Yeah, his faction, the Cantor set, is pretty goddamn hoity-toity!
Am I the only one who read that in my Swedish Chef voice?
I am, aren’t I?
Um gesh de bork bork.
You might be the only one who has a Swedish chef voice.
Nonsense. My google language controls are set to “Bork, Bork, Bork” so that I can understand my search options.
The public is just as qualified to evaluate grants as they are to evaluate economic policy, tax policy, defense policy, diplomatic policy, constitutional rights, etc.
Should the people have no say in those things?
Economic policy, tax policy, defense policy, diplomatic policy, and constitutional rights are a good deal LESS technical and complicated than almost any given branch of hard science.
I don’t see the quote you provided at the YouCut link. Do you have any evidence that they are focusing specifically on science spending? My understanding of YouCut is that it’s very specifically not taking anything off the table - as it should be.
What I see right now on the Youcut front page is a proposal to reduce printing costs, one to refocus the National Archive on its core mission, and a proposal to cut funding for digital conversion which has already been carried out - a plan that was also in Obama’s budget.
Also, you guys may not understand what YouCut is about. It’s a system whereby people can log in and propose budget cuts, and then if the user base votes for the proposal in high enough numbers, the house Republicans will offer it up for an up and down vote in the house. As such, it’s entirely possible that programs will be offered up for cutting that Cantor doesn’t even agree with. He’s letting the people speak. It’s exactly the kind of transparent, open government initiative Obama promised, but never delivered.
And in fact, here’s the entire list of winning ideas for cuts that have come out of this so far:
There’s not a SINGLE item in there that has anything to do with cutting research funding.
Framing YouCut as an ‘anti-science inquisition’ is beyond ridiculous. It’s willfully or ignorantly misleading.
Week Fifteen: maybe think about coming up with something less vague.
Those seem pretty specific to me for the most part. They’re not the “uh cut earmarks and waste” type.
Those are just the one-line summaries anyway.
I clicked on one of them randomly, the Amtrack Sleeper car cut (week 8).
Here’s the full text of the suggestion:
I don’t know about you, but cutting subsidies to rich people so they can have turn-down service in their first-class sleeper car seems like a no-brainer to me.
And look, science is unaffected!
This thread is a perfect example of how partisans (on both the right and left) build up false world views and narratives that they come to believe represent fact. It looks to me like no one even bothered to read the link in the OP until I came along. You just filed it under “evidence of Republican anti-science hostility”. That helps support the narrative you’ve already got in your head, and it strengthens your partisan world view. Later, when another claim like that comes along, you’ll give it even less scrutiny because your narrative has already been enhanced by this ‘fact’.
And it turns out, it’s complete bullshit. Not just that, but the OP is obvious bullshit to anyone who went to the modicum of trouble to click the link and even just skim the first page of that cite. But you never did, did you?
Look about 3/4 down the page, under “YouCut Citizen Review”. I assure you that the quote I provided is a direct copy & paste from the web page.
Just looked. It’s still up there as written.
And poof! There goes the deficit, just like that! 
Okay, I saw that text under the list of all the other cuts mentioned. Which you didn’t bother to note. Also, the link says that the ‘citizen review’ is simply starting with the NSF and going through all other government agencies. There’s no targeting of science there.
In addition, all it does is link to all the grants and ask people to review them and make suggestion for cutting any that they believe are questionable.
Again, your OP is highly misleading. Although I will admit that at least the text you linked to is there. But it’s entirely clear from the tone of the entire site and the wording of the ‘Citizen Review’ that science is not being singled out, let alone being evidence of an “antiscience inquisition”.
Thank you! Now we can get to the bottom of those DNA payments the government is making to the grizzly bears. Look at the migration pattern of any typical Canadian grizzly. When Spring comes, and the cubs are born, what side of the border are they on? They’re using your tax dollars to make payments to anchor bears!
Ha ha - clearly, you have never traveled in an Amtrak sleeper car. Ultra-luxury for the rich is not exactly how I would characterize it. When they say “turndown service,” they mean they leave the seats in the “bed” position for embarking passengers. The “private toilet” also does duty as the step stool for the top bunk and the nightstand.
(not that I necessarily disagree that the sleeper car fare subsidies should be eliminated)
http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/Review.htm
The fact is that items like climate research have been called questionable research by most republicans.
IMHO saying that only inappropriate grants will be allowed is to leave a lot of space for the anti-science groups to not only control the agenda but to also drive it.
I still remember what Dr Dean Edell said on KGO radio when then the Newt Gingrith congress attempted to also de-fund research that was deemed by he and other politicians to be useless, he mentioned IIRC an example of research what was deemed useless by the politicians, and the doctor said that if that research had lost funding we would had lost the information gained that was invaluable a few years later on finding a new manufacturing process that was worth millions later.
Just like when Sarah Palin disparaged research on the fruit flies, it is more often than not that the politician is an ignoramus.
I meant to say that:
“…saying that only inappropriate grants will **not **be allowed…”
They didn’t mention ANY grants. They simply provided a link to all of them and offered citizens a voice in determining which ones should be funded. That doesn’t means they’ll be defunded - it just means that if enough people agree, they’ll put it up for a vote. Isn’t this exactly the kind of government transparency reform the Democrats have been clamoring for?
If the White House had put up a similar site, only asking for citizen input as to what additional funding there should be, you guys would be singing its praises.
Can you at least agree that the link cited in the OP is not evidence of an ‘antiscience inquisition’, or that Eric Cantor is an ‘anti-science Republican Scourge’?
But while we’re on the subject of attacking science, would anyone like to comment on the anti-science actions of the Obama administration?
The quote is from NewScientist magazine - not exactly a Republican mouthpiece.
I like how this one homes right in on the pernicious problem of overemployment that’s plaguing America today. You know what’s wrong with this country? Too many damn people with jobs!
The problem with YouCut is twofold. First, it encourages a focus on small budget items (reducing government printing costs, prohibiting stimulus funding for commercial signage), rather than the big four things you’ll need to actually balance the budget (cutting defense, Social Security, and Medicare, and raising taxes)
Second, it’s the Republican whip’s office that decides which of the suggestions go up to get voted on, and I have my doubts that they’d put up government cost cutting suggestions that go against the party’s suggestions. If someone put up a proposal suggesting immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, I don’t think that would be put on the list.