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.