Government Agency R&D Grants

Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:

The House of Representatives controls the purse strings of the US. As Speaker, you have significant influence on how much money is spent and where it is spent on government operations.
The House now makes available more than $140 billion each year for various government agencies to dole out to pseudoscientists in educational institutions for ostensible research and development. The latest approved amount is slightly more than a 1% increase over the previous year.
For some time, I have been advising you to radically cut this expenditure. I’ve said this in relation to how the money is actually spent, which also relates to my use of the term pseudoscientists. A significant portion of the dole-outs to the University scientists is tainted with political innuendo. For example, receivers of grants on global warming must come up with some positive information to facilitate Obama’s agenda of capping carbon dioxide emissions and taxing same. Because the University scientists are well aware of the answers that they must come up with in order to have any chance at further grants, they are effectively selling their scientific integrity, which is why I call them pseudoscientists.
With that background, I now refer to an article by Andrea Widener in the June 2 issue of Chemical & Engineering News. The article is entitled, “Paperwork Paralysis” and essentially covers paperwork requirements by pseudoscientists with respect to their receiving money grants. It is said that in most cases, individual investigators are allowed to spend a maximum of 26% of grant funds for administration. However, the article says that many of the, so-called researchers spend approximately 50% related to grant funds for administration. Presumably the difference of 24% comes out of their own pockets or more likely from the Universities.
I am glad to see progress in inhibiting this kind of politically tainted socialistic spending of taxpayer money. If the House is unable to control its propensity for spending, at least reducing the incentive of recipients to receive grants is some progress in the right direction. In other words, if you can’t cut the funding, load it up with paperwork to make it less attractive to the political hacks