From The New York Times:
As for the startling estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, if it proves accurate, the budget deficit will be nearly two and a half times bigger than the previous record shortfall of $455 billion reached in 2008.
The estimate was far higher than most other analysts have predicted. If combined with the gigantic stimulus package of tax cuts and new spending that Mr. Obama is preparing, which could amount to nearly $800 billion over two years, the shortfall this year could hit $1.6 trillion.
How do you think the federal science budget, which has already failed to keep pace with inflation for the past several years, will fare in this situation?
Not well, I'd wager. My guess is that the programs the president supports, such as in energy research, will grow. But as for everything else?
We'll see, but I just don't see how Obama can possibly deliver, any time soon, on this pledge that he made in response to ScienceDebate2008 (a response that may have been given before the big economic crash):
My administration will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade.
It's hard for me to grasp how that's gonna be possible, although I'd be interested to hear why I'm wrong....
- Log in to post comments
Chris, that amounts to an increase of a little over 7% year over year, in real dollars before adjusting for inflation, so it's not too far of a stretch to still expect he'd try to hold to that.
I pity Obama. He has inherited a real mess. It's going to be very difficult for him to keep many of his promises and if he inevitably is not able to, he is going to get flak from all sides and not just the right-wing. Financial hurricanes can overwhelm everyone and not even the most capable President can always stop them. While he probably will end up funding energy initiatives, there are too many things on his agenda above basic scientific research in my opinion. As much as I hate to say it as a scientist, funding for basic science may not get a boost, although it should certainly be better than before.
From the inside, we are really challenged here. In Fiscal Year 2008 the federal government, as a whole, spent $2.941 Trillion. Just with the first bailout, and the current proposed stimulus, we add $1.9 trillion. The deficit adds another $1.2 Trillion. So, if you do the gross math, three things essentially double the amount of money the federal government will put out in Fiscal year 2009. And we're doing that without any tax increases. So no additional revenue.
As I see it, there are two ways to handle this - increase taxes, or stop the federal government for a period of time to save money. Neither seems politically feasible. The rest is, sadly, nibbling around the edges.
Philip H. what about a third alternative? Cut spending in certain areas? Curb Social Security benefits (raise the age and conditions that people can collect), revise Medicaid/Medicare, and precise cuts to DOD pet projects which don't affect our military currently overseas as examples.
Tom,
While some of what you suggest may help, the fundamental issue is we have more then maxed out the credit cards, and revenue isn't sufficient to pay the bills. Supply side economics has been tried several times in my life time - and tax cuts amount to a supply side approach.
You won't find enough $$ in the areas you suggest to cover more then about 1/3rd of the problem, and that's assuming the reductions stick.
I stand by my original idea - either we raise taxes (which might involve closing loop holes), or we severely cut spending. There just isn't enough slop to do much else.
Though I hope to be proven wrong, I predict Obama will pursue the tried and true avenue of "relabeling" to achieve his goal.
Since there is a lot of scientific research done for the Pentagon, some of that will be relabeled "basic science" and voila', you have what you want with no cuts in defense spending!
Bush was a master of this slight of hand. In fact, he and his minions created an entire "shadow" budget (eg, hundreds of billions of "supplemental" funding for Iraq) to suit his needs.
It's a total charade, of course, but politicians love to play charades.
Philip H. I don't disagree with you. Certainly there are any number of loopholes in the tax system which SHOULD be closed, and I suppose I could get behind (in patriotic terms) a tax increase. However, if I'm going to pay even more, I'd CERTAINLY like to see excess spending, waste, and abuse of current systems curbed as well. The next time I go to the store and see someone using food stamps, wearing brand new Nike sneakers and FUBU jeans, and then crowding their groceries into an Escalade ... I'm going to scream.
Tom,
I do understand your concerns. I just don't agree with you about waste, fraud and abuse. In my experience, there is very little of any of that in the federal government, and where there is, it usually gets uncovered eventually by either auditors or Inspectors General. In contrast, what politicians often label "waste, fraud and abuse" are programs they don't support, or which do not operate in their districts. Pork, after all, is only pork if it helps someone else and not me.
The food stamp example you site, while maddening, isn't necessarily in that category. Food stamp rules, as I understand them, allow recipients to have some income. If the food stamp program keeps them fed, then we as a society shouldn't dictate what they do with the other income they receive. And in any case, if the person received he food stamps legitimately, cutting him or her off isn't reducing waste, fraud, and abuse.