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.