Barack Obama, the House and hope for the science budget

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/occams-corner/2012/nov/09/barack-obama-house-science-budget

Version 0 of 1.

Months of campaigning and $6bn later, Obama is still the 44th president of the United States, the Democrats still barely control the Senate and Republicans dominate the House of Representatives. On the surface, it looks like nothing much has changed.

But things <em>have</em> changed. A record number of women have been elected to the Senate (19), one of whom is openly gay. While Republicans still control the House, there have been a substantial number of Tea Party defeats.

But what does all of this mean for the US science budget?

Obama has promised to propose a 2013 budget that asks for a 5% increase in the science and technology budget ($13.1bn) for non-defence research. He is even going to give money to Nasa. Should scientific researchers who depend on government support in the US breathe a welcome sigh of relief? Not just yet. But what's not to love?

Congress.

What is all too easy to forget, especially from afar, is that the president does not pass the US budget. It is not Obama's budget. The budget belongs to Congress. The president is required to submit a proposal to Congress, where it goes through budget committees in both houses. In the previous 112th Congress, the House had a Republican majority while the Senate had a very small Democratic majority. Herein lies Obama's budget problems.

Only last year the US budget experienced a "Shutdown Showdown" because Congress and Obama had a hell of a time agreeing to what would and wouldn't be slashed. The US government almost missed their deadline, which literally shuts down the state. This is not the norm. It left many Americans worried and perplexed about Obama's ability to get things through Congress as well as Congress's ability to play nice. Regardless of who you think the problem is, this doesn't bode well for the basic science budget, which is a small bit of the overall budget for the entire government.

The scary thing is that in a recession, often "easy" short-term cuts are seen as the best cuts. Only last year, Eric Cantor (Republican Majority leader) made very vocal arguments to cut "overspending" by the National Science Foundation for basic science research (which amounts to something like 0.2% of the national budget).

While these arguments are economically silly – a 10% cut of a 0.2% total is pretty small in terms of government savings – they often have very strong political power. It makes the government "look" as if they are cutting spending and this is important for popular public opinion, especially if you are a member of the Tea Party. Given that members of the US House are elected every 2 years, they are highly motivated to – at the very least – "look" like they are cutting a budget. Sadly, "non-essential" basic scientific research often gets lined up for the cull.

But things have changed and I have hope for the science budget. The Tea Partiers are on the wane, which may mean Congress will offer less resistance to Obama's next budget. Obama is in his second term. He cannot run for election again, and this often makes presidents economically bolder. Ronald Reagan put the US in more debt than ever before in his second term and Clinton balanced the budget. I hope that Obama will follow this Democratic spending tradition and fight the noble fight to make good on his increase in the basic science budget while making sure America in general doesn't overspend. I am more than just cautiously optimistic; I have real hope Obama is going to come through for basic science and as the man himself said: <em>in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope</em>.