mheslep said:
D H said:
Did you read Paul's rationales?
Yes.
I was hoping for actual argument, not more name calling.
Since the bill was rather lacking in details, it's a bit hard to do anything other than name calling. If Paul needs to be taken seriously he needs to identify exactly which projects are to be cut. He didn't do that. That said, here are the cuts he proposed related to organizations I specified in the original post. Paul's rationale are indented and in italic. My comments are in left justified plain text.
NASA: 25%
With the presence of private industries involved in space exploration and even space tourism, it is time for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to step aside and allow innovation to flourish. Looking at ways to reduce NASA’s spending is long overdue.
Perhaps Rand is unaware that NASA is funding a lot of this presence by private industry. NASA is already stepping aside and allowing innovation to flourish.
In addition, NASA has consistently been flagged by organizations like Citizens Against Government Waste, which most recently highlighted NASA’s multibillion-dollar Constellation program, a project that has been focused on the exploration of the moon and Mars. Despite spending more than $10 billion on this program, NASA has made very little progress since the program’s inception.
Finally, since President Obama has determined to realign the goals of NASA away from human exploration, and more on science and “global warming” research, the need to fund the agency at levels not consistent with the goals of the past provides the opportunity to direct funds toward deficit reduction.
I'll admit that NASA has made little progress on Constellation. Internal [descriptive term elided] at NASA is one reason. A bigger reason is that it has been underfunded from the onset. An underfunded project is going to flounder.
It's funny that Paul starts with a reference to CAGW, an organization which has been anti-human spaceflight for a very long time, and then in the next paragraph uses the supposed realignment away from human exploration as a justification for cutting NASA.
Another funny thing here: NASA gets off very easy in this proposal, yet Paul devotes more words to justifying cuts to NASA than to any other non-defense science & technology effort undertaken by the federal government.
CDC: 28%
The annual budget for the Centers for Disease Control also keeps increasing annually, in spite of “cost-saving efforts” by the department in the way of travel expenses and contract reductions to the tune of $100 million. It seems no matter how much money is appropriated to this or any government agency, they find a “need” for it. It is time for the CDC to work aggressively to find savings in other areas, particularly focusing on domestic priorities rather than spending billions on overseas initiatives.
Perhaps Paul is unaware that bacteria and virus are the ultimate illegal aliens and have no respect for national boundaries. The idea is that it is better to spend a small amount of money fighting a new disease overseas where it first appears before it can become pandemic.
EPA: 29%
Since 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency has worked to enforce greenhouse gas regulations on business without Congressional approval. We have seen EPA’s budgets significantly increase in administrative costs to process and handle the regulations they write.
Even with the budget increases, EPA process for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals has continued to stay on GAO’s High-Risk List for potential waste, fraud, and abuse. From the High Risk List of 2009, “GAO recently reported that EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) – a database that contains EPA’s scientific position on the potential human health effects of exposure to more than 540 chemicals – is at serious risk of becoming obsolete because the agency has not been able to complete timely, credible assessments or decrease its backlog of 70 ongoing assessments. Overall, EPA has finalized a total of only 9 assessments in the past 3 fiscal years.”
Toxic chemicals are not the only areas EPA is falling behind. Their delay on approving mining and drilling permits has costs thousands of jobs across our country.
The first paragraph does justify reigning in the EPA. The last two paragraphs are reasons the EPA's budget should be increased. Paul would have been better off if he had just left those statements out of his rationale.
USGS: 29%
The U.S. Geological Survey is the largest water, earth, and biological science civilian mapping agency in the United States. Though these are important activities, they can be given to state researchers at our colleges and universities, without having large numbers of regional executives and multiple offices.
What "state researchers at our colleges and universities"? They are funded by the USGS. The justification for this cut is an unfunded mandate for what has been a job of the federal budget since the very start of our nation.
NOAA: 36%
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was formed in 1970 to serve as both a physical and atmospheric science agency, as well as for the purpose of commercial fishery conservation. Yet according to the NOAA website, “Approximately 25% of NOAA’s annual budget was committed to making progress in understanding the link between our global economy and our planet’s environment.”
Did Paul look into what this vague statement meant? No. He took that vague statement as justification for a 25% cut in NOAA's budget, plus another 11% for punitive measure.
Interesting trend here: As the cuts get bigger, the justifications get ever shorter, have ever less substance, and are ever more politically motivated.
NIH: 37%
President Obama’s FY2011 budget calls for a $1 billion increase in funding to the National Institutes for Health. Reducing federal grants in this area would realize billions in savings.
What, exactly, is the justification for a 37% cut here? There is none.
NSF: 62%
Research in science is best conducted by private industry for economic purposes. States are also best positioned to direct funding in their own K-12 schools as well as colleges and universities.
Whoa! A 62% reduction justified by two short sentences motivated solely by a twisted view of the federal government's role? Please.
DOE: 100%
Created in 1977, the purpose and intent of the Department of Energy was to regulate oil prices. The DoE today reflects an agency that encompasses national security activities such as nuclear weapon production, maintenance, and cleanup which are better suited for the Department of Defense, and other activities that are nothing more than corporate handouts.
In addition, the DoE has provided research grants and subsidies to energy companies for the development of newer, cleaner forms of energy. All forms of energy development are subsidized by the federal government, from oil to nuclear, wind, solar, and bio-fuels, however these subsidies and research are often centered on forms of energy that can survive without subsidies. This drives the cost of energy up for all American taxpayers. The market has always provided new forms of energy development without governmental interference; it is time for the free market to start taking the reins.
Paul is creating an unfunded mandate within the federal government by moving some of the functionality of the DoE back to DoD with no funding for that in DoD. The second paragraph is purely conjectural. He is going to need a bit more than a tiny paragraph to justify eliminating an entire department of the government.
