Slashdot Log In
House and Senate Slash Science Budget Increases
Posted by
Soulskill
on Wed Dec 19, 2007 02:25 PM
from the dont-spend-it-all-in-one-place dept.
from the dont-spend-it-all-in-one-place dept.
An anonymous reader writes "As reported by Science magazine, Congress has cut science funding increases for fiscal year 2008. This comes in spite of the earlier announced presidential initiative to increase funding for basic research to improve the future economic competitiveness of the United States. At best, funding increases are minor for some agencies such as NIH and NIST. Other agencies received severe cutbacks, like the Department of Energy Office of Science, which received $342 million less than expected. In particular, despite previous international commitments, funding for the ITER fusion reactor experiment is completely cut off. The NOVA neutrino oscillation experiment at Fermilab is also canceled, as well as R&D on the planned International Linear Collider. The Fermilab operating budget is cut by almost 20%, and may result in mass layoffs."
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: Green Light For ITER Fusion Project 359 comments
brian0918 writes, "A seven-member international consortium has signed a formal agreement to build the $12.8 billion International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). From the article: 'Representatives from China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States signed the pact, sealing a decade of negotiations. The project aims to research a clean and limitless alternative to dwindling fossil fuel reserves, although nuclear fusion remains an unproven technology.' ITER will be built 'in Cadarache, southern France, over the course of a decade, starting in 2008.'" If ITER is successful, a commercial reactor could be built by 2040. Funny, I seem to remember fusion researchers from Livermore in the 70s say that commercial power was 20 years away...
Submission: U.S. House/Senate slash science budgets by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Science: US House Approves Over $300 Million For Science Agencies 176 comments
sciencehabit notes that the US House of Representatives has allotted an additional $337.5 million in budget increases divided amongst four science agencies. NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science will each receive an additional $62.5 million, and the National Institutes of Health will receive $150 million. The money will help to offset the decision to reduce budget increases earlier this year. Early plans for the money include the training of new math and science teachers, and another reprieve for FermiLab's financial troubles.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I'm not, but I easily could be, as could yoou or anyone else. There's no system of due process associated with that list. Which leads me to ask, isn't the enemy closer than we think?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Two Theys (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not how the US election system works. Only a part of congress got changed,
Even then, the two-party system ensures that you only have a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, who both were for controlling the US public through directing their fears towards a designated enemy. Neither are too interested in finding out why other people hate us so much, and change that.
Parent
Re:Two Theys (Score:4, Interesting)
True, but I also think some of the attention should be here at home, trying to find out just why others hate us so, and what we can do to change that image. Not just pour funds into a bigger stick to hit back with, i.e. the military.
Parent
Re:Two Theys (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of these people we could work with, and they'd be happy if we changed some of our more annoying habits. Some of them would even be appeased at what lots of Americans ourselves want the direction of our country to be. Others would take much more work and would mean a much deeper concession on our part. Some we'll never appease and will always hate the US and want all of our people dead. I'm all for working with one end of that spectrum. I think we could make some compromises that would be acceptable to the middle of that spectrum so people wouldn't really care for us but wouldn't want to see our demise. The most violently opposed to the US government, the American people, and our very ideals will never be pleased as long as we exist. I'm not sure what to do about them other than to hit them harder than they hit us, unless we're okay with their goals of destroying us.
As Buckminster Fuller said, the end game in politics is always to pick up a gun. You can't really win at relationships with others. You can just hope to permanently delay losing. Once you've lost your position of friendship or of lukewarm rivalry, you either start over with an even harder struggle to get it back, or you go into a mode of bigger sticks and swifter swings. With an enemy that won't try to talk to you, you can't become friendly. With one who won't talk to you and keeps attacking, you have to fend them off. I think Iraq was well enough contained. I think Iran can probably be contained, and they might (although it's a slight chance) start to open up. They've shown a few promising signs of that. The Taleban had to fall, because there was no rescuing that from where it had been.
Parent
Re:Two Theys (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, you and I know that "precipitous" and "cut and run" complaints was bullshit stalling. But Bush didn't just steal an election and fight off angry mobs: something like 50M+ people voted for him twice, including after 2 years of Iraq War. But Bush isn't obstructing just ending the war. He's also obstructing other action to keep the huge debts he's accumulating (government, personal and corporate) from destroying the economy. Bush won't be obstructing cuts to science, so they're vulnerable.
And lots of the science we're talking about, including at the Energy Department, is designed to keep us in the same energy dilemma: either petrofuel or nukes (even the fusion stuff is a product of the fission industry). Much of the rest is Star Wars. Ultimately they're mostly pet projects of the Republicans who ran Congress the last 14 years, and specifically Bush who ran the country unopposed the past 6. During which time science, especially government science, has been abused and perverted. So I expect a lot of it will get cleaned out by the new guys.
FWIW, the new guys mostly represent states with serious science industries (on average, more serious than in the "heartland"), that have been neglected in favor of Republican pork. I expect the Democratic pork to be even heavier, so the new science programs will probably be even more productive. But probably not quite as much purely military and contrived corporate welfare.
Parent
Re:Two Theys (Score:5, Informative)
Congressional pork declined from $29 billion in 2006 to just $13.2 billion in 2007. As can be seen here [cagw.org].
Here's a nice graph [cagw.org] showing how the number of pork projects in the US
Look: I'm British. So I have to search online to get the American facts beyond the soundbites and insults. But I work from one axiom: Conservatives will not be basing their opinions or policies on truth. Doesn't matter the country, doesn't matter the period in history. And you know what? I can find other examples where it's happened too (like when Conservatives in Britain tried to scare people with MRSA in the 2005 Election, blaming it on the National Health Service and demanding a health service based on the US system. Then the stats came out: you were more than twice as likely to die of MRSA in the US than in England/Wales in 2005, and that was in a year where every news reporter was looking under every mop bucket in British hospitals to find the bug. Seriously. 1,629 deaths amongst 52 million in England/Wales, 18,650 deaths amongst 295 million Americans. Do the maths).
This ain't just opinion. It's opinion based exclusively on cold hard numbers and facts. I expect to get marked down for citing the facts, before I get upped to Insightful.
Parent
Re:Two Theys (Score:4, Funny)
The war in Iraq is a ploy. It's a show to distract from what is really going on. This funding cut is the same thing. We're just trying to fool everyone into thinking we don't care about science, but the funds are still there. If it wasn't for this war (and many others), the aliens would come and wipe out all of humanity. But we distract them and make them think we will destroy ourselves on our own, all the while building out our science infrastructure to be able to repel them once they realize our game. We have lulled them into thinking we will destroy Earth for them, so they haven't come to do it themselves. We just need to buy ourselves enough time to make space-based weaponry work. We also need to make them think we have lackluster science. The Iraq war and this article show that we are winning.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Th
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
This will be the frist of about 890 times you will see this said today:
THEY DID NOT CUT SPENDING! THEY REDUCED THE ANNUAL INCREASE!
Saying they cut spending is like saying you got a pay cut because your raise this year wasn't as big as last year's. It's not the same.Parent
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that we are spending money on war that the United States is not collecting through taxes or other revenues. Thus, it ends up as debt, and much of it is foreign debt, indeed debt to some of the very same middle-eastern countries that are behind the problem. Also, it is not all spent upon the United States, a good deal of it goes to foreign outfits like Dubai Ports (ship service) and of course the fuel cost goes to the middle-east too.
Parent
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, though, can you think of a worse place to cut funding? Reading lines like, "The Fermilab operating budget is cut by almost 20%, and may result in mass layoffs" makes me cringe. Sounds like a recipe for Gerald Bull [astronautix.com] times ten.
Parent
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
We should pull out of Iraq, start actually fighting the war in Afghanistan, and fund science up to wazoo.
Parent
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can cut menial jobs one year and ramp them up next year without any problems. Construction would be a good example. On the science side, you can't fire scientists and then think you can get the same results next year when you increase funding once more.
The fusion cuts are the dumb of the dumbest cuts they could make. That program needs all the backing it can get precisely because it is long term. Fusion, long term, is the only thing that can guarantee stable and low cost concentrated energy not to mention all the material and hard science innovations that will spin off of it. All the law makers should be dragged over hot coals for this dumbass move.
It also proves that the agri/oil lobby is stronger than ever and law makers are either stupid or just don't care. The food=>fuel will be a worse environmental boondoggle than the current sub-prime lending chaos for the financial system.
Parent
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
What if the rest of the world stops paying for it? I mean, if oil producing nations like Iran and Venezuela switched its reserved to the Euro and then China slowly stopped buying our debt?
Oh wait...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not a reasonable claim because it isn't inevitable. However, if you jump off a cliff, it is entirely reasonable for you to say "I will splatter when I hit the bottom." That's what the interest on the war debt is - inevitable. Acknowledging it must be paid is not an unreasonable position to take. In fact, people who don't take such a viewpoint are likely to have a lot of trouble managing debt of their own. Borrowed money isn't free; int
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Can I claim to have a PhD because someday I might earn one? Or would that be a lie?
Parent
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
But this is Slashdot, and you were modded "insightful" for being staggeringly, blindingly wrong.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As a % of GDP the US national debt hasn't changed much in the last 20 years. It's low compared to the WWII period, and high compared to the 70's, but about average for the last two decades.
Re:Well, what did you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice.
Parent
Re:The debt Cannot ever be repaid (Score:4, Insightful)
The national debt has shrunk at times (after the end of the gold standard) and no such deflation occurred, empirically demonstrating the falsity of this claim.
Um, what? That doesn't even make sense. Currency now is an asset for the holder, a liability for the issuer. This is equally true of the commodity-backed currency Paul supports. The only thing its not true of is pure commodity (not commodity-backed) currency, where currency is an asset for the holder and a liability for no one, such as trading gold coins for the metal value of the gold. If you seriously think that such a system is a "healthy" monetary system (or really a "new" one, rather than an old one replaced successively by commodity-backed and then fiat systems because each succeeding system works better), well, you don't know much about money systems.
Parent
War will save us ... (Score:5, Funny)
Half a trillion dollars (http://www.fcw.com/online/news/151127-1.html [fcw.com]) for what?
Seems appropriate (Score:3, Insightful)
Who elected this bunch of goofballs in Congress? We really need a major change and I don't know that either of the major parties will do what needs to be done.
Ask yourself (Score:5, Interesting)
Then you will know why science gets the short stick. This isn't about an Administration hostile to science, it is all about a Congress hostile to anything but keeping themselves in office. Heaven knows they would rather stay in office than live under the laws they inflict on us.
Change is not coming to this country until we throw off the shackles of the Democratic and Republican elite. Sure we may find good men and women among them but I can tell you that the last person I would want for President from either party is anyone from Congress. Yet these self appointed masters of us, and I say self appointed because of the games they play with redistricting that diminishes our vote, skillfully play supporters of both parties off each other. Combined with an arrogant elite in the press and upper reaches of society we dutifully play along.
Our education system suffers from the same, the teachers union is more important to members of Congress from the votes it provides than any child. No Child Left Behind became a pariah among these groups because it dared to put children before voters. No, the geeks of this nation here will rail against war in forums and do nothing to change the situation. The war's benefit to the parties in power is that it distracts us from the real crimes going on. Yes wars are bad but the fleecing of America is far worse. The NINE THOUSAND plus earmarks in this bill should convince the voters that while the party in power may change the actions of Congress do not. Yet the public's ire will redirected at corporate America and the evil rich and politicians will rest comfortably in their ivory tower and look down upon us with disdain, confident we are more interested in the next American idol or that Brittney's sister is pregnant.
Parent
Re:Seems appropriate (Score:5, Informative)
Secondly, they are hoping to make a model of this trail as an alternative to automotive transportation.
Thirdly, to Bruce, in Minneapolis, they are converting [midtowngreenway.org] old (heavy) rail corridors to mixed use green-way and light-rail or street car use.
Parent
Re:Seems appropriate (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Preserving the Lines (Score:4, Informative)
So in fact the government is doing exactly that. I'd love to see them converted to underground rails. Eventually they probably will, because we ain't never getting those flying cars.
Parent
To all of you who voted: (Score:5, Insightful)
As it should be (Score:3, Funny)
Let all those other countries blow their earnings on speculative research. After all, where has that ever lead?
Politics, meet Spite. (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, we have two parties more than eager to cut off their noses (and everyone else's) just to spite their collective face.
Idiots. Where's the fscking "reset button"? Would be nice if someone actually gave a damn about term limits, instead of merely promising to institute it or try and claim it to be a bad thing.
Gr.
Re: (Score:3)
No. The dems are spineless pussies [slashdot.org] and the GOP are whiny little bitches [slashdot.org]. Stupidity does abound, but they mostly stick to those agendas.
Hey, what do we need science for anyway? (Score:4, Insightful)
How much has Bush spent on the Iraq debacle?
2003: $48 billion
2004: $59 billion
2005: $81 billion
2006: $94 billion ?
2007: ?
2008: ?
2009: ?
2010: ?
The estimates are that it will end up costing the U.S. over a Trillion. That's money that has gone down a deep, dark drain, right into the coffers of the well connected. That's money that could have been used to help the U.S. rebuild it's aging infrastructure, to correct it's education system, it's aging power grid, it's R&D sector... The list goes on and on.
Sad, really sad.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whenever I think about this, I cannot help but think that Bush and his cronies may have in fact pushed the USA over its peak. Russia is gaining steam rapidly under Putin's autocratic rule, China is also advancing rapidly economically and technologically. Europe, though certainly not to the tune of China, has also been advancing rapidly in science and technology.
Even if we put an end to this silly war right now, does the US stand a chance at recovering? There is so much ground lost can we make up for it al
rumors at Fermilab (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/ [fnal.gov]
Science is in fact booming... (Score:5, Funny)
There's a Bush running the White House.
There's a KGB agent running the Kremlin.
China is a black box.
We're not getting along with Iran.
There's a White House coverup story on the front page of the paper.
We could start with people learning to do arithmet (Score:3, Insightful)
Then learn to think for yourself.
Damn parrots.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hm. In the U.S., the wealthiest 1% pay 36.9% of the taxes (cite [irs.gov]). Sounds like quite a share.
That statistic is meaningless on its own. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's say they own 90% of real property and take home 90% of the income, then that 36.9% figure you quote would seem really low, wouldn't it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First P... oh hell (Score:4, Informative)
Cite. [wikipedia.org]
But yes, I concur with your incredulity at the grandparent: yes the, very rich pay a hell of a lot in taxes, but they make (and own) a hell of a lot, too.Parent
Re:Wow. Accurate reporting. Not (Score:5, Interesting)
The U.S. is abandoning large scale high energy particle physics at this point. Or maybe not
Parent
Re:Wow. Accurate reporting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The first hurdle is in comparing this budget behavior with employment practices. These things are not even remotely similar, unless you are talking about a business that is hemorrhaging cash and is on the fast track to bankruptcy. The fact remains that the United States is
Re:Ron Paul (Score:4, Interesting)
For example, there is the issue of things like building a billion dollar super-collider. It has obvious use in theoretical physics, but the question is, how interesting is theoretical physics to the nation? Should Joe the Farmer be forced at gunpoint to pay for high-energy research that he has no interest in? Of course not, he should be able to vote with his wallet on whether or not that research gets done. And if his interest happens to be in pretty pictures from an orbiting telescope, so be it.
That said, I'm still not voting for Ron Paul. Why is it that even vaguely libertarian candidates have to be so loony and supported by even more loony loons.
Parent
Re:LOL democratics (Score:5, Funny)
- The Vietnam war is over. Yours isn't, son
- The Clean Air Act [wikipedia.org]. How's your generation doing with that "global warming" thing?
- We got the Clean Water Act [wikipedia.org] passed, your generation drinks bottled water
- Led Zeppelin
... and you got what? - We smoked pot, [wikipedia.org] your generation smokes crack [uncyclopedia.org]
- Our generation knew how to use an apostrophe [angryflower.com] as in "hippies in the '60s" (and how to spell lose, loser)
- We had Douglas Adams, you have, er...
- We had Monty Python, you have... Kramer? [wikipedia.org]
- Hippies had ????????????? Your generation has PROFIT!
Now get off my lawn. And no you can't have your balls back.-mcgrew
Parent