For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.
Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.
Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:
If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.
The journal Science today published this detailed look at the cuts that would occur in all the federal government’s various science programs should the automatic budget cuts outlined in the sequestration legislation occur on January 2, 2013.
Not surprising, the article includes a great deal of moaning and groaning about the terrible harm the cuts would have on science research should they occur. From the Obama administration:
“The report leaves no question that sequestration would be deeply destructive,” a senior Administration official told reporters in a conference call this afternoon. “The Administration does not support [these] indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts.”
And then there’s this quote from one science organization:
“Today’s OMB report confirms the worst,” Hunter Rawlings, president of the Association of American Universities, a Washington, D.C.-based group that represents major research campuses, said in a statement. “A budget sequester in January would have a terrible short- and long-term impact on the nation’s investments in scientific research and education, investments that are essential for long-term economic growth and prosperity.”
There are more such quotes in the article.
The trouble is, this is all hogwash. All the automatic cuts require is an 8.2% reduction in their budgets, which in almost every case will bring the budgets of these agencies back down to what they got in 2007.
Let me repeat that: Sequestration will only reduce the science budget down to numbers equivalent to the 2007 federal budget. I don’t remember the United States being a primitive, prehistoric culture with no science research in 2007. Do you?
For example, the enacted budget for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2012 was $30.7 billion. Obama had requested $30.9 billion for 2013. Sequestration will force NIH’s 2013 budget down to $28.3 billion, only slightly less than it received in 2007 ($28.9 billion). Hardly a disaster. Similarly, the National Science Foundation (NSF) got $6.98 billion in 2013. Obama requested $7.37 billion. Sequestration would give NSF $5.9 billion, exactly the same amount it got in 2007.
In truth, these cuts are actually quite reasonable, and all the fear-mongering about them should be ignored. And this applies as well to the cuts being proposed for military spending, which are slightly higher (9.4%) but harder devastating.