Prioritized Spending
As you gather together your year-end financial statements, I thought you might like to know where some of your money will be going next year. As a scientist, I am particular interested in seeing how the US government will fund research and education. Here is a sampling of budgets, by department, for 2006:
DEPARTMENT: $$ (up or down from 2005)
1. Department of Defense: $419.3 billion (up 5%, does not include Veterans Affairs)
2. Department of Education: $56 billion (down 1%)
3. Department of Interior (includes National Park Service and BLM): $10.6 billion (down 1%)
4. Environmental Protection Agency: $7.6 billion (down 6%)
5. NASA: $16.5 billion (up 2%)
6. National Science Foundation: $5.6 billion (up 2%, but with new mandatory non-research costs that eat up that increase)
7. Social Security Administration: $9.5 billion (up 8%)
8. Health and Human Services: $67.2 billion (down 1%)
8b. The National Institutes of Health (part of Health and Human Services): $28.6 billion (down 0.5%, the first decrease in NIH budget since 1970)
(all figures taken from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/budget.html)
In order for the budgets above to keep up with inflation, they would need to increase by 2.4% (according to CIA factbook).
What is particularly troubling to me, of course, is the drop in funding to the NIH at a time when bio-medical research costs are increasing much faster than inflation. This means that only about 1 in 8 research project grants are being funded (as compared to five years ago when it was 1 in 4).
As long as we're counting beans:
War in Iraq: $175 billion (the figure approved by Congress) or $230 billion (the figure calculated by CostOfWar.com)
Happy Spending Everyone!
DEPARTMENT: $$ (up or down from 2005)
1. Department of Defense: $419.3 billion (up 5%, does not include Veterans Affairs)
2. Department of Education: $56 billion (down 1%)
3. Department of Interior (includes National Park Service and BLM): $10.6 billion (down 1%)
4. Environmental Protection Agency: $7.6 billion (down 6%)
5. NASA: $16.5 billion (up 2%)
6. National Science Foundation: $5.6 billion (up 2%, but with new mandatory non-research costs that eat up that increase)
7. Social Security Administration: $9.5 billion (up 8%)
8. Health and Human Services: $67.2 billion (down 1%)
8b. The National Institutes of Health (part of Health and Human Services): $28.6 billion (down 0.5%, the first decrease in NIH budget since 1970)
(all figures taken from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/budget.html)
In order for the budgets above to keep up with inflation, they would need to increase by 2.4% (according to CIA factbook).
What is particularly troubling to me, of course, is the drop in funding to the NIH at a time when bio-medical research costs are increasing much faster than inflation. This means that only about 1 in 8 research project grants are being funded (as compared to five years ago when it was 1 in 4).
As long as we're counting beans:
War in Iraq: $175 billion (the figure approved by Congress) or $230 billion (the figure calculated by CostOfWar.com)
Happy Spending Everyone!
posted by BrianJ @ 1:11 PM
4 Comments:
At 03 January, 2006 00:24,
Anonymous said…
By those figures we will spen 14.6 times the amount of money to kill people than to save lives. Seems like saving costs a lot less.
At 04 January, 2006 01:59,
Anonymous said…
I've been trying to think of a response, but am still at a loss. I try not to get depressed about the direction this country is heading, but when I see what those in charge consider a priority, it is hard. Why do we feel we must spend so much money on war? Maybe if we put more money into education, we could teach classes on "peacefull resolutions to conflict" or something worthwhile like that.
But then again, would anyone sign up for such a class? in a time when X Box 360 is the "Hottest Holiday (yes, I said Holiday, because the thrill of this gift is not limited to Christians) Gift". Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that used for playing killing video games?
If war and war games are what is popular these days, I am glad to be a hillbilly.
At 05 January, 2006 21:23,
BrianJ said…
Aaron--that depends on what is done with the defense budget. A large amount goes into training, salaries, research and development, etc. I think that you would not count all of that as "money to kill." Also, I think that there is some amount of defense you want for your country and its interests abroad, i.e. money that is spent keeping you alive/free/wealthy. Nevertheless, the Defense Department's budget is about 1/3 of the total national budget.
Marci--I don't think that this country is more war-minded today than in the past. Think of Custer and the "Indian Problem", war with Mexico, invasion of Cuba, etc. We showed reluctance at entering the two World Wars, but chiefly because there were no clear gains to be had. Then followed a series of wars in Asia: Korea, Vietnam, Cold War. Bottom line: this is a competitive country and we fight to maintain our position at the top. I am just not convinced that we have to fight to stay on top.
As for war games: this is a phenomenon of boys of all ages and all periods in history. I played war games in the orchard growing up--any stick became a gun or a sword or a bazooka. Why are males attracted to war games (in orchards, on Xbox, paintball, whatever) when females are not? That is the subject for a different blog.
At 10 January, 2006 01:24,
Anonymous said…
Brian,
Maybe you answered your second question with your first answer. Because war has been around for so long (and since it is men who do the killing) it is "in your blood".
And you're right about the history of war, but I guess what is so disheartening is just when I think we are progressing toward a more mature answer to problems, we revert back to the same old way of doing things. And what does all the war killing really accomplish? Different people dying for different reasons at the hands of another person/power, still adds up to people dying.
My favorite bumper sticker is:
What If War Was Not An Option
That is all I'm saying,
What if war was not an option.
Post a Comment
<< Home