Partisan, yes. Hack, no.

Representative Dave Weldon (R-FL) recently issued a press release that has been getting a little bit of play at a couple of blogs on the political right. In the press release, Weldon accuses Democrats of taking money from NASA to fund other projects, including AIDS relief for Africa:

"The raid on NASA's budget has begun in earnest. The cuts announced today by House Democrat leaders, if approved by Congress, would be nearly $400 million less than NASA's current budget," said Weldon.

"Clearly, the new Democrat leadership in the House isn't interested in space exploration. Their omnibus proposal lists hundreds of new increases, including a $1.3 billion increaseâ¹over 40% for a Global AIDS fund, all at the expense of NASA."

The Right Wing Professor, in his commentary, wonders why there hasn't been more commentary on this topic here at Scienceblogs:

This of course has been so far ignored at the misnamed 'scienceblogs.com', whose partisan hacks are still blogging in unison against the Bush Administration on their attempts to control/suppress scientific information. Fair game, but if you want to pretend if you're pro-science and not just using science as a tool for another agenda, you should at least notice what the other side is doing.

I'll cheerfully admit to being partisan, but if you are looking for a hack, look elsewhere. A friend emailed me Weldon's press release when it was issued, and I ignored it for two reasons. First, it was less than totally honest about the situation. Second, the issue is more politically charged and much, much less science-oriented than Weldon and his blogosphere hack friends are trying to make it look.

Since they are wondering about the lack of outcry, I'll provide a reality based explanation of the actual situation, then explain why, although I am a bit pissed at the situation, I'm not pissed with the Democrats in Congress.

First, let's look at what's actually going on here. The bill that Weldon is complaining about is the bill that will control spending for the remainder of fiscal 2007, but it's not really a budget or an appropriations bill. It's a "continuing resolution." Since it's the only bill that will regulate spending for most of the government between now and the end of September, that might seem to be a distinction that doesn't involve any real differences, but it's worth discussing because it explains why this situation exists in the first place.

Normally, a Congress that convenes in January would not normally be expected to pass any legislation that would address spending prior to October of that year. The federal government operates on a fiscal year that begins in October, and the budget and appropriations legislation is supposed to be taken care of before then. This year, that didn't happen. Even though both Congress and the White House were in Republican hands prior to January, and even though Congress met for a lame duck session, they didn't manage to get the spending bills finished. (Meeting for fewer days than any Congress in recent history might have had something to do with that. So might the time that got put into worrying about such critical issues as gay marriage and flag burning.) Instead of acting like responsible adults, the 109th Congress left that mess for the new Congress to deal with.

Being left with the unfinished work of the last Congress meant that the new Democratic leadership had to make a difficult choice. They could go through the remainder of the complete appropriations bill process, which would take more time and put them still further behind in dealing with things like the budget for fiscal 2008, or they could put together a continuing resolution to cover the rest of the year, which would result in a lack of funding for new programs, but which would at least allow the various government agencies to know what they could spend for the eight months that remain in this fiscal year. Despite their reputation for hand-over-fist spending, the Democratic leadership elected to take that later course.

They have advanced a continuing resolution that funds most agencies - including NASA - at just below their 2006 levels. They have refused to allow earmarks, and they have refused to allow amendments. It's a simple, take-it-or-leave-it approach, and it's just about the only way that I can think of that would allow this absolutely necessary legislation to move through fairly quickly.

Here's what the legislation does for (or to, if you prefer) NASA:

Sec. 20915. Notwithstanding section 101, the level for the following accounts of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall be as follows: `Science, Aeronautics and Exploration', $10,075,000,000, of which $5,251,200,000 shall be for science, $890,400,000 shall be for aeronautics research, $3,401,600,000 shall be for exploration systems, and $531,800,000 shall be for cross-agency support programs; `Exploration Capabilities', $6,140,000,000; and `Office of Inspector General', $32,000,000.

Section 101, which was mentioned above, specifies certain percentage reductions in spending that were mandated by other Congressional acts last year. According to the White House, NASA spent 16.156 billion in 2006. The section quoted above gives NASA 16.247 billion for this year. They're receiving a cut only in that they're not getting the 400 million+ extra that the White House had asked for and that Congress had more-or-less decided to give them before giving up on the spending bills that it was their duty to finish.

There are a few selected programs that will receive more money in 2007 than they did in 2006, and the AIDS program that Weldon is complaining about is one of them. An increase in funding for this particular "liberal spending priority" was requested by that paragon of liberal values George W. Bush, and I suspect that one of the reasons that it was not funded at the 2006 level was because the Democrats didn't want to get painted as having cut funding for people dying of disease in developing countries - you know, the way that Weldon is trying to paint them as cutting funds when it comes to NASA.