From the diaries by Erick

Investing in math and science is the way to solve the economy. A great idea. And somehow liberals have co-opted it to make it sound like their own.

Today’s Los Angeles Times for instance contains an article entitled, “Fixing the Economy the Scientific Way,” arguing that the federal government must spend more money on math and science education. They point to the fact that over the last 40 years the government’s support of science has declined 60% as a portion of GDP. They then argue that Republicans will only make the problem worse, pointing to their pledge to reduce federal spending on nondefense-related science research to pre-stimulus levels.

There is a lot wrong with this argument. For instance, given that the stimulus was a one-off, emergency spending measure, I’m not sure you can call a return to pre-stimulus investment a “reduction.” If we simply kept all stimulus programs intact forever and ever it would be akin to adding $800 billion to our deficit annually, not exactly a financially or politically sound proposition.

The bigger problem is that liberals’ argument ignores the reason governmental support of science funding has been declining relative to GDP. The problem is that the government over the last four decades has been forced to spend on other things. Our mandatory spending, on such things as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, has been driven upwards, leaving less and less to be spent on discretionary budget items. Moreover it is not going to get better without major changes. The CBO predicts that “federal spending on major mandatory health care programs will grow from roughly 5 percent today to about 10 percent in 2035 and will continue to increase thereafter. “

As the following chart from the Heritage Foundation shows, the increase in costs of entitlements and anti-poverty programs are forcing reductions elsewhere.

If we want to increase our investment and math and science as a pathway to future prosperity we must understand one thing: we are not working with unlimited funds. We can’t simply increase science investment because it is a good idea. A budget requires prioritization. Making math and science a priority means making something else less of a priority.

Sadly, prioritization is even difficult given that our budget is being tyrannized by entitlement spending. Now, and especially in the future, these programs are taking up such a large slice of the budgetary pie that there simply isn’t enough money to pay for core government functions, much less science grants. That is why fiscal conservatism, through principled spending, is the true path toward promoting scientific advancement.

For an example as to why, look no further than Texas. Doing research for this post, I googled “math and science investment” in an attempt to find long term trends in how much the government spent. To my surprise one of the top returns was an article entitled “Perry announces math and science investment.” The Perry the article is referring to is the Republican governor of Texas, Rick Perry. As it turns out, in 2009, right in the heart of the recession, Texas announced it was investing $160 million to expand Texas Science, Technology, Engineering and Math academies. But how!?! After all, Texas doesn’t have an income tax and has one of the nation’s lowest overall tax burdens. Yet through shrewd spending and their ability to attract businesses to the state, Texas has weathered the economic storm better than most, even managing to maintain an $8 billion “rainy day “ fund. This financial flexibility, accomplished by keeping government spending relatively low, is what enabled them to increase their science and math spending in response to a need. The federal government lacks that flexibility.

Don’t be fooled into thinking that solving our economic issues are as simple as giving more money to math and science. It would be a good start and a great investment. But Medicare and Social Security, programs liberals love, are stopping us from doing so.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director of the College Republican National Committee

http://speakout.crnc.org/blog/2010/12/28/investing-in-math-and-sciences-first-requires-entitlement-reform/

« Previous |

Main

| Next »

‘Frustrated’ Brent Scowcroft on GOP Opposition to START Treaty: “It’s Baffling”

December 20, 2010 5:06 PM

General Brent Scowcroft (ret.), the former National Security Advisor to both Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, has been working the phones trying to secure Republican Senate support for the ratification of the New START nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia. He said he’s “cautiously optimistic” but said he was frustrated with the opposition he’s been hearing from Republicans.

“It’s baffling to me,” Scowcroft told ABC News.

“It doesn’t tie our hands on missile defense,” Scowcroft said of one main criticism, “as the president has already demonstrated; we’re moving ahead on missile defense on Europe.”

“There are things in the treaty people don’t like,” he continued, “but right now we have no oversight over what Russians are doing inside with their own nuclear systems” because the previous START treaty expired one year ago this month. “This would restore that, so we can carry forward all the accounting, the rules, the assurances, the inspections -- all the things giving us the confidence to go ahead. Without those it seems to me we’re absolutely nowhere.”

Scowcroft is just one of many Republican foreign policy officials backing the treaty – others include George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, Condoleezza Rice, and former President George H.W. Bush.

The retired Air Force general was reluctant to name the Senators he’d been calling, saying only that he hadn’t been calling “the ones who are hopeless” except for the leader of Senate Republican opposition, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., about whom Scowcroft said, “he’s pretty hopeless now.”

Scowcroft says ratifying START will allow the U.S. to move forward on other issues Republican Senators have criticized the treaty for not containing, “like covering non-strategic warheads. It really baffles me. I’ve got to think that something else is at stake as to why the opposition is there. Especially for somebody like Senator Kyl, who has gotten as much as guarantee as the president can give on providing more money for the modernization of our nuclear stockpile. What does he think is going to happen to that?”

The man who served as the chairman of President George W. Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board acknowledged that he was “expressing some frustration here. But I just don’t understand the opposition. Some of it with John McCain is (opposition to the repeal of) Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, some of it is politics. But to play politics with what is in the fundamental national interest is pretty scary stuff.”

Scowcroft said that “this is not just the treaty, this is trying to put our relationship with the Russians on a sounder basis so we can move forward with a lot of things we really need Ruissian help with,” such as the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran and the war in Afghanistan.

“And the Russians are basically with us with on all those issues but we’re going to stick a finger in their eye,” he said.

Scowcroft said he was in regular consultation with some former Soviet officials who are “worried” about the Senate not ratifying the treaty. “They say the climate is thawing in Russia towards us and this would set it back significantly.”

-Jake Tapper

December 20, 2010

| Permalink
| Share
| User Comments (29)

bench craft company scam

Cellphones

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Start Making Money

‘Frustrated’ Brent Scowcroft on GOP Opposition to START Treaty: “It’s Baffling”

Making <b>News</b> and Entertainment More Social in 2011 - Facebook <b>...</b>

Fair & Balanced? Fox <b>News</b>' Big Year (VIDEOS) | TPM LiveWire

'Green River Killer' Could Face New Murder Charge - AOL <b>News</b>

Making <b>News</b> and Entertainment More Social in 2011 - Facebook <b>...</b>

Fair & Balanced? Fox <b>News</b>' Big Year (VIDEOS) | TPM LiveWire

'Green River Killer' Could Face New Murder Charge - AOL <b>News</b>

Making <b>News</b> and Entertainment More Social in 2011 - Facebook <b>...</b>

Fair & Balanced? Fox <b>News</b>' Big Year (VIDEOS) | TPM LiveWire

'Green River Killer' Could Face New Murder Charge - AOL <b>News</b>

Making <b>News</b> and Entertainment More Social in 2011 - Facebook <b>...</b>

Fair & Balanced? Fox <b>News</b>' Big Year (VIDEOS) | TPM LiveWire

'Green River Killer' Could Face New Murder Charge - AOL <b>News</b>

Making <b>News</b> and Entertainment More Social in 2011 - Facebook <b>...</b>

Fair & Balanced? Fox <b>News</b>' Big Year (VIDEOS) | TPM LiveWire

'Green River Killer' Could Face New Murder Charge - AOL <b>News</b>

Making <b>News</b> and Entertainment More Social in 2011 - Facebook <b>...</b>

Fair & Balanced? Fox <b>News</b>' Big Year (VIDEOS) | TPM LiveWire

'Green River Killer' Could Face New Murder Charge - AOL <b>News</b>

Making <b>News</b> and Entertainment More Social in 2011 - Facebook <b>...</b>

Fair & Balanced? Fox <b>News</b>' Big Year (VIDEOS) | TPM LiveWire

'Green River Killer' Could Face New Murder Charge - AOL <b>News</b>

Making <b>News</b> and Entertainment More Social in 2011 - Facebook <b>...</b>

Fair & Balanced? Fox <b>News</b>' Big Year (VIDEOS) | TPM LiveWire

'Green River Killer' Could Face New Murder Charge - AOL <b>News</b>

Making <b>News</b> and Entertainment More Social in 2011 - Facebook <b>...</b>

Fair & Balanced? Fox <b>News</b>' Big Year (VIDEOS) | TPM LiveWire

'Green River Killer' Could Face New Murder Charge - AOL <b>News</b>

Making <b>News</b> and Entertainment More Social in 2011 - Facebook <b>...</b>

Fair & Balanced? Fox <b>News</b>' Big Year (VIDEOS) | TPM LiveWire

'Green River Killer' Could Face New Murder Charge - AOL <b>News</b>

Making <b>News</b> and Entertainment More Social in 2011 - Facebook <b>...</b>

Fair & Balanced? Fox <b>News</b>' Big Year (VIDEOS) | TPM LiveWire

'Green River Killer' Could Face New Murder Charge - AOL <b>News</b>

No comments:

Post a Comment