A Burdensome Government

In the January 28 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Susan Morrissey discusses the financial problems of the federal government. She covers the basic attitude of Congress kicking the can down the road with respect to limitations on the national debt and inability to develop an appropriate budget.

She says, however, that most of this is not particularly applicable to science. In spite of that comment, she also says that a government shutdown means federal agencies will be closed. Agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency will go dark, and those in the chemical community who interact with them will be out of luck.

I believe it is highly unlikely we will have a government shutdown, but it is an interesting hopeful speculation. I especially take issue with her on the last part of her statement that chemical companies who interact with various government agencies "will be out of luck". This implies that chemical companies have some advantage in dealing with the federal government. The reverse is true. Every aspect of those agencies is a negative controlling factor. Their elimination would be helpful to society in general.

More specifically, the National Science Foundation would be unable to continue its grant program of taxpayer money to University professors for research, which is of little or no significance to the public. A shutdown of the Department of Energy would mean that there would be no restrictions for drilling and production of oil on federal lands. Finally, it would stop the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing its daily restrictive rules concerning operations of industry.

Too bad that we will not have a government shutdown, it could be very favorable to the redevelopment of the country, in spite of the negative implications of Susan Morrissey.

In that same article, Secretary of Defense Panetta was quoted as, "I think that there's an attitude that governing isn't necessarily good politics, that gridlock and confrontation is good politics. And I think we pay a price for price for that." I completely take issue with that statement. We have been traveling headlong down the wrong path of government control, with its increased size. It is past time for a rebirth of freedom.

We Need a Less Controlling Federal Government

In the January 28 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Susan Morrisey discusses the financial problems of the federal government. She covers the basic attitude of Congress kicking the can down the road on the national debt limitation and inability to develop an appropriate budget.

However, she says that most of this is not particularly applicable to science. In spite of that comment, she also says that, "A government shutdown means federal agencies will be closed. Agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency will go dark, and then those in the chemical community who interact with them will be out of luck".

A government shutdown is unlikely, but it is an interesting speculation. I take issue with her on the last part of her statement that chemical companies "who interact with them will be out of luck". This implies that chemical companies have some advantage in dealing with the federal government. The reverse is true. Every aspect of those government agencies is a negative controlling factor. Their elimination would be helpful to society in general.

More specifically, the National Science Foundation would be unable to continue its grant program of taxpayer money to University professors for research which is of little significance or damaging to the public. A shutdown of the Department of Energy would mean that there are no restrictions for exploration and production of oil on federal lands. Finally, it would stop the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing its daily restrictive rules concerning operations of industry.

Too bad that we will not have a government shutdown. It could be very favorable to the development of the country, in spite of the negative implication implied by Susan Morrisey.

In that same article, Secretary of Defense Panetta was quoted as, "I think that there's an attitude that governing isn't necessarily good politics, that gridlock and confrontation is good politics. And I think we pay a price for that." I completely take issue with that statement. We have been traveling headlong down the wrong path in excessive government control, and it is past time for confrontation to change that program.

Disabled Cruise Ship

     Four thousand passengers and crew were stranded in the Caribbean for several days, when a Carnival Lines cruise ship lost propulsion and many ancillary services, because of an engine room fire.
     I heard on Fox News yesterday that Congress is considering some action to avoid this happening again. How power-hungry is Congress and what happened to common sense?
     There was no indication that the problem was caused by terrorism or the action of a foreign power, and it should not be assumed that the owners/operators of Carnival Lines and the public are complete dunderheads..
     Some of the passengers enjoyed the diversion in spite of the hardship. Others said they would never take another cruise, especially on Carnival.
     It can be reasonably assumed that the Carnival owners/operators are reasonably astute and want to stay in business to make a profit. If the balance of the negative comments is likely to affect negatively their bottom line (profit), they will surely be looking into the situation in great detail and making appropriate corrections, so that the likelihood of it ever happening again is reasonably remote, no matter what Congress thinks or does.
     Congress must learn to take care of the people's business for which they have been elected and not to meddle with matters which are automatically controlled by market forces. The best way to teach Congress this lesson is by you advising your representatives what you think about the subject and anything related to it.

Scientific Immigration Reform II

    In an earlier blog, I referred to Sen. Hatch's bill to increase the availability of scientists in the US through immigration. Sen. Hatch's bill included a provision for state grants to educate others. My point was that it seemed unnecessary to spend taxpayer money for training people, when we could just allow already trained people to enter our country.
     Anonymous CJ responded to my blog as follows:
    "As you point out, there are many unemployed scientists these days. In a significant way, that misses the important point of the fit of talent to the market need. If the fit were good, we would not have the shortage of talent that currently exists. You certainly know that the skills of many unemployed scientists and engineers are obsolete with respect to the current market. That is the main reason they are unemployed. It is no secret to successful scientists and engineers that keeping skills current is an absolute necessity".
     I agree with CJ that since we have unemployed scientists in a market where there seems to be a shortage of scientifically trained people, the unemployed are not properly trained. I also agree with CJ that scientists and engineers must keep their skills current, but I go further in stating that such is the responsibility of the individuals, not the state to supply funds for any further education.

Scientific Immigration Reform

     There is a small segment of immigration reform which tends to go relatively unnoticed. It involves US visas for foreign citizens with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics training taken abroad or at US universities.
     Sen. Orin Hatch of Utah has proposed increasing the number of visas for those foreign nationals. The impetus comes from American technology companies, who claim they have difficulty in filling positions with appropriately trained persons. This is in spite of the fact that there are already a significant number of unemployed American scientists.
     I have no objection to increasing the number of scientists on American soil, either foreign or American, but one aspect of Sen. Hatch's bill troubles me. It includes another expenditure of federal funds to states to support science education and re-train unemployed workers. If bringing already trained foreign scientists to the US solves the problem of apparent shortage, why would we need to spend taxpayer money educating others?
     If for some reason the American public finds it objectionable to have a number of foreign scientists employed in the US, why not have an amendment to the bill requiring that all green card (visa) holders must apply for American citizenship and be accepted within five years or return to their home countries.
     Not mentioned in the Chemical and Engineering News article of February 6 is the matter of employment by governmental or private organizations, which are engaged in defense work requiring confidentiality. Scientific positions in those organizations should always be reserved for American citizens. While we have had difficulty with allegiance of some American citizens, it is fairly obvious that difficulties could be e exacerbated with non-American citizens in those same responsibiliti