« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Investing in Math and Sciences First Requires Entitlement Reform

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/

COMMENTS

  • ss396

    Your article starts with a discussion at the Federal level, and your chart shows Federal budget allocations. But then you switch your argument an present a success story at the State level. While I favor a commitment to education, I don’t favor such a commitment at the Federal level.

  • http://www.buckforcolorado.com bjwilson83

    This is an issue locally in Colorado as well. We passed TABOR, which is great as it requires a balanced state budget. Unfortunately, liberals then passed laws protecting all their favorite programs. The one thing left out was higher education, so it continually gets cut as opposed to green initiatives, health care, K-12 education, infrastructure, etc. Now some of those things deserve funding, but if cuts were applied equally across the board it would be much better than dumping the burden all on higher ed. (Also, a more business friendly administration is needed in order to attract companies and grow the local economy.) I definitely agree that it is a matter of prioritization. Investing in math and science does a lot to boost the economy, both by creating a skilled workforce and developing technology which we can export to the world. Just look at Google, IBM, Facebook, Apple, etc., some of America’s most successful companies. (And yes, even though people like Bill Gates dropped out of college to start their companies, the people they employ certainly didn’t.) Not only that, but math and science has huge implications for national security as well. Part of the reason we have the best fighting force in the world is our superior military technology. And in turn, developing this technology also benefits society in larger ways. For example, the internet was originally a military project. So yes, we need to make cuts. But if we want a strong economy, there are a lot of good reasons why math and science should not be neglected in the process.

  • reddog53

    The issue, as the responses above also point out, is not that the Federal Government is not spending enough….but that enough is not being spent.

    How can we seriously suggest that Federal funding of R&D is essential, when practically all other posts in Red State point to the folly of federal management of everything that matters?

    Read President Eisenhower’s famous farewell address. He pointedly cautions against increasing the role of the federal government in science & technology, just as he warned against the ‘military-industrial complex’…but somehow the left ignores the warning on R&D and wants a larger federal pipeline into universities for R&D.

    Having seen up close how some federal R&D programs are managed, I think I’m with Ike. Some federal R&D is useful, but when it gets to the point that it becomes the 800 pound gorilla, it becomes less effective. Compare the federal genome project that estimated it would take 10-20 years to the private sector accomplishing the goal in 3, as an example.

    In addition, while R&D leads the way to advanced technology, it cannot be the only means to expand and grow our economy. There’s no such thing as a community composed completely of university professors — they need plumbers, carpenters and bookkeepers as well. Similarly, this blind drive to be the ‘knowledge economy’ ignores that idea that we still need to grow food, produce goods, build houses and all the other ‘low tech’ stuff in order to have a robust, balanced economuy.

    Math and Science are incredibly important to both the private and public sector. Both have a role in funding research for advancement

  • texasgalt

    Let’s pump billions more into Harvard and even UT, which are mightily endowed to do the job research and educating people. Let’s promote more huge government/private sector projects to “advance” science and math. Too bad for the smaller companies that can’t comptete with the “free” money from the government. Let them and their jobs go away.

    We can justify spending any amount of money as long as it is in the name of education and science/math. Right? No, actually that mindset is of the left. So, they have co-opted nothing.

    Please, must your hands always be in my wallet and my company’s check book for the sake of whatever constituency favors or benefits you or yours?

    If we must pursue this statism, let Bamas’ favorite company, GE, pay for this stuff. They’ve been well subsidized, of late.

    Or . . . just let the states work this out, or better yet, let our rich, elite universities return to the real tasks for which they exist. Stop feeding the beasts that are the education lobby, crony capitalists and the federal government. That would be conservative.

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    Sometimes, if you are lucky, they also teach a thing or two. Read up on what America’s first public educators told the politicians. Get ‘em on a schedule, teach them the routine. Turn the Marlboro Man into a limp, wet cigarette!

  • JadedByPolitics

    I couldn’t believe what I was seeing on the front page of Redstate, a diary calling for “investment” neigh MORE “investment” out of the coffers of the federal government ie: my pocket for colleges who are sitting on as much money as those evil business men/women who won’t part with it for the “betterment” of the Country. Give me a break, I like the idea of GE doing much, much more based off the billions upon billions they have received out of the taxpayers pocket, they are truly the THIEVES of big business, they are the Tony Soprano of Big Business. I don’t believe there is anything in the Constitution about investing in math and science and I think the Country just voted to STOP spending and I think money to colleges is a good start.

    I say it all the time, the biggest fight of our lives with be against the big three (no not the automobile companies) Big Government, Big Business and Big Science.

  • texasgalt

    Tom Edison might have invented something that mattered.

    How’d all that government subsidy to the science of alternative energy in Spain work out? It worked out to the tune of 23% unemployment.

    You have your Volt on order. Right?

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    The left will try to take credit for whatever they see as good and blame everyone else for anything they’ve done wrong.

    Want to boost the economy potential – how about more education and less indoctrination?

  • http://www.buckforcolorado.com bjwilson83

    Damn government subsidies.

  • aesthete

    Money spent by the government is money that must be taken from the private sector in some way. The government doesn’t magically become more efficient simply because its tagline has the words “math” or “science” in it. Government funds too many blind leads, pseudo-sciences, and legitimate sciences with little ROI as is without adding another pile of money to the mix.

    “Fund math and science” is much easier said than implemented effectively.

  • JSobieski

    Companies like IBM and GE used to do a lot of basic science research.

    Government funded research to support Government as regulator vs. Government as buyer is particularly troublesome in many instances.

  • texasgalt

    Check the Constitution.

    Some day, you will finish school. You will find there are certain realities in life and some permanent truths that can not be overcome by government largesse.

    I also see from your bio that you like to show liberals their hypocrisy. Heh.

  • Stan(ley) Pruss

    The government broke up AT&T and the remnant could no longer justify basic research when the pay off, if there is one ever, will be decades off. Only government or philantripists could fund really basic research with pay offs decades in the future, One problem is government regulations that make doing anything, including research, more expensive. Another problem is the political correctness driving research more than real scientific curiousity. But I have no short term suggestions to make this better without first fixing socialism in government. It is why after 41 years as a government funded scientist, I’ve retired to work in politics at the local level.

  • texasgalt

    people make, there might be more PRIVATE investment in science and math. Of course the stupid stuff like massive wind energy investment would go wanting and that would be good.