Beginning of the end for government-funded scientific research [in America]?

[jmason52]

The point is that the reason that defense, social security, medicare, and medicaid are off the table is because you have millions of people scream like hell when their turkey is on the table. If you shut up when your turkey is on the table, then you are the one that is going to be sliced.

Case in point: Not all that long ago, Sec of Defense Gates recommended eliminating one of the many, duplicative fighter jet programs currently being built. (Every service needs their own very specific fighter, you see, because it is the color of the pilot's uniform, not the mission required, that's REALLY important to DoD). The savings were not enough to really matter, but they were there.

Who screamed the loudest? Your members of Congress! This fighter had to be built because blah . . .blah . . .blah, and, oh yes, it had jobs in their states. This is why defense is sacrosanct: some congressperson might lose votes because he did something, although fitting and proper, adversely affecting his district. Never forget that our elected officials don't give a fig for our desires; their sole desire is to be re-elected.

Granted, jobs are important. So let's recoup them from Pakistan, Mexico, and all the other slave labor countries big business has outsourced to in order to increase their profits and their CEO's and Board's annual bonuses, and return them here. Then, maybe, we could address true Government cuts without all the whining.

 

[Shackleford]

You can't keep espousing the point of view that things are "unnecessary" or "necessary"- arbitrary terms that leave you wide open to criticism. In government, these matters are subjective. Montana's constituency doesn't need to keep developing a second engine for the F-35, but John Boehner's constituency in Ohio does. Average Joe Yahoo in rural Oklahoma doesn't need DOE to maintain funding levels for High Energy Physics, but the Boston HE Consortium does. It's all relative.

They are not arbitrary terms and they are not subjective. The federal government has clearly-delineated powers in its Constitutional framework. The Founding Fathers intentionally put constraints on the federal government because they knew it would grow out of control like it has.

You bring up defense spending. The federal government is responsible for defense and national security. How best to achieve those goals and the details are certainly up for debate. It is also the job of the federal government to balance the special interests in the country so that one or a few do not exert a disproportionate amount of influence or control in government. I'm not certain of the details, but I've been told a story of how in the 70s/80s the Northeast was experiencing a pretty deep recession. Congress was also working on a budget for a new jet fighter program. They decided to land the program and funding in the Northeast to help stave off a near-depression. I'm not sure of why they were in a recession in the first place, though.

 

[WhoWee]

Late last night, I got an email from the APS news thing (American Physical Society I believe). I'm a member, so no doubt those of you who are also members got this email. For those that didn't, here it is:



Just to give an overview if you didn't read it all, there are some major cuts being made by the Republicans in Congress to NSF and DOE, something like reducing it by 10%. That's huge. What does this mean to science being done in the US? I was just reading the NASA thread, two-fish made a relevant comment that it may happen that the US cuts funding now, which stunts our economic growth, which in turn requires Congress to cut more funding and so on.

Basically, are we screwed? Your thoughts.

From you post:

(my bold)
"DETAILS: The Continuing Resolution under which the federal government
has been operating since October 1, 2010 and which is set to expire
on March 4 contains approximately $530 billion for civilian programs
out of a total budget of $3.54 trillion. With only 7 months of the
fiscal year remaining, the $100 billion House reduction would be
taken from unexpended balances totaling about $300 billion. The
legislation, H.R. 1, prepared by the House Republican leadership
at the behest of extreme fiscal conservatives, would have the effect
of slashing the remaining balances of the NSF and NIH budgets by
almost 10 percent and the DOE Office of Science and NIST by more
than 30 percent. Applied science programs would be hit even harder.
Program reductions are summarized in the links provided on the
Website of the House Appropriations Committee:

http://appropriations.house.gov/inde...Release_id=261."[/I]

Basically, $100 billion of $300 billion that hasn't been spent is being taken back?