|
This writing was accepted for publication in the 108 page perfect-bound ISSN#/ISBN# issue/book “The False Portrait” cc&d, v281 (the March 2018 issue) Order this as a 6"x9" paperback book:  |
|
|
| ||
Friend or Foe for The National Budget
John Amendall
The Clinton Administration (1993-2001) provided a balanced National budget. The Obama Administration (2009-2017) did not. The National debt increased from $10 trillion to almost $20 trillion. The Trump Administration (2017- ) proposed reducing the National debt in the next four years. It remains to be seen how this will be accomplished.
The National budget yields friends and foes. Some department levels remain the same from the preceding year while others decrease or increase. Tax paying citizens favor the mission of specific departments. Some prefer emphasis on military spending. Others prefer emphasis on pollution control, climate change or medical research. The following discussion focuses on science and is based on proposed draft budgets (circa May 2017) by the Trump Administration and Congress. Emphasis must be placed on draft proposals because the Administration and Congress will engage in uninspired trash talking, useless arm waving and outrageous arm wrestling before the 2018 budget is realized and revealed.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) accounts for about half of all civilian basic research dollars. The Administration proposed cutting the NIH budget 22% ($7.5 billion) from the preceding year. The House proposed a 3.2% raise to $35.2 billion. Moreover the House measure blocked the Administration’s plan to reduce payments to cover overhead costs of research from 28% of NIH’s external research spending to 10%. The House bill also dismissed the Administration’s plan to abolish NIH’s global health center.
The Administration proposed $19.7 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for its overall budget while the House proposed a record $19.9 billion.
The Administration proposed a reduction of 1% to NASA’s science office. In contrast the House supported a 1% raise to $5.9 billion. This increase was prompted in part by a $220 million increase for a planned multibillion mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa.
The Administration proposed a 19% reduction for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) which includes funding for climate science. The House bill would impose a 14% ($710 million) reduction to NOAA’s current $5.7 billion budget.
The Administration initially proposed a 11% decrease for the National Science Foundation (NSF). The House reduced NSF’s current budget $7.47 billion by 1.8%. The above proposed draft budgets were gleaned from an article in Science (July 7, 2017). The following reflects the author’s interpretations and opinions.
Sentient beings must take issue with any Administration proposing to reduce NIH’s budget by 22%. While all government agencies would benefit from more accountable business practices reducing a budget dealing with human health is unresponsive to its citizens’ needs. The House bill is clearly more proactive than the Administration’s.
Still the House bill favors existing overhead payments for external research spending. For example, as a former science researcher with a $100,000 grant I might witness approximately $20,000 to $25,000 taken off the top leaving $75,000 to conduct the research. Presumably the overhead defrayed the cost of my release time from faculty teaching and maintenance of laboratories already in existence. In a public institution faculty salaries were already provided by the state. Overhead provided by the grant was designated to hire a temporary instructor for the class time I was missing to conduct research. This simply wasn’t always done. The saved money was used by chairs and deans to promote their favorite projects.
Over the years colleges and universities have argued overhead rates with federal funding agencies. With overhead from multi million dollar grants new laboratories were constructed and new buildings were initiated. The Administration’s proposed overhead reduction is more favorable to researchers and tax payers than chairs and deans.
The House bill also ignored the Administration’s plan to abolish NIH’s global health center. While an affluent nation may help undeveloped ones with consulting and visitations by specialists it is difficult to reconcile permanent financial support when we can’t presently accommodate our own children’s afflictions. TV presentations featuring bald headed children experiencing side effects of chemotherapy and radiation treatment should not be ignored. Funding allocated for medical research for our children should be a priority. The Administration’s position is consistent with this theme.
In regards to NASA I stand in awe and admiration at what scientists, engineers and technical staffs have accomplished. Further I support their research efforts. But presently space funding far exceeds terrestrial funding. Does a multibillion dollar mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa or even a more expensive mission to Mars to determine whether it has water or ever any evidence of such make sense, when sections of the U. S. experience drastic costly droughts on one hand and life threatening floods on the other.. It would make more sense to focus on the conditions producing these droughts and floods and how we can mitigate these problems. Both the Administration’s and Congress’s proposals fly (no pun intended) in the face of these proposed flights. Moreover cost overruns for NASA equipment and flights are legion. Apparently cost overruns don’t bother politicians in states benefiting from NASA’s activities.
Critics have charged that NASA’s effort is a disguised preparation for war in space. The nation that rules space would have a considerable advantage over nations with little or no experience or appreciable technology. Additional nations are gradually entering the space race.
Both the Administration and the House proposed reductions of 19% and 14% respectively for NOAA’s current budget. In view of President Trump’s dismissal of climate change it’s not surprising that the Administration would propose such a reduction. However, it is curious that his most ardent House opponents have also imposed reduced funding for NOAA including climate change.
Interaction of atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial natural forces has been well known for years. With climate change the effect of these interactions is becoming more pronounced. Coastal states are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, hurricanes, associated storm surges, increased beach erosion, and coastal flooding. The East and Gulf coasts are more vulnerable than the West coast. Several major cities, Boston, New York (Hurricane Sandy), Miami, New Orleans (Katrina) would be targeted and greatly effected. Further extensive effects of climate change would not be limited to coastal areas.
Tornados and increased heavy precipitation producing widespread flooding in the southeast are consistent with conditions of climate change. In the U.S. more people die from flooding than from any other natural agent. In the face of demonstrated natural processes and future predictions the Administration and House proposals have imposed reduced funding for NOAA. In addition the United States Geological Survey (USGS) which is responsible for research and monitoring terrestrial processes including coastal erosion, inland flooding and hydrography consistently receive level funding or reduced funding. NOAA’s and the USGS’s research have natural interactions. With the specter of increased flooding in the southeast and droughts in the southwest this is another example where public policy has ignored or poorly understood useful scientific input. Both agencies would benefit from a modest reduction of NASA’s massive budget.
Spending bills for other important agencies have not yet been released at this time (July 2017). The National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been targeted for large cuts by the Administration. The Senate’s budget bill still remains to be reviewed which will add another important development in the budget enterprise.
As of now the proposed budgets overwhelmingly favor NASA and NIH with NSF holding steady. NOAA and the USGS are outside looking up and in.
In summary the proposed budget has been friendly to NASA and NIH, neutral to NSF and negative to NOAA and the USGS. While the Trump Administration deserves credit attempting to reduce the national debt, some of its budget cuts are considered way too deep and ill conceived. It all depends whose ox is gored in terms of friend or foe.
