Obama Budget Asks For 1% Boost In Research 351
sciencehabit sends this excerpt from ScienceInsider:
"One of the big three research agencies appears to be lagging behind its doubling peers in the president's 2013 budget request released this morning. The $4.9 billion budget of the Department of Energy's Office of Science would rise by 2.4%, to $5 billion. In contrast, the National Science Foundation would receive a nearly 5% boost, to $7.37 billion, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology a hike of 13%, to $860 million. These three agencies were originally singled by President George W. Bush in 2006 for a 10-year budget doubling, a promise that President Barack Obama and Congress have repeatedly endorsed despite the current tough economic times. ... Obama is
asking for a 1% increase in overall federal spending on research, to $140 billion. Within that total, the White House seeks a similar 1% hike in the $30 billion devoted to basic research."
Re:Social agendas like battling AIDS in Africa? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's because AIDS work is the only positive accomplishment that Bush can point to. You can give him that one.
However, cynics looking into his AIDS accomplishments also point rightfully to the fact that his initiatives REQUIRED that AIDS drugs be bought through American sources. This wasn't exactly fleecing these foreign countries (as the prices were actually fair when compared to the prices of the same drugs in the states), but it was another windfall for his corporate buddies. It also prevented these countries from saying to hell with drug patents and setting up their own drug manufacturing (which would have produced the drugs at costs even more reasonable for their poor population).
Re:Bush did what? (Score:5, Interesting)
You're confusing Republicans with Catholics.
Not all Catholics are Republicans, just as not all Republicans are [Socially or Fiscally] Conservative.
Ignoring the argument about being for or against contraception, which I think can be a valid argument in both angles simply based on your belief system, I do have trouble with the government mandating that one side simply accept it. My particular trouble comes from the exemption that some religious groups have from the health care bill (many other Christian groups). If one recognized religious group gets a pass, then why doesn't another for similarly recognized notions?
Besides that, I imagine that the Catholic fight has a lot less to do with contraception in the form of birth control (even though Catholics are strongly opposed to that alone) than it has to do with drawing a line in the sand. I believe that the fear is a lot more than Big Government forcing them to cover Birth Control. It probably stems from the fact that the logical next step is one that crosses a much larger moral quandary: abortion. And it's really not much of a leap to assume that that is the next step given the nature of the current step.
I happen to be a fiscal conservative, and I am not a Catholic, nor do I particularly like the Republican party (even if I do tend to side with it in politics, but only because they tend to be more conservative).