Saying Goodbye to Government-Sponsored Science
Some people believe that cuts in public spending benefit our country by decreasing the national debt, and, of course, this notion is not entirely false. But what about cutting tiny areas of the budget that have extremely important long-term contributions, both in terms of quality of life, (e.g., curing cancer) and the health of the economy as a whole?
For those who have never come across the concept of “penny wise and pound foolish,” I offer you this article in Forbes, which discusses our government’s whacking of the science budget, and the actual economic consequences. Gone is this infinitesimally small portion of our budget, an act taken purely to cause cheer among those who don’t understand that virtually every important technology since the Second World War has been, in some way, supported and/or co-developed by the federal government.
Craig,
It’s hard to disagree with your passionate plea.
It’s also true many projects essential for advancement of the human species have no immediate commercial value. Your make a assertion most pure research must be funded either from philanthropy or the taxpayer is valid.
It’s equally true that governments as trustees of the taxpayers funds must ensure these funds are spent wisely and with careful monitoring.
The $ 10 billion James Webb telescope may be an important project, but so too is funding a hospital, road, providing veterans programs etc. The call upon the public purse is enormous and each applicant equally deserving.
Reducing the national debt isn’t popular, yet debt is crippling the national economy, which in turn threatens all government funding.
Old simplistic solutions no longer work in a modern world where capital and wealth are no longer restricted by national borders.
One of the endless problems between the executive government and the bureaucracy will always be how funds are administered.
The executive measures funding in terms of political effectiveness, while bureaucracy measures funding in terms of activity and employment of public servants.
Neither approach is an incentive to efficient taxpayer funding.
I strongly recommend watching on U-tube the hilarious satire on this situation from the BBC series ‘Yes Minister’.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-5zEb1oS9A]
This episode entitled “the compassionate society” includes an exchange concerning the continued funding of a fully staffed hospital, without doctors, nurses or patients.
The bureaucrat is appalled at the suggestion the hospital should be either closed or commence operating. In the bureaucrats opinion the hospital is a model of efficiency and may win an award as the best run hospital. He expresses the view that the civil servants employed in the hospital are seriously overworked !
Although fictional, the satire was very accurate of the heavily unionized UK National Heath Service in 1979-84 which at the time, had no less than six such facilities in existence!
The episode also portrays the attitude of Trade Union leaders like firebrand shop steward Jamie Morris from the National Union of Public Employees.
These unions fought bitter campaigns against the new Thatcher Conservative government until finally broken and exhausted by defecting membership and resolute government policies.
It’s a great example of the problems of political life. Every program has passionate and worthy advocates, every request has a noble and valuable purpose, but with limited funds how can the politician decide ?
Whatever the decision, there will always be some who are disgruntled and unhappy.
Nor is it just a matter of a few requests. The US federal government receives applications for funding, renewal of funding, increases in funding from tens of thousands of programs each year.
The media focuses on only one or two examples. But how can elected representatives become familiar with the needs of tens of thousands of programs ?
If the Trump administration’s efforts were simply to reign in government spending, and ensure program were efficient and cost effective, I think most taxpayers would grudgingly applaud.
However, possibly due to inexperience or more likely political objectives, the current administration appears in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water !
The Thacher government was more professional. It held a series of non-partisan, genuinely independent inquiries (some commissioned while in opposition) that focused on increasing efficiency regardless of the political cost.
Thatcher then relentlessly pursued these objectives. Although initially very unpopular, the British people finally began to trust and respect the government policies as necessary, if painful. Support for reform grew and society and the economy was transformed.
I guess it all comes down to the degree of faith the taxpayer has that the government is managing government spending in the nations best interests. That requires confidence in the integrity of the executive.
Obstructionist bureaucrats often treat newly elected governments with disdain and can effectively undermine their efforts. However, they do so at their own peril as some governments grow with experience and learn to neutralize and remove obstructionist bureaucrats.
It’s a fundamental principle for all governments to provide funding and resources for programs and services necessary for the public weal, unable to be provided by the private sector.
But the best method, and which programs, will always remain a dilemma.