup companies. If other groups did the same (... were forced to do the same...), we would increase the total amount of science funding by several orders of magnitude more than the total federal R&D budget. Prior to the 1990s, all large DoD contractors were required to spend 15% of their budget on R&D projects that were reviewed by government scientists to ensure they were actual R&D projects. Removing that requirement shut down a lot of very good industrial research programs. We learned then that most companies performing internal R&D can't compete with companies using subsidized academic R&D. That's an important lesson that the pharmaceutical industry is just now discovering, and it's an economic fact we need to fight. Reinstating requirements like minimum and audited internal R&D budgets for government contractors would also increase private spending on real research.
Not all research can use a "transition to private funding" model, so there is a need for continued blue sky research funding from the government. However, right now, we are saturated with the results of blue sky research and in serious need of support for transitional and applied research. As a nation, we are paying for this basic research, but we are not seeing the benefits of it. Some small amount is commercialized here, some is commercialized elsewhere, but a whole lot just gets forgotten. That's a waste, and it's stupid.
So basic research could be de-emphasized for a while, and non-government resources could be directed to lead to an overall increase in work and funding for researchers (while also delivering a profit... usually). That's another way of saying that a decrease in federal research funding could be done in a constructive way. We could even look at the labor market for cues as to whose graduate education we should be subsidizing. However, this is not what Trump is suggesting here... but it's nice to daydream about what an intelligent jobs-and-commerce science budget would actually look like.
You are either a complete Trump fanboy, or just hopelessly naive because this budget IN NO WAY reduces the debt. Never mind you silly argument of "living off a credit card" (if you don't know how public debt different from revolving debt, go spend some time reading or take ECON 200) let's just focus on the budget:
It includes a massive increase of $54 Billion to the military. This is the military that is already funded 3x the next highest military (in fact if you add #2-8 in spending together you don't equal it), that has spending more than transportation, education, housing, international affairs, science, labour, and agriculture COMBINED. We really need this? We need that much more money for the military?
On top of that they are also set to propose sweeping tax cuts, particularly for the rich.
This is NOT something that'll reduce the debt, not even reduce the rate of increase.
If you want to compare it to a family (which as I said, it doesn't really work like personal finances) this is a parent saying "No I'm sorry kids, we can't afford to get a new water heater even though ours isn't working well, and I can't get you new clothes, we have too much debt. In other news I'm buying myself another new car and cutting my hours to 35 per week!"
You show me a budget that cuts the military like everything else, that at the very least keeps taxes where they are if not increases them, I'll give the "we have to cut the debt" argument credit. However so long as it is "less taxes, more defense spending" you can GTFO with that crap.
Because it not only doesn't cut the military, ti increases it by $54 billion. That offsets any other cuts. Combined with them wanting big tax cuts for the wealthy (who have the most to tax) that means a higher deficit. If you thing is cutting the debt, these guys are not interested in it. This proposal does nothing in that regard.
Also cutting spending isn't the only way to balance the budget. Increasing income works too, either via raising taxes or increasing the overall economy. Well guess what? Many of the programs being cut are the kind of things that help economic growth. Science is that way. The US is rich and prosperous in no small part because of science and development. When you are on the forefront of new things, you make a lot of money. Cut that, and it cuts future growth.
to drop bombs on people. One of the leftists sites (politico? I forget) made the point that Trump's cuts to foreign aid will result in food scarcity and destabilization of regions Isis and the like are looking to expand into. Americans will be damned if we'll pay for some lazy foreigner to sit around eating their food but they'll gladly pump 'em full of lead that costs 5x as much. That crap shows up in our health care system too. Anything but prevention.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Social Security is NOT a liability it is self funded. It is separate and NOT hidden and not budgeted. You risk harm to it by misleading people to think it is a budget item. Medicare and Medicad are knock off programs which are not as well designed or protected but still are not normal budget items.
Separate taxes fund those programs and they go up or down based upon what the public puts into them. Not borrowed money. Social Security can never go bankrupt by design, it simply has less money to work with and goes down. If morons like the parent poster believe the lies they'll let crazy schemes to borrow against such programs or schemes to STEAL from them. Medicare and Medicad have suffered instead of improved to be more like social security and they should never be allowed to be morphed into anything like the failed spending process the rest of the government uses.
The whole monetary system we have as a big ponzi scheme; the debt isn't that big of a deal when the whole world system is huuuge a mess. Limiting factors on endless growth are beginning to impact our systems and fundamental changes will have to be made to any kind of system to adapt.
If you want to help medicad and medicare, you'd be addressing problems OUTSIDE of those programs because they are not the cause of the problems. Problems which impact our EXPENSIVE private health insurance too.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
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
Fuck you.
"From 1972 to today, the EPA has grown by 115%"
From https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget:
1972: $2,447,565,000
2016: $8,139,887,000
So, first up, you pulled numbers from your ass. Good job. It's actually increased by a factor of 3.3. Before your stupid ass starts gloating, let's look at what inflation has done since then.
From: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1&year1=1972&year2=2017
A 1972 dollar is worth $5.83 now. So in constant inflation adjusted dollars, the EPA budget only has 57% of the purchasing power it did in 1972.
Learn to do actual research, with actual sources, and don't quote some fucking "conservative premiere media watchdog." I mean, for fuck's sake, they can't even capitalize shit correctly. Why do you think they can do math?
What you say about GMOs is incorrect. There is no kill switch; you are either thinking of terminator seeds, which were never implemented, or the nature of hybrid biology, which a more of a fact of genetics than any corporate money making plot. Your lawsuit your linked is about actuallyl says the exact opposite of what you claim. The judge asked the prosecuting organic group to prove their claim that farmers are sued for unintended cross pollination; they could not. Sure, farmers have been sued by Monsanto for knowingly and intentionally selecting for and mass propagating transgenic seed which were the result of cross pollination, but at that is very different from the anti-GMO narrative (which is ironic since the farmers who were sued were trying to get GMOs without paying for them). To use an analogy, if I throw a DVD on your lawn, you cannot be sued for that, but if you take that DVD, mass copy it, and use it in a for profit manner, you can be. Simple as that. Rule of thumb: if an article portrays genetic engineering as injecting an ear of corn with blue stuff, it's probably sensationalist nonsense.
If there's evidence that radio waves are damaging, it certainty hasn't made much in the way of a splash in any scientific circles I'm familiar with.
If you want to claim a scientific high ground, you've chosen some bad examples.
Yes. The problem with GMOs isn't the GMOs, it's the business model behind them.
There are a significant number of Republicans who support fiscal restraint.
Bullshit. There isn't a single republican seriously asking for cutting the military budget or medicare which are by far the two biggest line items on the federal budget along with social security. Any discussion about "fiscal restraint" that does not involve cutting the military or medicare is a bogus argument. The republican's don't give a shit about fiscal restraint. They care about getting elected and promising to cut people's taxes (while ignoring the consequences of doing so) is a good way to do that. In reality we need to RAISE taxes to cover the entitlements we so clearly are unwilling to do without.
I have no problem cutting programs which are peripheral to core government. But I want that to be accompanied with tax cuts, which allows those who wish to support specific programs to "vote with their dollars."
Again, you are studiously ignoring the elephant in the room. Tax cuts? We aren't even paying for the government services we use. The federal deficit last year was right around $600B. You would have to cut basically every single program in the government except for the military, social security, medicare/medicaid, and interest on the debt to make up for the missing taxes. We basically fund almost the entire budget of our military (coincidentally around $600B) by borrowing it. Tax cuts? Taxes have to go up to pay for the stuff we already refuse to cut. Pay for what we buy before you talk to me about tax cuts. Otherwise you are just loading up your children and grandchildren with debt.
Trump's attack on Yemen in his first few weeks in office, which cost civilian and American military lives, is not a good indication he will discontinue the Obama policy. Trump is too worried about "looking weak".
You are welcome on my lawn.
The word 'average' actually has a meaning. Hint, the Electoral College skew toward low-population states is not part of that meaning.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
The "average American" did vote for Trump.
Only if you consider urban votes not worth counting. Democracy is supposed to be one person-one vote. Not one acre of land-one vote.
Drill baby drill - on Mars