It is difficult for an ongoing business (or an investor) to go bankrupt without debt.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 4
No. of Recommendations: 2
For those still not understanding direct and indirect costs here's a primer. If you don't understand this, please just lurk and learn.
https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/why...The latest debacle centers on “indirect costs.” For every NIH grant awarded for research, funding is divided into two categories:
Direct costs cover the actual research—salaries, fieldwork expenses, stipends for study participants, etc.
Indirect costs cover the infrastructure that makes the research possible—rent, electricity, internet, security, compliance, human ethics review, administrative support, and even toilet paper in buildings.
At my university, the indirect cost rate was 56%. That meant if I received a $100,000 grant, the university would receive an additional $56,000 to cover research infrastructure. So, a total of $156,000 would come through the door from NIH.
Indirect costs are specific to each institution, so they vary. In some cases, the percentage is as low as 10%, but in some, it is upwards of 80%. They often reflect the location of the institution and the service provided to the researchers. For example, in the graph below, New York University is higher than the University of Wisconsin, in part because of rent. The rates are negotiated with NIH every few years.
/ snip
The latest debacle centers on “indirect costs.” For every NIH grant awarded for research, funding is divided into two categories:
Direct costs cover the actual research—salaries, fieldwork expenses, stipends for study participants, etc.
Indirect costs cover the infrastructure that makes the research possible—rent, electricity, internet, security, compliance, human ethics review, administrative support, and even toilet paper in buildings.
At my university, the indirect cost rate was 56%. That meant if I received a $100,000 grant, the university would receive an additional $56,000 to cover research infrastructure. So, a total of $156,000 would come through the door from NIH.
Indirect costs are specific to each institution, so they vary. In some cases, the percentage is as low as 10%, but in some, it is upwards of 80%. They often reflect the location of the institution and the service provided to the researchers. For example, in the graph below, New York University is higher than the University of Wisconsin, in part because of rent. The rates are negotiated with NIH every few years.
No. of Recommendations: 2
For those still not understanding direct and indirect costs here's a primer. If you don't understand this, please just lurk and learn.
----------------
Thanks but CO who doesn't come here anymore, came here and explained this already, is explanation was clear and logical so a second explanation was not necessary, for me anyway, but perhaps some others do.
Here is something that liberals don't understand, tax payer dollars are finding their way to fund programs that make no sense to main street, regardless of the arcane routes the dollars follow to get there.
No. of Recommendations: 23
Here is something that liberals don't understand, tax payer dollars are finding their way to fund programs that make no sense to main street, regardless of the arcane routes the dollars follow to get there.
Mike, you’re mistaken. Liberals, including me, absolutely understand that tax payer dollars are finding their way to fund programs that don’t make sense. Period.
I would applaud those that uncover this waste and stop it. Of course, that requires having professional auditors to take the time to understand the program to see if it’s actually waste, and then stop it.
In other words, it requires a scalpel.
Side bar: When I audited a corporate division or an independent corporation, if I found something that looked funny, I didn’t try to shut down the entity. Nor did I brag about how I found wasted money. The last day of the audit I sat down with CEO and reviewed my findings. On more than one occasion, the CEO had more information about the entity than I did, which was not the least bit shocking. I was there for 2 weeks, they were there every day. At times, potential audit issue became a non-issue once I got a full explanation.
Currently, that is not happening. First, there are no professional auditors, just an egomaniac accompanied by a bunch of young programmers. They use any excuse to shut down entire programs without finding out if they actually understand the “issue” they allegedly found.
And it turns out that the vast majority of the programs are beneficial to Americans, including farmers, researchers, and ordinary people like us.
Musk just assumes the worst, inflates or lies about the impact, tears it down and moves on. Rinse and repeat. They’re using a sledge hammer when a scalpel will do. Collateral damage? Who cares? Chaos? Who cares? Will it hurt ordinary Americans? Who cares?
In reality, this whole exercise has nothing to do with finding waste. If it was, why fire all the IGs? Why haven’t they hired professional auditors?
Because it’s all about breaking the system, and that will not end well for anyone, unless you’re a multi-billionaire of course.
No. of Recommendations: 4
No. of Recommendations: 1
First of thanks for the clear articulation opposing funding finding its way to place it shouldn't. Many here only lament the data collection process, avoiding discussion of the waste and absurdity of some of things uncovered. So I applaud you for acknowledging there is a real problem here.
The DOGE effort would benefit from more resources and if some of those resources come in the form of professional auditors then that would be great. But if they are coming with a "Step aside Sonny, the pros are here now" attitude and try to take over policy, then no.
When a check is written to entities such as the Central American Gender Assessment Consultant Service or the Women in Forests Carbon Initiative Mentorship Program, we don't need a professional auditor to certify what common sense already tells us.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Where's that edit function. Posting again with excerpt and attribution to AW...
>>Here is something that liberals don't understand, tax payer dollars are finding their way to fund programs that make no sense to main street, regardless of the arcane routes the dollars follow to get there.<<
Mike, you’re mistaken. Liberals, including me, absolutely understand that tax payer dollars are finding their way to fund programs that don’t make sense. Period.
I would applaud those that uncover this waste and stop it. Of course, that requires having professional auditors to take the time to understand the program to see if it’s actually waste, and then stop it. - AW
--------------
First of thanks for the clear articulation opposing funding finding its way to place it shouldn't. Many here only lament the data collection process, avoiding discussion of the waste and absurdity of some of things uncovered. So I applaud you for acknowledging there is a real problem here.
The DOGE effort would benefit from more resources and if some of those resources come in the form of professional auditors then that would be great. But if they are coming with a "Step aside Sonny, the pros are here now" attitude and try to take over policy, then no.
When a check is written to entities such as the Central American Gender Assessment Consultant Service or the Women in Forests Carbon Initiative Mentorship Program, we don't need a professional auditor to certify what common sense already tells us.
No. of Recommendations: 10
"Here is something that liberals don't understand, tax payer dollars are finding their way to fund programs that make no sense to main street, regardless of the arcane routes the dollars follow to get there." - BHM
Just because you are ignorant and have a hard time understanding the world does not mean you should automatically assume others don't as well.
Not only is your statement false, but it shows a failure to understand democracy and how democracy works and well as fails to understand what Musk is actually doing.
In the first instance, how democracy works. There are many things in the U.S. budget that I consider waste. There are also many things I don't think a funded with enough money. However, my opinion is only one opinion of hundreds of millions here in the U.S. The way federal spending is done is that there is some compromise. My representatives in government make a deal with your representatives in government and you get a little of what you want and I get a little of what I want. So what you consider waste is just something that someone else wanted and likely ended up in the budget through compromise. They got what they wanted so you could get something else. Furthermore, I notice that in the last couple of days you have often pointed to examples of waste by just pointing to a one sentence description that often has very little to do with what the program does (and more often than not contains lots of words designed to trigger you). You never seem able to take the time and educate yourself about something before reacting. You just automatically see your trigger word and it trigger outrage. You should do better. You won't often look as silly.
The second instance is that you clearly do not understand what Musk is doing. He is literally breaking things (often illegally) and causing a lot of pain for a lot of innocent people. He isn't just hunting out wasteful spending, he is destroying departments that benefit Americans. He is just relying on your ignorance not to see it. As an analogy, it is like I see a couple of ants one day in my kitchen. Later that day I make a comment to my neighbor about seeing the ants in my kitchen and tell him I am going to call an exterminator. Then my neighbor gets in his plow truck and plows through my house many times going back and forth until the whole house is knocked down. When I start yelling and screaming he turns to me and says "You don't understand that it is unhealthy to live in a house with an ant infestation. You should live with ants in your kitchen."
Rather than just find the waste (exterminate the ants), Musk is destroying things (leveling houses). It is a stupid way to look for waste.
But I am sure you are not worried. When Musk breaks something that you really care about, your political masters will blame it on Biden, or DEI, or such and you will swallow it hook line and sinker because it will confirm your beliefs.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Here is something that liberals don't understand, tax payer dollars are finding their way to fund programs that make no sense to main street, regardless of the arcane routes the dollars follow to get there.
Mike, the Philippines is estimated to have 20% of the economy as fraud, waste, abuse, or graft, whereas for the US it's 5%. 5% is very good as far as large Western countries go, so in spite of everything, we do well. So we pretty much know, and we know we aren't the worst. So when I look at the military flunking it's audit - all that's part of the 5%. In discussion about the military - no one seems to have their finger on why they have a problem other than "lack of internal controls", etc. Alpha and I could form the Federal Unknown Kleptocracy Office System and make an attempt, but we'd just make reports for the House and Senate to go nowhere. Really, just what is going on over there? Fix dat
No. of Recommendations: 12
No. of Recommendations: 1
>>Here is something that liberals don't understand, tax payer dollars are finding their way to fund programs that make no sense to main street, regardless of the arcane routes the dollars follow to get there.<<
LOL. You mean like this...
"Trump administration set to purchase $400 million worth of armored Teslas." - Banksy
------------------------------
From the NPR link,
The document does not specify what Tesla vehicles will be purchased by U.S. officials, but Musk's Cybertruck, with its militaristic design and stainless steel exterior, could be an option.
There it is, that weasel word often employed by liberals as the predicate to make any criticism sound more legitimate. But alternatively such tactics "could" mean their argument is based simply on speculation.
Flying Monkeys "could" be an option too.
No. of Recommendations: 15
The document does not specify what Tesla vehicles will be purchased by U.S. officials, but Musk's Cybertruck, with its militaristic design and stainless steel exterior, could be an option.
There it is, that weasel word often employed by liberals as the predicate to make any criticism sound more legitimate. But alternatively such tactics "could" mean their argument is based simply on speculation.
I think maybe you're misreading the NPR article? The "could" in that sentence indicates that it has not yet been decided which model of Tesla would be purchased - whether it's a Cybertruck or a different Tesla vehicle. But the criticism being levied doesn't depend on which model of Tesla is purchased, but the conflicts of interests involved the State Department deciding to buy vehicles from Tesla in the first place.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Mike, the Philippines is estimated to have 20% of the economy as fraud, waste, abuse, or graft, whereas for the US it's 5%.
Past tense.
We are entering a new era of corruption. You can't have a lifelong grifter in the WH supported by many of the nation's greediest oligarchs and not have a whole lot of corruption.
What we'll have is a Putinesque style kleptocracy with the FOX 'news' stamp of approval.
No. of Recommendations: 4
>i>Musk's Cybertruck, with its militaristic design and stainless steel exterior, could be an option.
The Swasticar, of course!
No. of Recommendations: 5
Oh!! B-b-but….
After reports circulated Wednesday night of the State Department's intent to purchase Tesla vehicles, the document was edited, at 9:12 p.m., and now says the federal contract is for $400 million worth of "armored electric vehicles," but the word "Tesla" was removed.
Poof!
No. of Recommendations: 11
First of thanks for the clear articulation opposing funding finding its way to place it shouldn't. Many here only lament the data collection process, avoiding discussion of the waste and absurdity of some of things uncovered. So I applaud you for acknowledging there is a real problem here.
The United States budget in fiscal year 2024 was $6.75 trillion dollars. Does ANYONE think there isn’t waste or even fraud going on within a budget that large? A system that large will ALWAYS have some waste, and yes, even fraud. You should start by thinking like our Founding Fathers. What is the very first sentence they wrote in the Constitution? "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,………. Not a perfect Union but a more perfect Union. We imperfect humans are incapable of creating perfect, except for maybe Edson Lopes playing Bach on classical guitar. That’s as close to perfection as there is.
The whole idea of financial auditing is to create a more perfect financial system because we know there is no perfect financial system. I have audited both for-profit companies and non-profit organizations both large and small. They all have imperfections. Every single one of them. I have discovered fraud in both for-profits and non-profits, but the solution was never to break the system and start over. It was to make sure the perpetrators were held accountable (criminally charged) and to fix the internal controls weaknesses that the perpetrators used to take advantage of the system. Interestingly, it’s more difficult to put internal controls in place in a small company than in a large organization because small company staff have to do multiple tasks that tend to overlap basic internal controls.
So is there a real problem here? Finding one item in a billion dollar entity does not necessarily indicate there is a problem. But problems found should always be corrected.
The DOGE effort would benefit from more resources and if some of those resources come in the form of professional auditors then that would be great. But if they are coming with a "Step aside Sonny, the pros are here now" attitude and try to take over policy, then no.
I remember the first day of my college audit class. The teacher, an ex-Big 8 (yes, I’m that old) auditor, said you may forget some things I teach you, but never forget these two:
1) An auditor must be independent in fact as well as appearance
2) One of the 5 sections of the CPA exam is on law. Don’t let it go to your head. If you ever come across any legal issue, hire a god damn lawyer.
Musk companies have received billions in U.S. tax dollars. THAT is as big of an example of lack of independence as there is. Period. Full stop. Musk looking for waste or fraud in our government is the biggest red flag 5-alarm fire alert there is. And don’t get me started on having access to financial systems!!!
Another red flag? Firing 17 IGs who, along with their staff, were tasked with finding waste and fraud.
Again, Musk is not looking for waste or fraud, he’s looking to break the whole system which will have major financial repercussions throughout our country, including people unnecessary dying. Yes, it’s that serious.
When a check is written to entities such as the Central American Gender Assessment Consultant Service or the Women in Forests Carbon Initiative Mentorship Program, we don't need a professional auditor to certify what common sense already tells us.
Let me be kind here, Musk has a habit of making things up. Do these really exist? If so, were the costs material (is Musk chasing pennies instead of dollars)? Has Musk sat down with the person in charge of the program to understand exactly why they spent the money on that? Musk has as much common sense as his boss; None.
No. of Recommendations: 8
"Musk companies have received billions in U.S. tax dollars"
Musk is Trump's proxy.
Trump is a prolific liar. If his lips are moving, there is a good chance he is lying.
So all of the Trump and DOGE fan boys expect us to take Musk at his word. I do not
doubt that there is waste and fraud occurring. I do doubt any unsubstantiated claim that
Musk and Trump claim.
Hey DOGE, want some credibility with the rest of us ??
Investigate all of the wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars on Trump's golf outing with
who knows how many Secret Service Agents and other Government resources in tow ?
Are the SS Agents staying in Trump hotel rooms, at inflated prices ?? My money say Yes,
he is soaking the American Public for every cent he can take. Prove me wrong, let Independent
auditors investigate. But No, the DOGE/Musk/Trump fanboyz and fangurlz don't want
anything to do with that.
No. of Recommendations: 12
But the criticism being levied doesn't depend on which model of Tesla is purchased, but the conflicts of interests involved the State Department deciding to buy vehicles from Tesla in the first place.
I haven't read the entire thread, but did anyone notice the contradiction? The Felon is "drill baby drill", pump out as much greenhouse gas as you like, and then wants to equip the federal fleet with EVs.
I find that amusing. So who's really in charge? Looking more and more like it's Musk.
No. of Recommendations: 31
Here is something that liberals don't understand, tax payer dollars are finding their way to fund programs that make no sense to main street, I have no doubt that tax dollars are going to programs that are abstruse to Main Street, and I’d even happily acknowledge that some of it is wasteful. That’s the nature of research: you never know what you’re going to get. Sometimes you hit the mother lode, sometimes you get nothing.
I’d argue against using “Main Street” as the barometer, however, because “Main Street” isn’t really equipped to make evaluations of that sort, which is why we come to rely on (so-called) “experts.” (Yes, they make mistake too, lots of them, and sometimes egregious ones, but I don’t know of a better way to do it.)
Everyone knows the story of the discovery of penicillin, an accident found while a scientist was investigating staphylococcus bacteria (I’m sure Main Street would approve.) But it was when he saw mold stopping the growth that he switched to investigating “mold”, an enterprise which continued for years, and which was only successfully developed as the first antibiotic *eleven* years later that the wonders of the refined drug became apparent. How long would “Main Street” have stood for funding research on “mold”, do you suppose?
A more contemporary example exists in the research into
lizard venom . I dare predict “Main Street” would have laughed this idea off the planet. Yet it was this area that led to unsuccessful, then successful diabetes therapies, and eventually to the blockbuster drugs of weight loss so popular today: Ozempic and similar. (Note that *again* public dollars were used, while private profits resulted - as often happens. See: the Internet, silicon chips, EV batteries, etc.)
Every now and then, scientists develop treatments that end up being even more popular for another condition entirely. Think of Viagra, originally for high blood pressure, now used for erectile dysfunction. Or thalidomide, a dangerous morning sickness treatment that is now a valuable cancer treatment.
The blockbuster drug Ozempic was originally developed to treat type 2 diabetes, a condition that results in too much glucose, or sugar, in the blood. This is because the body can’t effectively use the insulin it produces.
Enter a poisonous lizard
In the 1980s John Pisano, a biochemist with a penchant for venoms, and a young gastroenterologist Jean-Pierre Raufman were working with poisonous lizard venom from the Gila monster, a slow-moving reptile native to the south of the United States and north of Mexico. By the 1990s, Pisano, Raufman and colleague John Eng identified a hormone-like molecule they called exendin-4. This stimulated insulin secretion via action at the same receptor as GLP-1.
Excitingly, exendin-4 was not quickly metabolised by the body, and so might be useful as a diabetic therapeutic. https://theconversation.com/the-rise-of-ozempic-ho...(Although this article doesn’t mention it, it was NIH grants that funded some of the research into the development of the semi-glutide drugs. How do you think “Main Street”, or Musk’s Doge boys would react when they see “We’re looking into the possible use of lizard poison for weight loss.”?)
Anyway, there are tons of stories similar to this, and probably more tons of research dollars wasted that came to nothing. If everybody knew what would pay off, we’d be in the casino with only Royal Flushes at the poker table, but it doesn’t work like that.
Conservatives seem to like to point to the failures (Solyndra!) rather than the successes (the rest of that entire portfolio). I wish you guys would adopt a “fair and balanced” approach, and rely less on populist clap trap and more on the advice of experts (who, I repeat, can also be wrong, and often are.)
Thanks for your attention.
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>Here is something that liberals don't understand, tax payer dollars are finding their way to fund programs that make no sense to main street,<<
I have no doubt that tax dollars are going to programs that are abstruse to Main Street, and I’d even happily acknowledge that some of it is wasteful. That’s the nature of research: you never know what you’re going to get. Sometimes you hit the mother lode, sometimes you get nothing. - Goofy
----------------
Thanks Goofy, your post is refreshing in that you not only provide a balanced perspective on the nature of research, but that you also acknowledge mistakes can be made and are being made.
My comment,
Here is something that liberals don't understand, tax payer dollars are finding their way to fund programs that make no sense to main street,,
was not meant to be specific to the NIH but rather at the nature of the democrat response to the waste, fraud and abuse identified so far, transcending multiple agencies, by President Trump's Department of Government Efficiency.
Typically the democrats response to DOGE will be a blend of 1 part itemizing a bunch of good works done by the agency under audit and 2 parts condemning Musk, his team, and the legitimacy of the entire data collection process.
But I rarely hear the democrats acknowledge, let alone defend, the underlying WFA (creating a new acronym for waste, fraud, and abuse) that was reported by DOGE.
And in my opinion, Main Street can easily recognize WFA without getting into scientific research at all; WFA such as a grant to the Palestinian rap artist whose musical theme focuses on the destruction of Israel; or this (presently my favorite) the USAID grant to "The Women in Forests Carbon Initiative Mentorship Program."
Thanks for your attention. - Goofy
Right back atcha.
No. of Recommendations: 16
bighairymike:
And in my opinion, Main Street can easily recognize WFA without getting into scientific research at all; WFA such as a grant to the Palestinian rap artist whose musical theme focuses on the destruction of Israel; or this (presently my favorite) the USAID grant to "The Women in Forests Carbon Initiative Mentorship Program."Raffoul Saadeh did not receive a WFA grant. Tomorrow's Youth Organization, founded in 2008 by Hani Hikmat Masri and the first American non-profit organization based in Nablus, Palestine where Saadeh is one of more than fifty staffers and 300 volunteers, was the recipient of the grant. Tomorrow's Youth Organization supports refugees and marginalized communities through education, mental health treatment, youth development, and emergency relief efforts.
Now, Saadeh, who was born in Connecticut, graduated from Georgetown University and has a Master's degree in Public Policy from Tel Aviv University may have indeed advocated for the destruction of Israel (I have no idea, never having listened to his music) years prior to joining Tomorrow's Youth Organization in 2021 but, according to the vice president and Elon Musk, he should be embraced in the same way as Marko Elez, the DOGE staffer who wrote that people should “normalize Indian hate” and was eagerly reinstated after being fired.
Goose, gander, after all.
And what's your beef with "The Women in Forests Carbon Initiative Mentorship Program"? The United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service and partners, through the SilvaCarbon program Women in Forest Carbon Initiative, are trying to get more young women into STEM education through forest and carbon monitoring. The program pairs young climate professionals with mentors around the world, providing women scientists and students with professional experiences, training and mentorship.
Both seem worthy of financial support rather than your gleeful derision.
bighairymike:
But I rarely hear the democrats acknowledge, let alone defend, the underlying WFA (creating a new acronym for waste, fraud, and abuse) that was reported by DOGE.What waste, fraud, and abuse did DOGE report? Other than some lies posted on X ("condoms for Gaza," for example) I have seen nothing. Enlighten us, since DOGE has failed to do so.
https://tomorrowsyouth.org/https://www.forestlandscaperestoration.org/news/sh...
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. of Recommendations: 18
Charity begins at home,
But it doesn’t end there.
True story:
In Galveston, the congregation I served began a relationship with a clinic and community in eastern, very rural and very poor Nicaragua.
Each year, we sent two large medical delegations to the clinic for 10 days each. They taught health care workers, held clinic, saw thousands of patients and gave many Texas medical students a rare and intensive experience in treating tropical diseases.
It was expensive- lots cheaper than treating those patients in a US hospital to be sure, but the Nicaragua trips took up a sizeable portion of our congregation’s mission committee budget.
Which prompted a handful of people in the congregation to begin saying similar things to what you just said- “Why are we helping people in Nicaragua when we have hungry people here in Galveston. After all, charity begins at home!”
They had a point, agreed the mission committe, so the church forged a relationship with the local Salvation Army, which had been forced by budget cuts to eliminate the nightly meal it served to the homeless. We pulled tother four other local congregations and each of the congregations agreed to buy the food, prepare and serve one meal per week.
Or congregation picked Mondays and we formed 5 “meal teams”- one for each Monday of the month with an extra team for those months that had a fifth Monday. Each team had 8-10 people. Some on the team bought the food. Others prepared food for 50-60 people, served the food and then cleaned up the Salvation Army kitchen. I was the dishwasher on meal team #2.
It was a heavy commitment of time and treasure. We had about 50 church volunteers who participated.
But here’s the funny thing- or the sad thing, depending on your perspective…..
Not a one of those 50 volunteers were from the group of folks who had complained about our Nicaragua mission, saying “charity begins at home”. Nope. When it came time to put their money where their mouths were, they were AWOL.
No. of Recommendations: 1
...trying to get more young women into STEM education...
Project 2025 wants women back in the home where they belong. Wife, mother, homemaker. They don't need STEM.
No. of Recommendations: 13
LurkerMom:
Charity begins at home, like the good ol’ USA
https://www.forbes.com/companies/st-jude-childrens...Well, had you bothered to look at the data from your own link, you would have discovered that while Tomorrow's Youth Organization received $3.3 million in government grant money to support over two hundred women entrepreneurs and dozens of women-led small businesses...
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital received $164 million in US government funding.
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital received $2.6 billion in private donations.
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital has Net Assets of $11.3 billion.
As the third largest US charity, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital is the very definition of "charity begins at home" and good for them. But the suggestion that nothing should be spent beyond our borders as a tool of U.S. soft power, administering vital humanitarian aid worldwide each year, is silly, cruel, and shortsighted.
No. of Recommendations: 21
My comment,
Here is something that liberals don't understand, tax payer dollars are finding their way to fund programs that make no sense to main street,,
was not meant to be specific to the NIH but rather at the nature of the democrat response to the waste, fraud and abuse identified so far, transcending multiple agencies, by President Trump's Department of Government Efficiency.
So far as I am aware, the “waste, fraud, and abuse identified so far” exists only on some 20 year old’s etch-a-sketch, not in the public domain where the rest of us might be able to evaluate it. It appears to me that most of what is being identified is “things I don’t like”, not “things that are waste.”
USAID is the most prominent of those (I’m sure others will come along.) These are funds that have been appropriated by Congress. By Republicans as well as Democrats. The agency exists because the US government, Constitutionally created it in 1961, and has repeatedly funded it since. Shutting it down is extra-constitutional at best. (If it is to be shut down, then there is a way to do that, not for a single person to walk in and declare it so.)
But I rarely hear Democrats acknowledge, let along defend, the underlying WFA, that was reported by DOGE.
There is no shortage of Democrats - or Republicans - concerned about waste and fraud. I recall Senator Proxmire’s Golden Fleece awards in the 1970’s. Al Gore had a “Reinventing Government” initiative in 1993 which addressed some of this. For some reason you think that the only way to address it is to have an unelected billionaire rampage through government with a team of 20-somethings (some actually convicted of fraud and waste of their own) and do so without oversight of any kind, including, apparently, public disclosure.
And in my opinion Main Street can easily recognize WFA without getting into scientific research at all
Sure. I only focused on scientific research because it’s easy to see. A message board doesn’t lend itself to such things as “Should government fund the arts?” or other, less clearly defined fields such as education or the social sciences.
I’m sure DOGE will find NPR and PBS useless and stop all funding. I happen to think there should be at least one channel, out of the 1000 available, that doesn’t rely entirely on the approval of McDonald’s and Ford to exist, but that’s just me. Government has funded art through the ages (Michaelangelo was funded by patrons and the church, the de-facto government of the time. More contemporary examples include DeKooning, Jackson Pollack, even J.K. Rowling, in a backhanded way.) It’s worth a few pennies to me to the sake of “civilization”, but again that’s just me.
Again I have no problem finding waste, or especially corruption (the upper levels of this administration offer the most target rich environment in history, but I doubt we’ll start there, eh?) but I do have to question “WHO” we charge to find it and what the criteria are for it. In the current environment it’s clear that it’s more about political opportunism and retribution than anything.
You’re welcome.
