Sequester

Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on the Sequester.
The is a result of a 2011 law, which was a compromise to allow an increase in the federal debt in exchange for a process to obtain reductions in federal spending. However, the reductions, known as the Sequester, only represent a smaller increase in future spending rather than real cuts.
While the Sequester has been helpful, we are still on an unsustainable spending program and debt increase that continues to harm our economy and will eventually lead to destruction of the US as an economic and political entity. You are hopeful that Congress will set politics aside and seriously address this unsustainable economic program
While I agree completely with your position, I see that you have no recommendations of how we can reverse this unsustainability nor do I. As long as the Democrats retain control of the Senate and we have a Democratic President, it seems to me there is no hope for change, and there is nothing we can do about it. The people will decide in 2014 whether to continue this unsustainable program or not.

Funding the Federal Government

Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
I have read your form letter on funding the federal government.
In October, the House proposed funding the federal government piece by piece. The Democratic Senate disagreed, which led to a partial 13-day shutdown of the federal government. Funding Obamacare became an integral part of the discussion. The government was reopened, without any progress in funding government operations piece by piece, and with no limitation on funding Obamacare.
You voted against ending the shutdown, because the "deal" to end it did nothing to give relief to the millions of Americans who are hurting because of Obamacare.
Because of inept rhetoric capability of Republicans, they have been saddled with a negative impression of having caused an undesirable shutdown. I don't accept that position. During the 13-day shutdown, no one seemed to be especially damaged, and it was proven that life could still go on quite well in the US without full government operation. However, these were all ancillary to what appears to be the main point, which was to defund Obamacare.
I suggest you may want to no longer look at these abstract ways to inactivate an already passed law. It is not that Obamacare is a good thing. It is terrible and will lead to the destruction of the United States as a significant economic and political entity, unless that law is repealed. However, it will be up to the will of the people in the 2014 election. The people will either vote for continued Democratic liberalism, which is in effect socialism leading to destruction, or do an about-face and allow for the repeal of such disastrous laws as Obamacare.
However, referring to the real title of this message, which is Funding the Federal Government, there will be another controversy on extending the federal debt and approving the present program of federal expenditures. As you know, annual federal expenditures strongly exceed revenues, which involves continued borrowing. This is also an indirect part of the Socialist program, which puts us on the road to destruction. It is this area, where I suggest you apply your greatest attention and resolve.

Obamacare Will Destroy US Economy

Open Email to Speaker Boehner:

Dear Speaker Boehner,
    I've just read your newsletter in which you say the problem with Obamacare is not just a website, it's the whole law. You mention not keeping previous premiums, not keeping previous doctors, and higher premiums.
    Unfortunately, you missed the two major problems, which work together to create disaster.
    It Is a socialistic program which takes assets from higher income people and gives it to low income people. It is also a grandiose entitlement program covering everybody. For those reasons, it will destroy the US economy as high come people find ways to avoid paying into the system and as the huge payouts of the entitlement bankrupt the country.

Deceptive Reporting

    The Washington Times said today, "Senate leaders announce agreement to end shutdown, raise debt", giving the impression that it's a done deal to end the government shutdown and increase the debt limit.
    Not true! As one looks further into the article, one sees that this is a unilateral Senate action, which is no surprise. The Senate has had a preponderance of Communist/Democrats all along, and it has been clear from the start that they want to give Pres. Obama a blank check.
    The reason we have had a partial government shutdown of 17% and no action on raising the debt limit for government borrowing is because of the House. The House is responsible for initiating all government funding. Contrary to the Senate, it has a majority of Republicans, who see the handwriting on the wall. That is, the United States is destined to become a third world country, unless it reduces its spending and controls its borrowing limit. House Speaker Boehner has done a good job of keeping the Senate and President at bay until recently. He then started to cave, but fortunately there were enough brave Republicans to stiffen his backbone, and as of this writing it appears that the House will not give Obama the blank check he and the Treasury Department say they need.
    To resolve this conflict to the longer term advantage of the country, the House merely needs to say "no" to almost any Senate proposal that comes to it. Up until now, the reverse has been true in that the House has made many offers to which the Senate has said "no". That puts the Treasury Department and the President on the spot. They can scream and holler, which they will, but they will have to decide to allocate available funds to bond debt payment, for which the House can claim a semblance of victory with government finance. Alternatively, the Treasury Department and the Pres. may decide to default on the interest, which will lower the US credit rating. That credit rating reduction will only then be the fault of the Administration providing the Republicans give up their practice of mostly remaining silent, and instead scream and holler at the Administration for not paying the debt, even though it had the money.

Do Not Raise the Debt Limit

Open Email to Rep. Tim Huelskamp (KS):

Dear Rep. Huelskamp,

    Congratulations for what I'm about to explain!
    According to the Washington Times, House Speaker Boehner proposed an increase in the government debt limit and approval of government spending while attaching a few strings. The general interpretation of this offer was considered very favorable to the Democrats and the President. In spite of that, Pres. Obama said that he would veto the bill.    Simultaneously, it is said that a group of conservative Republicans in the House registered such strong objection, that the bill was not developed. The conservative Republicans were not named in the Washington Times article, but by implication, you are one of them. It is reported that you told CNN news that the bill was going to raise the debt ceiling hundreds of billions of dollars with no change in spending.
    Not raising the debt limit should have no effect on ability to pay current interest on government bond debt, since there is adequate tax revenue to cover this. However, the option to pay lies with the Treasury Department, and it could arbitrarily decide not to pay the interest, which is doubtful.
    However, other government debt obligations might be adversely affected, for which reason one of the three existing credit rating agencies has said that not raising the debt limit could be a precursor for downgrading the credit worthiness of the government, which would increase required interest rates for new government bond issues. It should also be noted that the other two credit rating agencies have so far been noncommittal. The obvious reason is that it is clear to any financial analyst that a continual raising of a credit limit, without some plan of repaying the debt, will eventually end in disaster, at which time the credit worthiness of the borrower will be essentially zero and interest required on any future issues of government bonds will be sky high. For example, the insolvency problem in Greece caused new government bond interest to rise to 18%. It is now down to 8%, because of European Union support., But if the US follows the same pattern who will there be to support the US?
    Net conclusion. Thank you, Rep.Huelskamp and your conservative associates, for trying to bite the bullet now, in order to avoid future real default with sky-high interest rates equivalent to what Germany suffered after World War I.

Lies about Debt Default

Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:

Dear Speaker Boehner,
    The Washington Times says, "Senate leaders explored the outlines of a deal Monday that would end the two-week-old government shutdown and give the Treasury Department enough borrowing room to stave off a potential default this month, but all sides cautioned that the specifics are all still up for negotiation".
    The question is who is doing the lying? Is it the Washington Times, the Senate mouthpieces, the Treasury Department, or all three?
    We have enough data on tax revenues and the amount of the payable bond interest to know that the interest can be easily paid. If it is not paid, it would be because of an option on the part of the Pres. Obama and his Administration. In other words any debt default on government issued securities would be caused by the President.
    Are you going to let these people get away with the basic lie that an extension of the debt limit is necessary to avoid default on interest payment of government issued securities or do you want to scream the truth?

Government Startup versus Reduced Spending

Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    I refer to your recent form letter on the government shutdown.    In that letter you said excessive government spending dampens job creation and stalls economic growth.  Congress and the President need to implement the spending cuts and structural entitlement reforms necessary to strengthen the long-term fiscal integrity of our country. I agree completely.
    You also said a government shutdown creates further uncertainty and instability in the economy.  I am eager to end the shutdown and move ahead with the fiscal and economic reforms our country so urgently needs.
    It is in this second statement, that we may have a problem. The question is how eager are you to end the shutdown? You must have noticed that Speaker Boehner has made substantial progress against the principles of funding big government advocated by the Senate Democrats and the President. By standing firm in his beliefs and using the strategy of piecemeal funding of government, Speaker Boehner has already achieved some success in government fund reduction and has both Democrats and the President in a state of panic.
    I hope that your eagerness to end the shutdown will not destroy all of the good work that Speaker Boehner has put into his workable program.

Government Spending

    The Washington Times says, "Obama doesn’t back down, keeps pressure on Boehner, GOP".
    It should have more appropriately said, "Boehner and the GOP don't back down, keep pressure on Obama".

Scorekeeping on Government Shutdown

Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:

Dear House Speaker Boehner,
    The Washington Times says that with the 17% government shutdown, key agencies are no longer producing financial reports and this makes it impossible for Congress to determine what action should be taken on government spending.
    That position is WRONG!    Anybody who watches football games can tell who is winning without ever looking at the scoreboard. True, the scoreboard gives additional information, but the fundamental of who wins the game is not changed by concentration on those numbers.
    In the case of the 17% government shutdown, all signs show that piecemeal government funding is an effective strategy. It obviously reduces expenses, which is the major requirement. It is also known to be effective by listening to the howling of Democrats and the President.
    The next issue is extending the public debt limit to allow increased borrowing. This needs to be handled in the same way as all government spending. It is obvious that the only purpose of increasing debt is to obtain more money so that it can be spent, which is exactly contrary to the long-term needs of the government and its people. The Obama Administration has tried to confuse the issue by claiming that unless the debt limit is increased, we will need to default on payment of government bond interest, which would be a worldwide disaster. Baloney! There's plenty of money to pay government bond interest. It is only a matter of how the available money is allocated. Obviously, we advocate paying our debts and avoiding accumulation of new debt. Government finance is not exactly the same as personal finance, but there are many similarities. On a personal basis, one must pay the interest on the credit card, but it is also undesirable to engage in any new spending, which would then require payment of even more interest.

Tough Times Ahead for Research?

Open Email to Representatives and Senators:

Dear Representatives and Senators,
    The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is a large nongovernmental organization. However, many of its members obtain financial research support from various government agencies. Last May, it held its annual form on science and technology policy, at which time government funding for private research was discussed.
    The forum bemoaned the fact that projected government research funding in 2013 would be back to the same level as it was in 2002. It also showed that the six major US government funders would be supplying 6.5% less money than it did the previous year. The actual funding reduction would be $9 billion. Total funding would be $133 billion, which I believe most people would agree is a substantial amount of money. I believe this is about $1000 per US resident.
    It is unclear what may have happened since last May, especially in view of the 17% partial government shutdown. However, assuming we're still on the same track, I congratulate Congress for the reduction. I would like to make it as a strong congratulation, but I am limited by my conclusion that $133 billion is much, much, too much for the federal government to be doling out to universities for mostly questionable research projects. I was also sorry to see that, in the recent efforts to use piecemeal funding of various sections of government, the funding of the National Institute of Health was approved. I suppose that because it has the name "health" in its title, it received some sort a special priority. However, I believe the only justification for any significant NIH funding is for the Disease Control Center section in Atlanta. It should be noted that of the various government agencies, the dole for research was largest for the NIH. It amounted to $30 billion last year.
    May I strongly suggest that if Congress is really serious about reducing government spending, with the intention of establishing a long-term fiscally viable government, it could start with these silly research grants which are a significant drain on our resources.

Reducing Government Employment

Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:

Dear Speaker Boehner,
    Congratulations on your move to guarantee back pay for all federal employees now on furlough. The Washington Times says, the bill ensures
that hundreds of thousands of furloughed government workers will receive full back pay after lawmakers strike a deal to reopen the federal government. I see the House vote was unanimous, and it is almost certain that the Senate and Pres. will approve the measure early next week.
I suppose you had to do this as part of your piecemeal government funding strategy and to maintain public support. However, I'm sure you recognize this also defeats in part our objective to reduce the size of government. The more government employees we have on the payroll, the larger is our government, and the more we spend
You will now have to start thinking of some other mechanisms by which to reduce government employment, if we are ever going to make any headway on reducing expenses and establishing a program for long-term government continuity. Unfortunately, I have no suggestions at this time.

Government Shutdown

Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:

Dear Speaker Boehner,
    There been three developments since yesterday. A woman on Fox News said the public wants a termination of the government shutdown. Fox News also said some Republicans are ready to support a Continuing Resolution. Chuck Hagel called back to work 400,000 civilian employees, presumably with pay.
    Let's take them one at a time.    It is not surprising that the public would generally like to have some form of government operating. The general public is probably not conversant enough with the details to know that the present shutdown is relatively minor, which I will demonstrate later. In addition, there are likely many persons who feel that their entitlements are jeopardized, and they don't want that, even if they were to recognize that entitlements are driving the government to a Communist/Socialist form with Dictator Obama eventually reducing civilian benefits in an attempt to maintain as long as possible an operating government destined to fail. Examples are East Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba, and North Korea.
    It is highly likely that any Republicans who would support a Continuing Resolution are likely not really Republicans interested in the continuity of the United States, but may be Democrats in disguise. Another possibility is that they have believed much of the information in the normal press and may be convinced that their jobs, through reelection by the public,.are in jeopardy. It is doubtful that they could be as generally ignorant of details and the overall objectives of what government should be as apparently is most of the public. I think the numbers are small, and we have no choice other than to overlook these lost souls.
    The return of 400,000 civilian employees to work, apparently with pay, is said to be a legal decision. No details are given on specific law, and it is likely that is really an arbitrary decision based upon an Obama directive to Nagel, his Secretary of Defense. Although Pres. Obama is withholding himself from the frontline position, his attitude has probably been to give this order to Nagel with the reasoning that, "let's just do it, because I don't think Congress can or will do anything about it". He is probably correct on this, because I believe all of us do not want to see the military even partially impaired, which would give encouragement and opportunity to foreign aggressive powers.
    Getting on to the facts of government shutdown, the Washington Examiner has this to say:
"Everyone knows the phrase "government shutdown" doesn't mean the entire U.S. government is shut down. So in a partial government shutdown, like the one underway at the moment, how much of the government is actually shut down, and how much is not"? Estimates drawn from the Congressional Budget Office and and the White House Office of Management and Budget show that 83 percent of government operations continue. This figure was also obtained before the Nagel order to put 400,000 civilian employees back to work.
    Even taking the old figure, a 17% shutdown is pretty darn small compared to the major issue involved, which is an attempt to reduce the size of government. However, as we have said previously, even that low-level has attracted much animosity from the President and the Democrats. Apparently the President feels that any attempt at imposition to develop a continuous conversion to a Communist/Socialist government is a personal insult.
    Speaker Boehner, I have recommended to you previously and continue to recommend your continued attempts to use piecemeal funding of government as a technique to reduce government size. The facts are much against you, but you have made progress. Even if there is ultimate failure, the likelihood is that you will go down in history with other patriots, such as Patrick Henry with his "Give me liberty or give me death".

Government Shutdown Reduces Spending and New Debt

Open Email to Speaker Boehner:

Dear Speaker Boehner,
     In spite of the government shutdown, the government continues to spend, collect tax revenue, and sell bonds to accumulate new debt.
    According to cnsnews.com, in the first two days of the shutdown, the Treasury spent $63 billion. It collected $26 billion in taxes, and accumulated an additional $2 billion in government debt, through selling new Treasury securities..
    In the same period last year, spending was $124 billion, with $29 billion collected in taxes and added new debt of $101 billion, through selling new Treasury securities.
    So you see that government shutdown with subsequent piecemeal funding is making considerable contribution to developing smaller government.        
    Let's keep up the good work.

Israeli/Palestinian Peace Talks

Open email to Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz (Texas): 

 

Dear Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz,
    Our Secretary of State, John Kerry, is up and running on his new job. He is trying to make a name for himself and has succeeded in getting the Arabs and Israelis to sit down and talk with each other.
    The Jewish/Arab conflict has existed for a few thousand years. With this deep ingrained history of resentment, I sincerely doubt that there can be any significant resolution of differences by sit-down talks.
    I suspect that John Kerry has been able to get them to sit down by paying them US taxpayer funds. Both sides will receive money. They will sit and glare at each other, and that will be the end of that.
    I ask Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz to find out how much the sitting and glaring is costing the US taxpayer.

Amnesty Cost

    The Washington Times has some comments from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) , which yesterday released an analysis of the recently Senate passed Immigration Bill.
    The CBO says the $35 billion to be spent on 20,000 new border patrol agents and fencing would stop between a third and a half a half of future illegal immigrants.

Border Control Agents and Fencing    The southern border of the US is 1954 miles long and Wikipedia says 350,000 illegals cross this border each year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_border. It Is apparent that 20,000 new border patrol agents and 350 miles of new fencing would only serve as an additional deterrent to new border crossing. I will not significantly dispute the CBO estimate of a 33 to 50% reduction in illegal border crossings, but that may be on the high side.
    Assuming a 50% reduction in effective illegal entries at the southern border, the question is whether we want to spend $200,000 to eliminate one effective illegal border crossing in a year. ($3.5 billion / 175,000 illegals). We could amortize this over 10 years to give an unrealistic estimate of $2000 per illegal, but it actually would be higher than that because of salary increases for the 20,000 additional border control agents plus maintenance of fencing.

$1 Trillion in New Tax Revenue    However, the larger objection I find with the CBO report concerns the statement that adding the additional workers,who are made legal by the amnesty provisions of the Bill, will boost the economy and lead to nearly $1 trillion in new tax revenue over the next 20 years.
    I don't see how adding additional workers made legal by the amnesty provisions boosts the economy. I can see a consideration of income tax revenues from new taxpayers formed by the declaration of amnesty.
    There are an estimated 12 million illegals in the US (http://www.cis.org/amnesty-for-illegal-immigrants-and-the-employment-picture-for-less-educated-americans,). Eight million illegals are already estimated to be employed. The 4 million illegals unemployed do not now pay income tax. The 8 million already employed likewise do not pay income tax, because their illegality does not make it possible for them to do so.
    With the creation of amnesty, the 8 million employed and perhaps half of the 4 million unemployed will be added to the federal income tax role for a total of 10 million people

    Illegal immigrants are generally unskilled, which means they are likely to draw a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Employers also also reduce medical expenses and other benefits for each employee by reducing worked hours below 40 for week. If the average work week is 32 hours for a new amnesty employee, yearly income will be $12,064 ($7.25 x 32 hours x 52 weeks).
    One reference says that a family of 4 will pay 5.3 % of its 2103 income in federal income taxes. A family of 4 likely contains 2 children, which means that for 2 new taxpayers in the family, the family tax bill will be $1278 ($12064 x 2 x 5.3%). For the 10 million new taxpayers, the annual increased tax revenue would be $6.4 billion or $128 billion over 20 years. This is somewhat less than 10% of the $1 trillion claimed by CBO.

        Another reference involves the IRS withholding tax calculator. For the "family of four", I assumed that each of the two adults would be considered a head of family with one child as a dependent. Filling in all the boxes with some reasonable deductions for medical expense and childcare, the calculator reported, "Based on the information you previously entered, your anticipated income tax for 2013 is $0. If you do not change your withholding arrangement, your withholding for 2013 will equal your tax and you will have nothing withheld. Your balance due will equal zero and you will not receive a refund". In other words zero increased tax revenue per year from 10 million new amnesty taxpayers.

        The IRS also has an Unearned Income Tax Credit. The IRS says, "The EITC Earned Income Tax Credit is a benefit for working people who have low to moderate income. A tax credit means more money in your pocket. It reduces the amount of the tax you owe and may also give you a refund".
    To determine the Unearned Income Tax Credit for new amnesty taxpayers with one child, I used the EITC Assistant Tool ( http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Earned-Income-Tax-Credit-(EITC)-%E2%80%93--Use-the-EITC-Assistant-to-Find-Out-if-You-Should-Claim-it.). It reported, that the earned income tax credit is $3160. This is an IRS refund to taxpayers, who already pay no tax. Assume that half of the 10 million new amnesty tax payers apply for this credit. This calculates as a drain of $31.6 billion on tax revenue income to the federal government. Since the CBO likes 20 years, that's a negative $632 billion; a far cry from the positive $1 trillion claimed by CBO.
    I will grant that I've used some assumptions in challenging the CBO claim of an increased $1 trillion in tax revenue over the next 20 years, but these assumptions seem reasonable to me. Contrarily, I've not seen any calculations or basis of estimates for the CBO claimed $1 trillion.

Student Loan Interest Rates

Open email to Rep. Messer (Indiana) and Republicans in general:

Dear Rep. Messer,
    I just listened twice to your video, entitled, "Weekly Republican Address", but which actually concentrated on student loans.
    You bemoaned the fact that student loans are scheduled to rise from an interest rate of 3.4% to 6.8% on July 1. Apparently the House has already passed a bill which will stop that increase, and you are now appealing to the Senate and Pres. Obama to follow suit. However so far, the Senate has failed to show any signs of cooperation and Pres. Obama has indicated objection.
    I am normally on the side which opposes almost everything Pres. Obama and the Democrats are for, but it in this case, I believe they are showing correct judgment.
    The federal government has been pushing higher education for many years and has been effective in convincing almost everybody of the need for a college education. Unfortunately, that is a misguidance. A college energy education generally prepares people for a more intellectual approach to viewing problems and applying appropriate judgments. In that respect, a college education helps to generate leaders, not workers in the traditional sense. In fact, as college trained people are employed and are unable to assume significant leadership capacities because of limited opportunities, they tend to fall into bureaucratic slots, most of which is a make-work environment. An example of that is the already bloated federal government, which is filled with these college trained bureaucrats causing more difficulty than they resolve.
    With that basic statement, we can go on to consider some proofs.
    The federal government is already burdened with many billions of dollars of student loans and there is considerable concern as to how much of these loans will actually be repaid. This comes about also in spite of the fact that billions of dollars of federal tax money are given routinely to municipal and state colleges and universities as grants, some of which support ridiculous research projects or projects intended to support government ideology. Pell grants are also another form of direct assistance to college students.
    You mentioned that there is a 16% unemployment among young people with the implication that if we approve a student interest rate decrease to help them through college, the young people unemployment problem will be solved. Nothing could be father from the truth. I suspect the 16% unemployment rate includes many college-educated young people unable to find work, because college has not prepared them for the work needs of industry. Industry needs a balance of managers and workers, neither all managers nor all workers. We already have an excess of potential managers, and that access will do nothing to make jobs. Jobs will be made by industry and the rate at which these jobs are created will depend strongly on government attitude to industry and not on the basis of availability of employees.
    You said that one can obtain a used car loan at a lower interest rate than a student loan. This is an indication of market forces at work. Apparently lenders feel there is a greater likelihood of loan repayment among borrowers for used cars then there is for student loans. Another indication that there is already an excess of college trained people.
    I am a personal believer in the value of education, but as is characteristic of most things done by government, it has reached an excessive stage. We do not need low student loan rates to entice people to go to college when many of them don't really have the intellectual capability or interest to go through the required educational program for a degree. In fact, excessive low student rates will suck in candidates who don't really have the aptitude for managerial success and and create for them a heavy financial burden. For those who are qualified intellectually, and show early leadership capability, there are ample opportunities in the private sector. Educational money is available from families and from various organizations, as either athletic or academic scholarships and through work programs such as you aptly described from your personal experience in the video.
    You said you want to stop the rate increase from 3.4% to 6.5% and then have Washington get out of the student loan business. Great idea with limitation! Forget holding the line on rate increase and let market forces determine what interest rate is appropriate for student loans. Additionally, carry through with your suggestion of having Washington out of the student loan business, but go further and have Washington out of the educational business. Eliminate the Department of Education, Pell grants and all forms of subsidies for colleges and universities. Those institutions got along well and led to the development of this country over the years without government meddling. They can do so again.

Quit Nationbuilding with US Taxpayer Funds

    In an open letter to Congress, I recently called on Congress to fund an increase in scientific capability within the State Department, in order to improve the negotiation capability of State Department officials with other countries. I simultaneously suggested that no funding should be allowed for use of such scientific capability in nation building and also requested the elimination of special funding for scientific programs already in existence with several foreign countries.
    I now have additional information from an article by Rovner and Tremblay in the May 13 issue of Chemical and Engineering News.
    The Department of State's Building Opportunity Out of Science & Technology program has granted the American Chemical Society $198,000 for science advancement in foreign countries. In addition, the department has funded four other "boost" projects that are being spearheaded by US universities. All of the projects are based in Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco, Tunisia, or Turkey.
    While the $198,000 grant does not sound like much money, we don't know how much the other projects are or what will be added in the future. In either case, this is what I have been objecting to. Spending money, which we don't have in order to promote science in foreign countries is a nation building operation under the guise of education. While we may think that is a good humanitarian effort, we have no right to directly affect the culture of a foreign country. It is not only invasive but is also expensive with respect to a justification as to whether it really makes the world better. Let us remember that essentially all foreigners perpetrating terrorist activities on the US do so as retaliation against US interference in their culture.

Beware of Costly Nationbuilding

Open email to Congress:

     Andrea Whitner, of Chemical and Engineering News May 13, 2013, has a four-page article on the "The State of Science Diplomacy".
     Basically, the pitch to increase scientific knowledge within the State Department is obviously not an area of controversy, when one considers that State Department officials have responsibility to negotiate with foreign countries concerning various scientific matters, such as rockets, nuclear weapons, raw material boundaries etc..
     While this is an admirable program, it has an obvious deficiency. Increasing science capability within the State Department cannot only improve scientific negotiations with other countries, but it can also be used for nationbuilding, which should not be one of the objectives of the State Department. For example, it has been said that the State Department has already developed a number of programs to work with 140-150 countries on ways to raise their level of scientific capability and scientific expertise. This sounds more like nationbuilding than preparation for US State Department officials to be able to properly negotiate on scientific matters.
     It is also said that a few countries, such as Egypt, India, Israel, and Mexico, have specific funds set up by Congress to promote cooperative science projects with the US. This again sounds like nationbuilding to me.
     We have considerable experience with nationbuilding; for example the failed wars with Korea and Vietnam, and more recently the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, with subsequent military intervention in Egypt's and Libya's revolutions. Those were military efforts at nationbuilding. The present proposal is an educational effort at nationbuilding. However, we have no right to determine how a foreign country develops its culture, and we have no justification in these times of US spending excesses to attempt doing so.
     I call on Congress to fund any State Department requirements to improve scientific capability for purposes of improved US international negotiation, but to disallow any funding for use of science programs to build scientific capability either within a foreign government or with a foreign public.
In addition,
     I further call on Congress to eliminate funding for any cooperative science projects, with any foreign country, such as said to presently exist with Egypt, India, Israel, and Mexico. Elimination of those cooperative science projects would likely cover the cost of developing any new scientific capability within State for international negotiation purposes.

No Progress on Federal Expenditure Cuts

    House Speaker Boehner says that after three years under Republican leadership, the House of Representatives is on track to save taxpayers more than $400 million in House operations by the end of the fiscal year, keeping the GOP pledge to “make Congress do more with less by significantly reducing its budget".

    Congratulations to the House Republicans on an efficient procedural operation!
    However, the cost of operating the House Is only a flea on the back of an elephant.

    We should first be trying to cut current federal expenditures with an intention of a balanced budget leading eventually to reduction in federal debt. So far, we are making no progress. We continue to give away money in foreign aid. We are making no effort to reduce entitlements. We are actually increasing expenditures in certain government operations, such as research and development. And, the latest conversation is on supplying costly arms to Syria and significantly increased expenditures for immigration reform.
    It seems silly to hear about the flea, when the elephant continues to rumble on.

Reducing Government Spending

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (Texas):
Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    Thank you for your alternate form letter concerning the federal budget and sequestration, and in which you also again mentioned your balanced budget amendment.
    In your discussing the sequestration, you seem to have the impression that it was not properly done. In fact, it well accomplished its purpose, which was to obtain consternation among spendthrift congressional members and particularly in the Administration. In fact, I regarded it as a very successful endeavor, except for the fact that it financially did not accomplish much. The cuts were too small to be significant. As you know, it did not come anywhere near balancing expenditures with federal income, and we continue to assume more debt.
    The most important point of our society now is its financial integrity. Terrorist problems are peanuts by comparison.
    I continue to encourage you to convince your congressional associates that all forms of federal spending must be cut to the bone. Once we have made that basic accommodation, we can then start to properly allocate the remaining funds to those areas which are most significant to the health and welfare of the Union.

Reducing Federal Spending

Open email to Sen. Cornyn(Texas):
Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    Thanks for your form letter on the federal budget and efforts to reduce the size of government.
    I congratulate you on your penultimate paragraph concerning your balanced-budget amendment. It is right on target, but it should not be presented as a weak suggestion. It needs force, and continued pressure over time. Let's remember that Congress is primarily responsible for the tremendous national debt we have already accumulated. It will take continued drumming to have members change their attitude. 

Ridiculous Federal Agency R&D Expenditures

Federal Agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and others, have been wasting taxpayer money through Federal Research and Development grants to universities. I say "wasting taxpayer money", because the expenditures are almost invariably unnecessary with respect to pursuing the interest and needs of the American public.

          We now have an aggravated case of such waste with the presentation of the President's 2014 federal federal budget.

          Even without my ranting, it is obvious that government has been overspending and needs to reduce expenditures in order to have any hope of controlling national debt.

          The President's latest budget does not reduce any significant Research and Development expenditures for any of the agencies he controls. C&E News April 15 indicates a net 1.3% R&D increase proposed by the President in his 2014 budget request. 10 agencies are listed. The Defense budget would be cut by $4.6 billion. This is then squandered on Health and Human Services for a $700 million increase, the Department of Energy for a $1.9 billion increase, NASA for a $300 million increase, the NSF for a $0.5 billion increase, the Department of Commerce for a $1.4 billion increase, the Department of Agriculture for a $200 million increase, and Homeland Security for a $900 million increase.

          With his proposed budget, the President also said, "[This is] - a fiscally responsible blueprint for middle-class jobs and growth". I ask the President to explain how any of these R&D increases or even basic R&D allotments enhance growth, or are particularly beneficial to the development of middle-class jobs.

          House Speaker Boehner was somewhat mealymouthed when he said the President's plan does show positive improvement, but he may may have been more directly addressing other aspects of the Presidents Budget. Sen. Mitch McConnell, however, was more direct in stating that the budget is a repeat of past budget requests of which we have had enough of the past few years.

Can We Afford a New Telescope?

Whether we can afford it or not, the world has a new telescope in the Atacama Desert of northern Chile.
According to C&E News April 8 Edition, it cost $1.3 billion to build, and US taxpayers put up $500 million of that through the National Science Foundation. 
The new telescope will look for new molecules in space. By other means, 160 molecules have already been identified in outer space. Theorists have said that with the continued discovery of new molecules in space, they come closer to a more refined understanding of how these molecules formed. It may be interesting to the inquisitive, but it doesn't seem interesting enough to be spending my money on.
Some have also said that the operation is a worthwhile endeavor, because no one knows exactly what will be found. A prime example is exploration for a new continent, which was discovered by Columbus. Other valuable explorations are the search for new sources of petroleum and gas. On the negative side, are the many expeditions which have explored the North and South Poles, with the only confirmation being that it is cold there.
This writer knows about research through his previous academic achievements and through his experience in industry. There are basically two kinds of research; Curiosity Motivated and Need Motivated. Examples of Curiosity Motivated research are, "how many beats of his wings does a butterfly make in his lifetime", or "how many new molecules can I find in outer space". Examples of Need Motivated research is "where can I find new sources of oil and gas", or "what can I use as a substitute for a rare earth, which has been monopolized by the Chinese".
The difference between the two types of basic research is obvious. Curiosity Research has no significance of practicality. That is, it will likely be a fundamental financial loss, because concentration will be on the expenditure of funds, without any consideration of financial return. Conversely, Need Research is much more likely to achieve a financial gain, as concentration is based upon the value of results, with a minimum of expenditure.
With those explanations in hand, it is easy to understand how government can routinely be involved in impractical research. It has no obligation to achieve a financial positive result. Its source of funds for expenditure on research projects are the taxpayers, who are generally unaware and disinterested in how their money is being spent. Conversely, industrial research must lead to a financial advantage. Checks on the prospect of financial success are made periodically, and if it is found that the likelihood of a final financial success is not present, the project is terminated.
The one half billion dollar expenditure of taxpayer funds by the National Science Foundation for the ALMA telescope falls in the typical range of usual Curiosity based government research. The likelihood of the expenditure leading to any financial return is so remote as to not even justify consideration. It is completely typical of usual government research.
However, the money has been spent. Why do I harp on it? I suppose the only reason is the forlorn hope that Congress will slowly change its position on providing money to various government agencies to blow on ridiculous projects. There is also an aspect of futility in this hope, because Congress had been supporting this practice for at least the last 60 years, which is the reason why we are now $17 trillion in debt.

Taxpayer Funding for Brain Study

     As part of Pres. Obama's proposed fiscal 2014 budget, he has included $110 million through three federal agencies for brain study (C&EN 4/8/13).    
People have been studying the human brain since the beginning of civilization and this will undoubtedly continue. Private organizations, such as the Allen Institute for Brain Science, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute the Kavli Foundation and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies are private organizations involved in brain study.
It seems to me that brain study by these several private organizations should be sufficient, without the use of public funding. This is especially true in these times of requiring actual cuts rather than expansions in federal spending, in order to allow us a reasonably balanced budget.
It is said that Congress will have to sign off on the initiative through its appropriations process. I call on Congress to kill any efforts for use of public funds in brain study.

NASA Program and Funding

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (Texas):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,    You previously said, "Thank you for contacting me regarding the future of our nation's space program.  I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this issue".
    In summary, I agree that we need a space program primarily for national defense and to maintain status as a world power. However, I completely disagree that funding for the program through NASA should be increased at this time, as has been done by Congress in its recent appropriations bill to fund government through September 30.
    I have previously recommended that all government agencies should have an expenditure reduction of at least 20%, with the dissolution of the Departments of Energy and Education. Such action would be a step in the direction of resolving our fiscal problems. Expanding funding for NASA puts us further in debt.

Congressional Excessive Spending

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (Texas):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,    All of what you said below is true, but the rhetoric, if it speaks for Congress, does not follow through.
    In the recent appropriations bill to extend operation of the federal government through September 30, both the House and Senate voted a majority of 3 to 1 for the extension, in spite of the fact that it included an increase of $221 million For the National Science Foundation (NSF) and unspecified increases for NASA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
    I consider this by no means an attempt by Congress to reduce its appetite for spending.

Previous:

Dear Dr. Sucsy:   Thank you for contacting me regarding the federal budget and efforts to reduce the size of government.  I appreciate your comments and share your frustration with Washington’s inability to restrain spending.     On March 1, 2013, an across-the-board reduction, or sequester, of $85 billion for Fiscal Year 2013 went into effect.  This sequester amounts to 2.4 percent of the federal budget.  Although the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, President Obama’s failed tax-and-spend agenda continues to sink us deeper and deeper in the red.  Instead of trying to scare the American people into believing that government is not big enough, he should immediately put forward a plan that addresses this issue and launch serious, transparent budget negotiations.  After all, the American people deserve a reliable and honest budget that holds Washington accountable for its reckless spending habit.     And on March 23, 2013, for the first time in almost 100 years, the Senate passed a budget (S.Con.Res. 8) prior to receiving the President’s own budget proposal for the upcoming fiscal year.  Unfortunately, S.Con.Res. 8���the Senate’s first budget in over 1,400 days���raises taxes by $1.5 trillion, increases spending by 60 percent, and adds $7.3 trillion to a national debt that already eclipses our entire economy.  S.Con.Res. 8 grossly exacerbates Washington’s spending problems and therefore I voted against the proposal.     I am also disappointed that the President again failed to comply with the law, which requires him to submit a budget by the first Monday of February.  In fact, the President has failed to timely submit a budget four out of five times.  For these reasons, I  introduced the No Budget, No OMB Pay Act of 2013 (S. 620).  This legislation would withhold the pay of the Administration’s top budget officials for every day the President’s budget is late.  Texans do not get paid for not doing their job; neither should Washington bureaucrats.   I recognize the importance of funding programs that support our national defense, protect our borders, and care for our veterans and the need to make sure that each dollar is spent wisely.  Our national debt is now over $16 trillion���making it larger than our entire economy���and it has increased by more than 50 percent since the beginning of the Obama Administration.  We are spending more than $30,000 per household and borrowing more than 40 cents of every dollar we spend.  Like you, I am worried about how excessive government spending and regulations dampen job creation and I am more determined than ever to implement the spending cuts and structural entitlement reforms that are needed to secure the long-term fiscal integrity of our country.  After all, every dollar borrowed today means higher taxes tomorrow if Washington does not reduce its appetite to spend recklessly.   The biggest fiscal problem in Washington is excessive spending.  If we do not reduce spending and reform our three biggest entitlement programs���Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security���then we will strangle economic growth, destroy jobs, and reduce our standard of living.  With annual deficits of more $1 trillion, and with more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities hanging over us, our toughest fiscal decisions cannot be postponed any longer.  The President does not deserve another blank check to spend Texans’ hard earned money, which is why I opposed House Resolution 325 (H.R. 325; P.L. 113-3), which temporarily suspended the debt limit until May 19, 2013, adding approximately $400 billion to the national debt.  This is unacceptable.   Because of Washington’s runaway spending, I support adding a Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution.  I have introduced Senate Joint Resolution 7 (S.J. Res. 7), a bill that would require the federal government to balance its budget each year unless two-thirds of each House of Congress decided otherwise.  In addition, S.J. Res. 7 would require a supermajority vote to increase taxes and the debt limit.  I am also a cosponsor of the Dollar-for-Dollar Deficit Reduction Act (S. 43), which would require that any debt limit increase also include an equal amount of spending cuts.  Families across Texas have to balance their budgets and make tough choices to live within their means.  There is no reason Washington should operate any differently.  The American people want fiscal discipline, and the Balanced Budget Amendment and the Dollar-for-Dollar Deficit Reduction Act would deliver it.     I am honored to represent Texas in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will keep hardworking taxpayers in mind as I fight to curb excessive government spending.  Thank you for taking the time to contact me.   Sincerely, JOHN CORNYN United States Senator

Increases in Federal Agencies Expenditures

    Congress recently passed an appropriations bill to fund the federal government through September 30. I believe most people would agree that we need a continuing federal government and that some funding would be necessary.
    Need I remind you that the federal government is already $17 trillion in debt, and with budget imbalance, this debt increases hourly.
    In spite of that, the appropriations bill increases funding for several agencies involved with science. The National Science Foundation gets an increase of $221 million. NASA gets a slight increase, as does the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Why?
    The National Science Foundation (NSF) already has a bloated budget to do things no reasonable person would ever consider practical, and the other agencies certainly do not need an expansion. I previously suggested that their budgets should be cut by at least 20%
    Apparently, Congress has not yet come to the realization that the federal government has real money problems.

NASA Funding for Meteorite Study

    On February 15, a meteoroid, which is a chunk of space rock, exploded over the Russian city of Chelyabinsk. It was reported that 1500 people were injured, mostly by flying glass. No fatalities were reported, but there was obviously some building damage resulting in the flying glass.
    Within the past few days, Fox News reports that NASA is petitioning the U.S. Congress for funding for meteorite study. Apparently, NASA is following the old adage of "always look for opportunities in any catastrophe".
    If this proposal gets to Congress, I suggest the various Representatives and Senators have a little understanding of meteorites.
    Space junk continually moves through the universe. Most of it is rock but since man's advent into space, there is also considerable man-made debris.
Considering only the space rock, if a meteoroid is more than 32 feet in diameter, it is classified as an asteroid. It is estimated that the meteoroid exploding over Chelyabinsk was about 50 feet in diameter. Therefore, it is considered a small asteroid.
    To complete the definitions, meteoroids that burn up in the Earth's atmosphere are called meteors. Those that allow chunks of solid material to fall on earth are called meteorites. The Chelyabinsk object was a meteorite.
  NASA said it is currently tracking 1379 potentially hazardous asteroids, but it cannot track objects smaller than 1 km in diameter (0.62 miles). It was unable to track the Chelyabinsk meteorite, and will presumably ask Congress for funding to be able to develop this technology. However, what if it could have known about the Chelyabinsk meteorite? Warning the people would not have accomplished much. Perhaps a few could have boarded up their windows to avoid broken glass
  Taking this in its full implication, does that mean the US is unable to detect objects coming into its atmosphere smaller than a kilometer in diameter? I doubt that. If that were true, the US would be obviously susceptible to a surprise rocket attack from outer space. If NASA can't presently detect a meteorite the size of a rocket, I believe the US Military can. If it can, why do we need NASA to accomplish the same thing?
From another perspective let us consider, whether such research and development would be worthwhile, or shall we say cost-effective.
It is estimated that about 500 meteorites reach the earth's surface each year. This means solid material was deposited on earth. How many of these do we normally hear about causing human injury or property damage? In fact, scientists can't find enough pieces to study more than five or six of these events. http://www.express.co.uk/fun/top10facts/378833/Top-10-facts-about-meteors .
  Of the 500 meteorites reaching the earth's surface each year, consider that they range in size from a grain of sand to that of the Chelyabinsk meteorite. According to a study in 1985, a meteorite will hit a human being about once every 180 years. Will it be the size of a grain of sand or much larger?
  Consider further the probability of property damage from any of the 500 meteorites falling each year. Only 3%
of the Earth's land is developed, that is covered by buildings and roads/concrete. What is the likelihood of any meteorite of significant size falling on any of that 3%?
  In these times of already bloated budgets and tremendous national debt, Congress should not give a second thought to any NASA request for funds to study meteorites. There is already the capability to determine when a large asteroid is going to hit the earth with disastrous consequences. We don't need to further refine this to the point where we learn about possible events of insignificance.

The Ryan Budget

    The Ryan budget is no good!
    It increases the size of the Federal government by 3% per year.
    I want to shrink the size of the Federal government.