
Trump’s 2021 budget drowns science agencies in red ink, again - strangeloops85
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/trump-s-2021-budget-drowns-science-agencies-red-ink-again
======
showerst
For non-US readers or those not used the federal political process, the
president doesn't set the budget, congress does.

These proposals are policy pieces to play to the base, and rarely have much
that ends up in the actual budget.

~~~
taikawatiti
Thanks for the clarification. As someone not from the US, can you also clarify
what role does president have at all in the budget? Can he send it back (and
be forced to sign a second time?)

~~~
jfengel
The individual agencies, under the guidance of a Cabinet secretary (appointed
by the President) submit their budgets. It's a combination of the work of the
career civil servants (largely continuing their existing work, plus some new
things they'd like to do) and the goals of the President.

That's the budget sent to Congress, and traditionally pronounced "dead on
arrival". In practice, the Congress is usually pretty interested in continuing
to fund existing programs (many of them mandated by law), and changes (adding
and removing stuff) is done around the edges.

The final appropriations bill (authorization to spend money) is passed by the
House, then the Senate, and then possibly reconciled between the two.

That's then sent to the President, who can sign it or veto it. The veto could
be overridden, but it's a very high bar to clear, and the President's party
nearly always has enough votes to avoid that even if they're not an outright
majority. So then there's a protracted negotiation... during which the
government may shut down if the existing appropriations bill expires
(including temporary extensions).

------
tzs
This does more than cut budgets:

> DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy: a cut of 173%, which would
> not only eliminate the $425 million agency, but also force it to return $311
> million to the U.S. Department of the Treasury

~~~
searine
ARPA-e is a grant funding institution. They were given 400 million to give
grants, and have issued 92 million. Trumps budget is asking for them to return
the remainder.

~~~
ebg13
Yes. That's what they said.

------
supernova87a
Right hand: "We're outraged that China's Huawei is exploiting state subsidies
to develop technology that poses a national security threat to the USA!"

Left hand: cuts research funding.

Sometimes I get sadly resigned to the possibility that this really is what a
majority of this country wants (or has been convinced is what is best).
Despite us being overall so developed, these kinds of issues show you the
importance (and inescapable historic truth) of still needing to tend to your
fellow citizens' basic material needs. And, when not doing it properly (or
seen to be doing it), it can determine whether you get to advance on the
forefront of other issues.

I swear, the biggest gift to other countries who are our long term competitors
(and yes, don't mistake that we're not in a long term race here), is not any
transfer/leak of technology or outright sabotage. It's that our stagnation and
policy choas (caused by the dumbest issues!) for a decade sap our progress on
strategic, major, major technologies. And cause the experts who you need to
make progress to leave for more fertile ground, whether through leaving
government, private companies, or to other countries. (How do you think that
the FAA and military gradually became so dependent on their industry partners
for any semblance of expertise?)

Edit: yes I know that it's just the budget proposal, and that it's likely to
get watered down more than Bernie Sanders in a general election. But the
decline in funding in actual budgets is undeniable. And the outright deception
to present such a budget is near fraud.

------
rtkwe
It's a rough time for any government agency doing research, if they're not
being slashed entirely the whole funding process is being redirected away from
any sort of renewable energy and to fossil fuels. At a DOE conference a year
or two ago the speaker from the government pretty explicitly said most funding
will be going to research into things related to fossil fuels (coal, fracking,
etc).

------
aazaa
If this were headed in the direction of deficit reduction, that would be one
thing. But on top of these cuts, the budget also expands the deficit to $1T,
or somewhere north of 5% of GDP:

[https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/09/trump-admin-to-unveil-
fiscal...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/09/trump-admin-to-unveil-
fiscal-2021-budget-calling-for-extending-tax-cuts.html)

[https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-
year-3306306](https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306)

~~~
apodysophilia
The budget outlines a plan to have a budget surplus by 2035. Obviously it
would be better for that to happen sooner but that seems unlikely. People are
upset about these cuts. Imagine how upset they would be if all discretionary
spending was cut in half.

~~~
tzs
Doesn't that "plan" depend on unrealistic economic growth?

------
searine
If there is one thing that will end american hegemony, it is failing to fund
basic science.

~~~
noobermin
This is correct. While I personally don't want us to be the world's policeman,
we are certainly guaranteeing we will slip beyond even an influential state
the more we do this sort of thing.

------
mi100hael
Sad to see NOAA continue to be gutted. Michael Lewis's book _the Fifth Risk_
provides a good look at the individuals behind services like Accuweather and
how they're trying to monopolize public, tax-funded data for private profit.

~~~
masonic
How does one "monopolize" public data that _remains_ public?

~~~
mi100hael
By making it technically available but realistically inaccessible (like bad,
buggy web services) due to budget cuts and willful malice.

Then with special treatment/access, re-sell it through your private for-profit
company in the formats that NOAA should've presented it in (and has in the
past).

The book is worth a read if you're curious about specifics.

------
exabrial
Interesting:
[https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1226983552987860992](https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1226983552987860992)

~~~
wolfram74
In the break down it looks like nasa's science and environmental budgets got
slashed, the operations budget kept flattish/light cuts, and some of the
flashier stuff boosts.

------
gfosco
Private sector: This is your time. The free market has been waiting for you.
You don't need the government to do this.

~~~
noobermin
The private sector has never funded low chance of return research, actually a
few companies did but that was another time. That's what national labs are
for.

~~~
gfosco
When we're 23 trillion in debt, maybe the government should be reducing
funding for low chance of return research too..

~~~
Ericson2314
Government debt in that state's own currency is not like household debt.
Frankly, we shouldn't use the word "debt" for the former.

~~~
wuliwong
What word do you think should be used instead?

~~~
basementcat
Perhaps "Market Cap".

A country that controls a currency that is used by many people outside its own
borders is analogous to a cryptocurrency with a "proof of stake" consensus
algorithm in which holders of sovereign bonds are rewarded with "interest".
The central bank may periodically make policy pronouncements which may be
analogous to various soft and hard forks (change of interest rate -> change of
mining reward) which may impact the valuation relative to other currencies.
Certain countries/currencies have a very long track record of not having very
many "zero day vulnerabilities" and are therefore highly trusted and a first
choice whenever there is a "flight to safety" (when panic strikes and there is
demand for "safe" investments).

