"A 10% Cut from the NIH Budget (the so-called sequester) Would Save 0.008% of Federal Budget"!

[grahamhgreen]

"Because of the budget shenanigans, NIH has been forced to cut or delay funding to almost all new projects.... And just to be clear: these are only the best projects. 80-85% of projects submitted to NIH, many of them excellent, don’t make the cut because NIH just doesn’t have enough funding for them....

For readers who might think I’m asking for a lot, think again. The entire NIH budget comes to about $31 billion, which supports research on hundreds of diseases. The total U.S. budget last year was 3,729 billion (3.7 trillion), so the NIH budget is less than 1% of the total. A 10% cut from the NIH budget (the so-called “sequester” plan) would save 0.008% of the federal budget. This matters not a whit in the overall budget debate – but it would be a huge blow to biomedical research, crippling some research programs for years to come.

And for those who want to look at this from an economic perspective , NIH funding is a terrific investment. A nonpartisan study in 2000 concluded:

“Publicly funded research in general generates high rates of return to the economy, averaging 25 to 40 percent a year.”


So I’m asking the leaders of Congress (yes, I’m talking to you, Congressman John Boehner and Senator Harry Reid) to put aside the fighting for a few minutes. Bring up the NIH budget and pass it. Don’t cut it by 10% (the “sequester” plan), which would be devastating to biomedical research and would save only 0.008% of the budget. Don’t bundle it into some omnibus “grand bargain” that everyone knows is neither grand nor a bargain."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2013/01/14/congress-is-killing-medical-research/

[bigapple1963]

1. but

isn't this true of any budget cut of 10% for the discretionary non-military half of the sequester? Cuts are going to hurt anywhere. How does one judge where's the best place to cut 10% vs anywhere else? If some places are cut less than 10%, other places might have to be cut more to make up for it.

[Angry Dragon]

3. cut military

[bigapple1963]

4. under the sequester

they are already scheduled to be cut equal amounts as discretionary non-military spending.

[Angry Dragon]

5. dollar amounts or percentage??

[bigapple1963]

6. in percentage terms

about 9%, similar to non-military spending cuts.

In dollar amounts, equal to the non-military spending cuts.

[grahamhgreen]

7. The place that has the bloated budget with the smallest multiplier effect is the military

Military spending has almost doubled since 2000.

The effect of military spending, especially the war budgets, have the least multiplier effect. R&D in the military would be the most beneficial, I think.

But we could easily double the military cuts and cut nowhere else and be fine.

OTOH, taking the miliutary cuts and building infrastructure, especially renewable energy, would be ideal.

[Angry Dragon]

2. cut Congressional pay by 25%

they are just part-time workers
no benefits