President's Fiscal Year Research Articles

Macroeconomic Strategy in Wartime

In 2001-02 the United States has been hit by two quite different shocks, terrorism and recession. As usual in time of war, national defense is the highest priority for use of the country's resources. Although the opportunities for international warfare are limited, the challenges to the homeland are virtually unlimited. The president's fiscal year 2003 budget includes $48 billion additional for the military and $38 billion additional for homeland defense. Given the gravity of the threat, it is hard to understand why new expenditures are not undertaken as soon as and as large as possible. This would also be timely for stimulus to the economy, more effective than tax cuts and other proposals - with the nation in peril, the country is ready to make sacrifices, not to enjoy further tax reductions. Pearl Harbor in December 1941 occurred with the economy not yet recovered from the Great Depression, with unemployment still 10 per cent. Expenditures for war were increased sharply and rapidly, and full employment was restored in 1943.

Administration's FY 2017 Budget Submission Includes Nonprofit Law Proposals

The revenue proposals in the administration's fiscal year 2017 budget proposal include the following.

Joint Polar Satellite System: The United States next generation civilian polar‐orbiting environmental satellite system

AbstractNOAA's next generation polar‐orbiting environmental satellite system, designated as the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), was proposed in February 2010, as part of the President's Fiscal Year 2011 budget request, to be the Civilian successor to the restructured National Polar‐Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). Beginning 1 October 2013, the JPSS baseline consists of a suite of five instruments: advanced microwave and infrared sounders critical for short‐ and medium‐range weather forecasting; an advanced visible and infrared imager needed for environmental assessments such as snow/ice cover, droughts, volcanic ash, forest fires and surface temperature; ozone sensor primarily used for global monitoring of ozone and input to weather and climate models; and an Earth radiation budget sensor for monitoring the Earth's energy budget. NASA will fund the Earth radiation budget sensor and the ozone limb sensor for the second JPSS operational satellite—JPSS‐2. JPSS is implemented through a partnership between NOAA and the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NOAA is responsible for overall funding; maintaining the high‐level requirements; establishing international and interagency partnerships; developing the science and algorithms, and user engagement; NOAA also provides product data distribution and archiving of JPSS data. NASA's role is to serve as acquisition Center of Excellence, providing acquisition of instruments, spacecraft and the multimission ground system, and early mission implementation through turnover to NOAA for operations.

The Largest Drought in American History: Funding for Science Is Drying Up

The Largest Drought in American History: Funding for Science Is Drying Up

Administration's Fiscal Year 2013 revenue proposals

Administration's Fiscal Year 2013 revenue proposals

Congress examines administration's coal research priorities

While the Obama administration has proposed a shift in coal research funding to further emphasize carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) programs in its fiscal year (FY) 2012 budget request, Republicans and several witnesses at a 13 October hearing of a subcommittee of the House of Representatives' Committee on Science, Space, and Technology questioned those priorities, called for additional federal funding for coal research, and defended the use of coal as a major part of the U.S. energy sector. The administration's FY 2012 budget requests $291.4 million to fund the Department of Energy's (DOE) CCS and power systems program while zeroing out funding for DOE's fuels and power systems program (which includes funding for coal research) and shifting some of its line items to the CCS program. The FY 2011 continuing resolution has funded the fuels and power systems program at $400.2 million, including $142 million for carbon sequestration, $64.8 million for innovations for existing plants, and funding for other subprograms such as advanced integrated gasification combined cycle ($52.9 million), fuel cells ($49.8 million), and advanced research ($47.6 million).

A Summary of the Individual and Corporate Tax Proposals in the Obama Administration's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget

This paper summarizes the corporate and individual tax proposals in the Obama Administration's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget.

A Summary of the Energy Tax Provisions in the Obama Administration's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget

A Summary of the Energy Tax Provisions in the Obama Administration's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget

Musculoskeletal Research at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases: A Snapshot

Musculoskeletal Research at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases: A Snapshot

Viewing NASA's Mars Budget with Resignation

I would like to clarify several points in the News of the Week story (26 September, p. [1754][1]) by A. Lawler, “Rising costs could delay NASA's next mission to Mars and future launches.” When the National Research Council's Planetary Science Decadal Survey recommended the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission for priority funding, it assigned a cost level of $650 million. This value, rather than $1.4 billion, is the true metric for seeing the deep damage that MSL's profligately overrunning cost—now likely to top $2.1 billion—has inflicted on NASA's Mars and wider planetary science budget. Also, the story focused its overrun discussion on instrument costs. Although certainly part of the problem, instrument cost increases have been considerably smaller than overruns in the rest of MSL's budget, which was severely mismatched to the project's complexity from its inception. This mismatch sowed the most fundamental seeds of MSL's cost problems. The article's end quote described NASA's Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission plan as “smoke and mirrors.” Disappointingly, MSR is becoming a mirage in the wake of MSL and other budget damage caused by numerous substantial Science Mission Directorate (SMD) cost overruns accepted in recent months. However, as evidenced by both internal NASA and external Office of Management and Budget scrutiny in 2007, NASA's MSR plan in the President's Fiscal Year 2009 budget did fit in SMD's future budget envelope. It could well have launched near 2020, had a strong emphasis on cost control been sustained as a priority. Finally, there was no mention that a NASA independent review team found numerous development issues that called MSL's 2009 launch date into serious doubt almost a year ago. Nor did it describe that scenarios for dealing with MSL without causing such deep budgetary damage elsewhere were proposed by SMD but rejected at higher levels in early 2008. That, and the concurrent, forced disbanding of the MSL independent review team, precipitated my resignation as SMD Associate Administrator. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.321.5897.1754

The President's Fiscal Year 2007 Initiative for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Counseling and Testing Expansion in the United States

When adjusted for inflation, the federal investment in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention in the United States has been trending downward for several years. However, for fiscal year 2007, President Bush has proposed to Congress a $93 million increase in HIV prevention efforts focused on HIV counseling and rapid testing in high-risk communities. Here, we estimate the coverage level of an investment of $93 million for rapid testing and counseling services, estimate the number of HIV infections that might be expected to be prevented by this initiative, and calculate the cost-per-infection-prevented. Standard methods of scenario and cost-effectiveness analysis were employed, and a 1-year time horizon was used. Calculations were done assuming both a societal perspective and a payor perspective. Assuming full societal perspective costs, about 1.4 million clients could be reached, but if the payor's perspective is used (and clients are assumed to absorb the costs of their time spent and transportation), then coverage could expand to 2.9 million clients. Depending on the perspective used, it is estimated that between 13,014 and 26,984 persons living with HIV could newly learn their serostatus, and that between 1,223 and 2,537 HIV infections could be prevented as a function of the initiative. Under both societal and payor perspectives, the gross cost per infection averted is less than the medical care costs for one case of HIV disease. We conclude that the president's proposed $93 million initiative for HIV counseling and rapid testing in the United States would have favorable public health benefits and be cost saving to society (even if it does not address all unmet HIV prevention needs in the United States). However, future research should seek to determine whether rapid counseling and testing are the optimal use of a new $93 million investment in HIV prevention.

President's Fiscal Year 2008 R&D Budget

President's Fiscal Year 2008 R&D Budget

Loss and Recovery of Research Investment for Applied Sciences: A Salutary Lesson from New Zealand

In 1992, all governmental resourcing and investment in New Zealand, including that for science, underwent dramatic reform. The global philosophy driving the reform was new public management—a method by which nations could be run more economically by emulating the commercial world. Central to the reform was separation of policy, purchasing (investment), and providers (in the case of research scientists). The reform led to a large reduction in the number of governmental scientists. For example, in 1 year alone, 2001–2002, the Horticultural and Food Research Institute, one of the nine governmental branches of science, lost 51 staff members, 10% of its work force. Over a decade later after the establishment of the reform, in July 2003, the New Zealand government's investment agency announced its budget for the next 6 years. The government-funded science sectors considered to do modern research such as computer technology and biotechnology, and halved funding for land-related sciences. The reduced budget dramatically limited New Zealand's capacity for research in soil and land-use science and ended all research positions in this area (38 jobs). Public outcry through newspaper editorials and from leading businessmen, along with effective leadership from the scientific community, led to the reestablishment of funding in the form of a virtual national center called Sustainable Land Use Research Initiative (SLURI). The elimination of funding for soil and land-use science research in New Zealand was an unexpected and potentially disastrous result of new public management. New Zealand's experience has relevance for the United States, because budgets for agricultural research are being severely reduced or converted to competitive funding. The U.S. President's fiscal year 2006 budget proposed to cut formula funding by 50% and to zero it out in fiscal year 2007. The funds would have been put in competitive grants. In New Zealand, the lack of ability to respond to a scientific problem demonstrated that a balance must be maintained in funding decisions so that scientific capability is retained to solve unforeseen future problems.

President's Fiscal Year 2007 R&D Budget

President's Fiscal Year 2007 R&D Budget

Proposed U.S. budget request reduces funding for some science agencies

Federal non‐defense research and development (R&D) would receive a small boost under the Bush Administration's Fiscal Year 2007 budget request, which was released on 6 February. However, science conducted and funded by agencies not highlighted in the president's American Competitiveness Initiative would get only small increases or even large cuts if these budgets are approved by Congress (see Eos 87(7) 2006).House of Representatives Science Committee Ranking Member Rep. Bart Gordon (D‐Tenn.) said, “There appear to be cuts in science and technology research that more than offset the targeted increases of the president's competitiveness initiative.”

Medicaid reform and the 109th congress

Medicaid, the largest insurance program in the United States, has become a major budget issue in the 109th Congress. President George W. Bush began the discussion earlier this year with $60 billion in proposed federal Medicaid reductions as part of the administration's Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 budget. Within the last few months, Congress has begun to debate its own plans for Medicaid spending reductions and what, if any, policy changes would accompany these cuts.

An Endless Frontier Postponed

N ext month, U.S. scientists Vinton G. Cerf and Robert E. Kahn will receive computing's highest prize, the A. M. Turing Award, from the Association for Computing Machinery. Their Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), created in 1973, became the language of the Internet. Twenty years later, the Mosaic Web browser gave the Internet its public face. TCP and Mosaic illustrate the nature of computer science research, combining a quest for fundamental understanding with considerations of use. They also illustrate the essential role of government-sponsored university-based research in producing the ideas and people that drive innovation in information technology (IT). Recent changes in the U.S. funding landscape have put this innovation pipeline at risk. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) funded TCP. The shock of the Soviet satellite Sputnik in 1957 led to the creation of the agency, which was charged with preventing future technological surprises. From its inception, DARPA funded long-term nonclassified IT research in academia, even during several wars, to leverage all the best minds. Much of this research was dual-use, with the results ultimately advancing military systems and spurring the IT industry. U.S. IT research grew largely under DARPA and the National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF relied on peer review, whereas DARPA bet on vision and reputation, complementary approaches that served the nation well. Over the past 4 decades, the resulting research has laid the foundation for the modern microprocessor, the Internet, the graphical user interface, and single-user workstations. It has also launched new fields such as computational science. Virtually every aspect of IT that we rely on today bears the stamp of federally sponsored research. A 2003 National Academies study provided 19 examples where such work ultimately led to billion-dollar industries, an economic benefit that reaffirms science advisor Vannevar Bush's 1945 vision in Science: The Endless Frontier. ![Figure][1] CREDIT: GEORGE B. DIEBOLD/CORBIS However, in the past 3 years, DARPA funding for IT research at universities has dropped by nearly half. Policy changes at the agency, including increased classification of research programs, increased restrictions on the participation of noncitizens, and “go/no-go” reviews applied to research at 12- to 18-month intervals, discourage participation by university researchers and signal a shift from pushing the leading edge to “bridging the gap” between fundamental research and deployable technologies. In essence, NSF is now relied on to support the long-term research needed to advance the IT field. Other agencies have not stepped in. The Defense Science Board noted in a recent look at microchip research at the Department of Defense (DOD): “[DARPA's] withdrawal has created a vacuum … The problem, for DOD, the IT industry, and the nation as a whole, is that no effective leadership structure has been substituted.” The Department of Homeland Security, according to a recent report from the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee, spends less than 2% of its Science and Technology budget on cybersecurity, and only a small fraction of that on research. NASA is downsizing computational science, and IT research budgets at the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health are slated for cuts in the president's fiscal year 2006 budget. These changes, combined with the growth of the discipline, have placed a significant burden on NSF, which is now showing the strain. Last year, NSF supported 86% of federal obligations for fundamental research in IT at academic institutions. The funding rate for competitive awards in the IT sector fell to 16%, the lowest of any directorate. Such low success rates are harmful to the discipline and, ultimately, to the nation.[*][2] At a time when global competitors are gaining the capacity and commitment to challenge U.S. high-tech leadership, this changed landscape threatens to derail the extraordinarily productive interplay of academia, government, and industry in IT. Given the importance of IT in enabling the new economy and in opening new areas of scientific discovery, we simply cannot afford to cede leadership. Where will the next generation of groundbreaking innovations in IT arise? Where will the Turing Awardees 30 years hence reside? Given current trends, the answers to both questions will likely be, “not in the United States.” [1]: pending:yes [2]: #fn-1

Climate change, salmon in the NOAA budget spotlight

A U.S. Senate hearing on 29 April about the administration's proposed budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fiscal year 2005 turned testy when senators pressed for specific information about the agency's programs on abrupt climate change and protecting wild salmon.Sen. Olympia Snowe (R‐Maine), chair of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation's Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, expressed concern that funding for the agency's program on abrupt climate change appears to be eliminated in the proposed budget.

Investing in the future

Investing in the future

Proposed transfer of Sea Grant Program a controversial issue in NOAA, NSF budget requests

The Bush administration's fiscal year 2003 budgets for two leading U.S. federal science agencies—the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF)—proposes the transfer of the National Sea Grant College Program from NOAA to NSF. Informed sources told Eos the transfer is worrisome, though unlikely to survive Congressional action.Nevertheless, the transfer clouds the budget picture for the NSF Geosciences Directorate and particularly, its Ocean Sciences Division. The proposal also raises questions about how much of the current Sea Grant program could effectively continue under NSR since the two agencies have different modes of operation.