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.