Damage Caused in the Congressional Lame-Duck Session

The Governmentally & Policy Department of Chemical and Engineering News gave a good rundown on the activities of the lame-duck 111th Congress. Kudos to the people who made the C&EN report in the January 3 Issue, although no specific person was mentioned. Most of the Congressional action was in the span of less than a week, which shows how much damage a Congress can do in a short period of time.

Congress agreed to extend the Bush era tax cuts through 2012 and continue a series of business tax breaks, including a tax credit designed to encourage investment in research and development. This was good and bad. We need tax reduction to foster general business development and employment. The government should not be confusing the issue by giving other specific tax breaks including tax credits for R&D. It should have permanently reduced taxes and been done with it. The inclusion of a one-year extension of the renewable energy grants and tax credit for ethanol producers is ridiculous, in these times of attempts to reduce government expenditures. We need to question the ideology and loyalty of 138 Republicans who voted for it.

The Senate passed legislation to overhaul food safety in the US. Two days later the House approved. This is another increase in government expenditures, which I believe is not necessary. Senate Majority Leader Reid said that our food safety system has not been updated in almost a century. Is that any reason to update it? Our Constitution has not been updated in two centuries. Does that mean we should update it now?

The Senate unanimously approved reauthorizing the America Competes Act of 2007. This will double the research budgets of the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards & Technology, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science
over 10 years. The bill allows budget increases of 20% over two years. Is this a way to reduce the size of government and to reduce government expenditures? American companies can compete with any other worldwide company, if left unimpeded by the United States government. The bill also direct NSF to establish a dedicated green chemistry basic research program to award grants supporting research on green products and practices. Any research grants by the federal government are political in nature, with recipients expected to come up with answers supporting government ideology on a particular subject. I cite as an example the numerous federal government grants to so-called "climate scientists" to do research supporting the ridiculous ideology that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and emissions should be taxed.