1. principles
  2. Uncertain Principles, Certain Results

Uncertain Principles, Certain Results

By drorzel on July 6, 2008.

From yesterday's snail mail:

On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your correspondence about the President's Fiscal Year 2009 Budget. We appreciate hearing your views and welcome your suggestions.

So, there you go. I'm appreciated and my suggestions are welcomed. Of course, it took me a while to figure out when I might've contributed anything to the White House budget process...

I think this was a response to the form letter I sent as part of the annual DAMOP letter-writing campaign. Since that was aimed at obtaining some supplemental science funding, I suppose you can say that it got results. Of course, it also gives the next paragraph of the form letter an ironic tinge:

President Bush is committed to encouraging economic progress, keeping America safe, and upholding our deepest values of faith and family. The President's Budget demonstrates his dedication to funding our Nation's key priorities without raising taxes.

(That last might explain why he's 0-for-3 on the first sentence...)

Anyway, I hadn't previously commented on the supplemental funding bill, so this at least provided a good excuse to say "Hooray, science funding."

Hooray, (minimally adequate) science funding. Better late than never.

Tags
Policy

More like this

Good News about the NIH Budget
President Bush's FY2007 budget included no increase in funding for the NIH. Scientists have been lobbying Congress to amend the budget to at least increase the NIH budget to keep even with inflation. You can follow the story in these posts: Lobbying the Senate Amendment passes in the Senate…
John McCain takes a vow
In a townhall meeting, John McCain said "I want to look you in the eye: I will not raise taxes." Anti-tax wingnut Grover Norquist declared that this was: an updated version of "Read my lips, no new taxes" That line of course, was George H. W. Bush's promise, which Bush promptly broke. Of course,…
Selling Science to Congress
Via Facebook, of all things, a message reporting a conversation with Representative Bill Foster (D-Fermilab), talking about the best ways to encourage Congress to take science seriously. First, he addressed what's been done in the past: On the effectiveness of the APS letter-writing campaign: *…
Obama to CDC Efforts in Antimicrobial Resistance: Drop Dead
(from here) By way of Maryn McKenna, we find that the Obama Administration has decided to massively cut the funding for the CDC's antimicrobial resistance and vaccination efforts. I thought this was the kind of anti-science bullshit that the Bush Administration did. From the IDSA (pdf): Under…

Someone should tell our decider-in-chief that borrowing money from the Chinese and the Saudis does not constitute "funding".

Give me "Tax and spend" over "Borrow and spend" anyday.

Hahahaha, I got one of those too! Must have been from the APS March Meeting (since I wasn't at DAMOP). I write a lot of letters through APS and other sources, usually to my congressional reps, and they almost always address my letter more specifically than this one did. Granted, there are probably more people writing to a single office here, but you'd think the form letter would have been at least specific to science since it likely arose from a mass APS mailing. Instead, it gives the same tired rhetoric of this abysmal administration (see second excerpt above).

Yeah, I also got one. I think I sent a form letter via Scientists and Engineers for America.

I got one of those in the mail too, I thought it was printed on very nice paper. Must be one of those "key priorities" the letter mentioned.

I also got one. Apparently our tax dollars are going for fancy thick paper (=trees) and postage (=fossil fuels) for extremely short, useless letters. When I write my senators or congressman (all Democrats), on the other hand, I get an email (=way less natural resources), and it has actual content.