The Economic Stimulus Bill and NSF Funding
So I’ve been having some interesting debates with my two roommates the past few days over the proposed cuts that Senators Susan Collins and Ben Nelson are tossing around for the economic stimulus package that the United States Congress has been working on. One of the issues that seems to have everyone in the science world up in arms is cutting $1.4 billion dollars that was going to be given to the National Science Foundation.
There are a number of posts in the blogosphere in general (and even geoblogosphere) about it.
Science Progress sums up some of the proposed cuts in the bill:
* $6.6 billion in energy expenditures, including $1 billion from the Department of Energy’s energy efficiency and renewable energy programs
* $5.2 billion for prevention and wellness programs, which would save money by catching health problems early or keeping them from happening in the first place
* $1.4 billion in funds that were slated for the beleaguered National Science Foundation
I’m generally on the side of the NSF in this debate, especially since I’ve been a part of some cool research projects that were funded on their behalf. So I think it’s quite sad and frustrating that some senators would want to deny the organization additional funding.
However, this isn’t the end of the world. They still have funding and cutting the additional funding proposed in the stimulus package will not change the day to day operations of the NSF. Projects will still be funded and the NSF will still dole out their money in a highly efficient manner. Additional funding would be nice (one could argue that with additional funding, I might actually be able to get into a graduate program of my choice), but it isn’t a necessity for our economy right now.
I was laid off from my environmental consulting job in August and my unemployment insurance runs out in a few short weeks. I’m going to have to struggle to find a way to live on zero dollars. Funding the NSF (or a lot of these other longer-term projects) are not going to help my immediate situation.
Yes, science is important and we need to have a renewed emphasis on it. But a lot of people are treating the stimulus package as some sort of pay day – that we can fund all the programs we want right now with no accountability. That’s not the case, we need to fund programs and organizations that can help out people who are unemployed or facing dire economic circumstances right now. As much as I love the NSF, additional funding for them will not have an immediate or short term impact on our economy.
I really believe that additional science funding will come later. We have a pro-science President, and for the most part, a pro-science Congress. We can’t afford to be greedy right now when so much tax payer money and potential jobs and such are on the line.
Then again, there’s the whole other argument about tax cuts that many Republicans are proposing. That’s another ridiculous proposal – that’s really going to help me when I don’t even have income to pay taxes with!
Anyway, what are your thoughts regarding the stimulus package and NSF funding?
Similar Posts on Geology News:
- The Happy Scientist
- Cost of Geothermal Power vs. Fossil Fuels
- What’s in the stimulus?
- Something called volcano monitoring
- State agencies and universities to receive $7 million in stimulus funding to improve volcano monitoring
I’m sorry but you’re missing a point about the cuts in NSF funding – with so many states and universities cutting funds, researchers are looking to NSF to help fill that gap. Without additional money there’s no way that can happen. So while some of the extra money to NSF would be stimulus (updating facilities, broadband to campuses, etc) a lot of it would be simple stability and preventing further loss of jobs.
I think the money would be better spent by sending money to the states, which are being forced to make cuts because they can’t run a deficit. The state cuts hurt universities, and the state money is used for the basic costs: heating the buildings, buying chalk, repairing equipment, paying the campus electrician, paying salaries of the people who teach and do research. NSF grants are fantastic, but they require that base level of funding. It’s not going to do much good if everyone gets their grants funded, but the researchers aren’t allowed onto campus because they’re furloughed for two weeks.
(And if the states are forced to cut, that’s going to keep the recession going across the economy. There’s this thing the economists call “the paradox of thrift,” where saving money in hard times is good for individuals but bad for the overall economy. State cuts would be like the paradox of thrift, except bigger.)
Dave says: “I really believe that additional science funding will come later. We have a pro-science President, and for the most part, a pro-science Congress. We can’t afford to be greedy right now when so much tax payer money and potential jobs and such are on the line.”
I think this is a pragmatic point of view in light of the bigger picture, and I hope you are right about funding coming later.
But, the one thing that scares me a bit is that Congress will likely be pretty hesitant to pass ANY funding/spending measures for the next couple of years (at least), so getting an increase in NSF in this bill is important.