The 114th Congress (spanning 2015-2017)

[cwbullivant]

It's not clear what your point is. The late William Proxmire has not been a senator since he retired in 1989, and when he was in the Senate, he was a Democrat. For you folks in Rio Linda, that's a whole quarter century (25 years).

In the outgoing congress, only twelve senators had enough seniority to have even served with Proxmire.

I probably should have been more clear. I know that he was a Democrat, and that he's been retired for 25 years (hence "former Senator"), and dead for 9. His name was the one I heard used as a comparison for reference, since he was famous for opposing funding for scientific research when he couldn't see an immediate application for it. I've overheard fears that the new Senate is going to be run by a party composed of people with the same basic attitude as Proxmire toward research.

I'm only an undergrad, and not well versed in the history just yet, so I don't know whether those fears are accurate, or overblown. Vanadium 50 above indicates that for HEP, those fears would not be justified, which is a bit of a relief. I'll have to look into it for Astrophysics, since that's what I'm planning to get my Ph.D in.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)(snip) ... not well versed in the history just yet, so I don't know whether those fears are accurate, or overblown.(snip)

Quick (and very dirty) history lesson: first era of federal funding (1776 to Pearl Harbor), there wasn't any to speak of; second era (WW II, Manhattan Project, and Cold War), blank checks for just about anything to do with defense, reasonable pickings elsewhere, but it involved a lot of "dumpster diving;" third era (debt balloon from Reagan or Bush 41 to present), SCSC got chopped (there were some materials problems that showed up at Frac & Def , Commerce Labs in Boulder, so maybe a good thing), some other big ticket items, lot of belt tightening; fourth era (114th on), money is getting tight, overhead (a dirty word in the grant and funding business) has been exploding, and long-term funding is getting really tough to get and hang on to (people get half and three quarters of the way complete on a five year project and get rugs yanked from under them).

Those who are more up to date will please correct me.

 

[Astronuc]

Tensions flare between Senate Democrats, White House
http://news.yahoo.com/tensions-flare-between-senate-democrats-white-house-220849126.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Criticism of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law by a top Senate Democrat this week laid bare post-election tensions that could pose challenges for the party in upcoming fights with Republicans over taxes, energy and immigration.

In a high-profile speech on Tuesday dissecting Democrats' losses in this month's midterm elections, Charles Schumer, the No. 3 Senate Democrat, listed "a cascade of issues" botched by the White House, starting with Obama's push for healthcare reforms soon after he took office in 2009.

Well, Congress is supposed to be independent of the president - and vice versa.

 

[Bystander]

Would not have predicted it --- kinda figured they were going to circle the wagons and go down together.

 

[Vanadium 50]

One lesson from the past election is that President Obama does not deliver the votes when he is not on the ticket. Given that, I am not at all surprised that there are congressmen distancing themselves from the President.

 

[mheslep]

I see Schumer is up for election in 16, when the President will still be in office giving speeches, issuing orders, and by that time pardoning whomever.

 

[Astronuc]

I would like to see less of this - Senate Democrats muscle big Obama donors into ambassadorships
http://news.yahoo.com/senate-democrats-muscle-big-obama-donors-into-ambassadorships-175252008.html

But then not so fast - Senators renew push on military sexual assault cases
http://news.yahoo.com/senators-renew-push-military-sex-assault-bill-191312752.html

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand may block a nomination.

 

[Bystander]

I would like to see less of this - Senate Democrats muscle big Obama donors into ambassadorships

Given the popularity of the U.S. around the world, the possibilities for "poetic justice" are intriguing. Might not be as bad an idea as it first appears. Thin the herd, so to speak.

But then not so fast - Senators renew push on military sexual assault cases

"Tempest in a teapot?" DoD bashing/social overhead/engineering programs/legislation have been, with the exception of HST's integration order, disasters. Correcting (mis)management problems from the bottom up rather than top down just doesn't work. Breaks morale, aggravates target problems, in a vicious circle.

 

[mheslep]

I would like to see less of this - Senate Democrats muscle big Obama donors into ambassadorships
http://news.yahoo.com/senate-democrats-muscle-big-obama-donors-into-ambassadorships-175252008.html

The "perfect candidate" for US Ambassador to Norway.

 

[lisab]

I would like to see less of this - Senate Democrats muscle big Obama donors into ambassadorships

That's been done for a long, long time. Usually the appointments are to countries like France, Spain, Italy - places with whom we have very stable relations. And the weather's nice, the electricity is always on, and the food is good .

Places that require diplomatic "heavy lifting" don't usually get this kind of appointee.

Btw this practice really irks career Foreign Service officers, as you might imagine (my step-father worked in the State Department).

 

[Vanadium 50]

There is sort of a gentlemen's agreement that 70% of the Ambassadorial appointments are career foreign service, and 30% can be political. The political category includes, shall we say "friends of the party", but also people who have held senior positions in the US government in the past: John Huntsman was a governor, Carole Moseley Braun was a senator, Gary Locke was Secretary of Commerce for example.

What irks the career foreign service is that a) there are more political appointees than in the past, b) of those, more are fundraisers than public servants, and c) several of the fundraisers have embarrassed themselves in front of the Senate.

 

[Bystander]

Hopefully, they'll start passing budgets rather than continuing resolutions.

On the ticker just now, "Two day extension to prevent government shutdown." Still 113th, but methinks it bodes ill for 114th.

 

[Astronuc]

Apparently, U.S. Representative Michael Grimm of New York may be missing from next year's roster. Grimm is expected to plead guilty on Tuesday to resolve federal tax charges, and charges of fraud, perjury and conspiracy stemming from a Manhattan health food restaurant he formerly co-owned, Healthalicious.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-rep-grimm-plead-guilty-tax-fraud-case-203137180.html

 

[Astronuc]

Five ways to know you’re speaking to white supremacists
And other useful tips for Steve Scalise and budding politicians everywhere (somewhat tongue in cheek)
http://news.yahoo.com/five-ways-to-know-you-re-speaking-to-white-supremacists-004845526.html

Apparently Steve Scalise, House majority whip, made a speech at a conference of a white supremacist group. He claims not to remember much about it. I would hope that someone in a such a high position would be better informed of groups to whom him or her is speaking.

 

[Cake]

Ted Cruz appointed to head of Space, Science, and Competitiveness subcommittee in congress:

http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/11/7528337/senator-ted-cruz-nasa-subcommittee

I don't even care about his stance on cutbacks, but it's very clear to me from this that whoever is in charge in the republican party has it out for science that they don't agree with (namely global warming). I see this appointment as a bad sign that we're probably in for rough 8-or-so years of republican control of science and technology in the US.

 

[Doug Huffman]

I am an anti-progressive conservative ultimately skeptical of science by consensus. I am guided by a careful and thorough reading of Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery, that advanced falsificationism, and his The Open Society and Its Enemies (your hero George Soros' principal handbook) that taught the fallacy of the dialectic and lead to The Poverty of Historicism.

 

[phinds]

I am an anti-progressive conservative ultimately skeptical of science by consensus. I am guided by a careful and thorough reading of Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery, that advanced falsificationism, and his The Open Society and Its Enemies (your hero George Soros' principal handbook) that taught the fallacy of the dialectic and lead to The Poverty of Historicism.

Well, that's nice for you but what does that have to do with this this post?

 

[axmls]

Perhaps he'll learn something from NASA.

 

[SixNein]

Ted Cruz appointed to head of Space, Science, and Competitiveness subcommittee in congress:

http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/11/7528337/senator-ted-cruz-nasa-subcommittee

I don't even care about his stance on cutbacks, but it's very clear to me from this that whoever is in charge in the republican party has it out for science that they don't agree with (namely global warming). I see this appointment as a bad sign that we're probably in for rough 8-or-so years of republican control of science and technology in the US.

I agree.

 

[SteamKing]

Ted Cruz appointed to head of Space, Science, and Competitiveness subcommittee in congress:

http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/11/7528337/senator-ted-cruz-nasa-subcommittee

I don't even care about his stance on cutbacks, but it's very clear to me from this that whoever is in charge in the republican party has it out for science that they don't agree with (namely global warming). I see this appointment as a bad sign that we're probably in for rough 8-or-so years of republican control of science and technology in the US.

I'm not sure why everybody is crying in their beer.

Science is not run from a congressional committee on Capitol Hill. Science is what it is regardless of whether Ted Cruz is a committee chairman, or he's sweeping up cigarette butts in a basement somewhere. If there's something to global warming, the causes and effects are going to be borne out by scientific experiment, not in some report issued by a congressional committee.

It's also not clear what you mean by "rough 8-or-so years of republican control of science and technology in the US." S & T are not controlled by Republicans or Democrats, otherwise scientific findings would be rather suspect. Also, US congressional elections are held every two years, with all of the lower chamber and one-third of the upper chamber standing for election, and each election brings the possibility, however remote, of a shift in control of one or both houses of congress.

 

[Cake]

Also, US congressional elections are held every two years, with all of the lower chamber and one-third of the upper chamber standing for election, and each election brings the possibility, however remote, of a shift in control of one or both houses of congress.

Not going to respond to all of the post, but I was making the point that these congressmen/women probably be voted out for 8-or-so years imho.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I have taken a trek or three up to the Hill, and talked to Congresspeople from both sides of the aisle. I would think it is a mistake to consider one party pro-science and one party anti-science. If pushed, I would say that Republicans are more pro-science (i.e. they see scientific investment as a national good) and Democrats are more pro-scientist (i.e. they see scientists and other academics as one of their core constituencies) but this is an oversimplification that is almost as bad.

 

[lisab]

I have taken a trek or three up to the Hill, and talked to Congresspeople from both sides of the aisle. I would think it is a mistake to consider one party pro-science and one party anti-science. If pushed, I would say that Republicans are more pro-science (i.e. they see scientific investment as a national good) and Democrats are more pro-scientist (i.e. they see scientists and other academics as one of their core constituencies) but this is an oversimplification that is almost as bad.

I understand this is oversimplified, but that's an interesting observation. Although saying the D's value scientists only as voters is a bit cynical . Fact is, there just aren't that many scientists to catch the interest of either party, IMO.

 

[Bystander]

but this is an oversimplification that is almost as bad.

Little context for lisab's observation.

Fact is, there just aren't that many scientists to catch the interest of either party, IMO.

Even more cynically, are both parties merely seeking Madison Avenue endorsements from the scientific community with which to "snow" the voters?

 

[Bystander]

I would like to see less of this - Senate Democrats muscle big Obama donors into ambassadorships

Places that require diplomatic "heavy lifting" don't usually get this kind of appointee.

"Hartley is known for being a campaign bundler who raised more than $500,000 for Obama's re-election bid in 2012.[19]" --- Wiki

 

[Vanadium 50]

Although saying the D's value scientists only as voters is a bit cynical

Had I said that, it would have been cynical.

 

[russ_watters]

I would think it is a mistake to consider one party pro-science and one party anti-science. If pushed, I would say that Republicans are more pro-science (i.e. they see scientific investment as a national good) and Democrats are more pro-scientist (i.e. they see scientists and other academics as one of their core constituencies) but this is an oversimplification that is almost as bad.

I would add that for stances on most particular issues, politics trumps science to the point of irrelevancy. Democrats can say (and be right) that the Republican position on global warming goes against the science, but Republicans can say (and be right) that the Democratic position on nuclear energy contradicts science and the Democrats' global warming position.

 

[russ_watters]

In related news, the House just voted to overturn Obama's immigration order. This and the similar Keystone vote are interesting but probably ultimately meaningless because:
1. They can't overturn a veto.
2. Congress has the authority here - but the President has the power.
3. Even if Congress sues, Obama can probably just stall until he's out of office (how's that court-ordered NRC Yucca Mountain review going...?).

 

[mheslep]

...meaningless because:
1. They can't overturn a veto...

I'm not so sure. Senate passed Keystone with 63 votes, 3 shy, for a vote that, for the moment, doesn't mean anything because as you say because it will be vetoed at first and Obama himself takes the brunt of the opposition. Should Obama stay on trend with the like of skipping Paris, voting with him might become increasing expensive.

 

[mheslep]

We the Confused have an ongoing petition to the executive branch for the removal of Senator Ted Cruz from oversight of the space-science committee, 17K so far. The wording is probably too timid to succeed; authors should have demanded the Senator be jailed by an executive Bill of Attainder, his property seized, and then deported when released.