WyoCoalMiner
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2024
- Messages
- 69
Right on with the bold part. But math is still math.
Pause on Federal Grants - MD25-13
- Thread starter xebadir
- Start date
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Can I also choose who gets to benefit from my additional taxes? Is a Go-Fund-Me for the US Government really the path forward? It may be a solution for Nameless and his VFD's radios, but those paying for the radios are going be those people with homeowners insurance, functioning smoke alarms, and some common sense. Those whose house is most likely to burn down will donate nothing and then bitch and moan when the VFD gets there. I have seen it happen.
You can't stop stupid and there seems to be a lot of it these days.
ismith
Well-known member
This post, compared to some other posts above, makes me regret any shade I’ve thrown your way.
Ditto ...
Yes. Don't donate via "taxes", donate directly to support those things you support. You just articulated what many folks (on all sides of the political spectrum) are unhappy about - "Their" tax dollars going to support ideas, causes, priorities, etc, that they don't agree with. The end result is the US has been spending (via both political parties) on all causes, priorities, etc. Hence the $32T+ federal deficit. Some argue that a scalpel would be a better tool, others are of the opinion that we have to cut everything and start from scratch on the stuff that matters. That sitting congress-critters are just now beginning to cheer massive waste and abuse that is being exposed to sunshine rings hollow, they have been there for years/decades and done nothing. Likewise, those that reject ferreting out waste and abuse because "the other side" is exposing it is equally disturbing. Given how bad things "appear" to be (and Democrats have often stated that the seriousness of the (fill in the blank allegation) dictates that the (fill in the blank allegation) be fully investigated), I am of the opinion that an axe is better than a scalpel at the moment. If projects are truly value-added, they will (likely) be re-instated but it will take time to sort the wheat from the chaff. And yes that will be painful in the short-term. That or keep kicking the can down the road for the next politician to take the heat on.
I don’t think anyone’s gonna change anyone else’s mind on here about the current administration either haphazardly taking a wrecking ball to government or if they’re fixing some sort of deep seated corruption in government. Americans live in two different realities with different sets of “facts” now.
I’d personally love to see ya’ll post more examples of where withholding federal grant monies has/will affect conservation projects.
I’d personally love to see ya’ll post more examples of where withholding federal grant monies has/will affect conservation projects.
Hilljackoutlaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 6,821
This one is for the people making retirement possible. Thank you.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Not going to know about a lot of them for a while.
ismith
Well-known member
Well, when you see how much money has gone to some media outlets, this makes perfect sense. https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...nally-have-access-american-propaganda/313305/
Unfortunately, I think it's going to have a major impact on our federal lands and hunting in the Western U.S. Nothing left but the crying (and the blame game).
Potsie
Well-known member
This is why we can't have nice things.
Buffs35
Well-known member
Agreed. Reckon many of us won’t realize how far reaching grants are until we show up to our favorite meadow and find it covered in spotted knapweed or something.
On that note, ran a web search and the USFS “Invasive Species Grants: Funded Projects” page for R1 has been removed.
Last edited:
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I think we have found an area of agreement. As much as anyone I hate my tax dollars going to people who don't pay taxes. If I choose to support a program, I make sure it is effective. Overall it is stupid to try to balance a budget without looking at the revenue side. To your point, a lot of the expenses are small comparatively and they get spread out over 50 states and hundreds of programs. Doing it all at once causes significant harm in the inability of those programs to adapt. While they were "waste and abuse" to you, they were performing a valuable service for others. I'm not against cutting. All I want is for the Government to follow the process laid out in the Constitution. It will be slow, but it needs to be slow. A lot of "value-add" isn't clear and obvious and any harm might not be seen for 5-10yrs.
Cut them all and see who bleeds the most (hint: those will be the Repub states). Extending the TCJA will cost $5 Trillion over the next 10yrs, and this is ALL about that. A balanced budget is a wonderful idea, so I am also against ideas like not taxing overtime (cost $750B 10yrs) or not taxing tips (cost $100B). Those are just more of the political gifting. Cut the standard deduction. Get rid of the mortgage interest deduction ($1T in extra rev). The bottom line is, everyone wants their piece of the pie. It is hard to watch the pie being taken from someone who is hungry and given to a Billionaire.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I agree. These things need to be a measure twice, cut once approach in my experience.
I think as far as habitat and wildlife issues go, there isn't that much long term damage that can be done in 4 years. There is probably some carryover grant funding for the next year or two. That may buy enough time to keep things from going off the rails completely. May find some private funding for some of the most critical priorities, but I'm doubtful about that. Most states, counties, etc. are strapped, or think they are anyway. Most taxpayers would cut funding for everything and anything to save 50 cents on their taxes.
I believe your example of weed control is a good one. Save a penny now and have to pay a buck and quarter down the road.
Cutting funding without thought is a piss poor strategy, IMO. Conversely, well thought out cost savings only makes one thing, and that's total sense.
ismith
Well-known member
Who knows, maybe they’ll find we have more funds to put towards managing federal land once all the corruption and waste is taken care of?
WyoCoalMiner
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2024
- Messages
- 69
Thats the kind of positive attitude this place needs more of.
jryoung
Well-known member
Condoms for conservation
FI460
Well-known member
If conservation was a budget priority we could have funded it in any deficit period over the last 30 years.
My buddy had a start date for seasonal work with the BLM on a western pond turtle project and was un-hired 2 weeks back. He's heard rumors of exemptions, but nothing official.
Little Canyon Creek
Active member
The attempted imposition of a 15% indirect cost for NIH grants is another example of this. It has been blocked by a judge, and it looks like what they are doing is indeed illegal due to a 2017 law passed by a Republican congress the last time the Trump administration tried these shenanigans. But this is going to take time to figure out.
The stated preference of the administration is to increase money spent on research with this rule change, but that is just a nice sound bite. People who actually understand how the system works (probably including the Heritage Foundation zealots that came up with this mess) have highlighted how the actual effect will be to decrease the number of grants that are given out by the NIH. I don't know if your average person actually understands how competitive NIH grants are. The payline for R01 grants (your standard grant) for institutes that publish this data can vary from the sub-10th percentile to 16th percentile, with the NIBIB being an outlier at 18th percentile. This is significantly lower than it was pre-2008, where I am told that paylines were routinely in the 20s or 30s. Under the pre-2025 system, the vast majority of grants submitted to the NIH were not funded. These are research proposals generated by highly trained scientists at the forefront of their fields. Now consider the actual proposed policy by the Trump administration would decrease the number of grants issued by the NIH, and you can understand that this will just drive paylines down even further and turn what is arguably an already too competitive environment into something significantly worse.
Again, it looks like this will not stand up upon legal review, but it has already had some of the desired effects. Right now is the middle of the academic hiring cycle, and I know of job postings that have been affected by hiring freezes due to the chaos of this administration. I am also on the job market, and I am worried how this will affect my search. My future research group will be developing chemical tools for applications in biological research, and the NIH would be a primary funding stream. Maybe my verbal job offer gets pulled. Maybe I end up at an institution with limited resources, creating significant negative impacts on my long term career. I don't know what is going to happen. It is a mess.
If we zoom out and look at what this all means for the tax payer if this policy is allowed by the courts, it will result in less fundamental and translational biomedical research being performed. Downstream of this will be fewer treatments being developed, though that will take time to work itself through the system as today's discoveries take time to make it to consumers. Which means the Trump administration wouldn't have to suffer the negatives consequences of their actions, but the public eventually will.
The stated preference of the administration is to increase money spent on research with this rule change, but that is just a nice sound bite. People who actually understand how the system works (probably including the Heritage Foundation zealots that came up with this mess) have highlighted how the actual effect will be to decrease the number of grants that are given out by the NIH. I don't know if your average person actually understands how competitive NIH grants are. The payline for R01 grants (your standard grant) for institutes that publish this data can vary from the sub-10th percentile to 16th percentile, with the NIBIB being an outlier at 18th percentile. This is significantly lower than it was pre-2008, where I am told that paylines were routinely in the 20s or 30s. Under the pre-2025 system, the vast majority of grants submitted to the NIH were not funded. These are research proposals generated by highly trained scientists at the forefront of their fields. Now consider the actual proposed policy by the Trump administration would decrease the number of grants issued by the NIH, and you can understand that this will just drive paylines down even further and turn what is arguably an already too competitive environment into something significantly worse.
Again, it looks like this will not stand up upon legal review, but it has already had some of the desired effects. Right now is the middle of the academic hiring cycle, and I know of job postings that have been affected by hiring freezes due to the chaos of this administration. I am also on the job market, and I am worried how this will affect my search. My future research group will be developing chemical tools for applications in biological research, and the NIH would be a primary funding stream. Maybe my verbal job offer gets pulled. Maybe I end up at an institution with limited resources, creating significant negative impacts on my long term career. I don't know what is going to happen. It is a mess.
If we zoom out and look at what this all means for the tax payer if this policy is allowed by the courts, it will result in less fundamental and translational biomedical research being performed. Downstream of this will be fewer treatments being developed, though that will take time to work itself through the system as today's discoveries take time to make it to consumers. Which means the Trump administration wouldn't have to suffer the negatives consequences of their actions, but the public eventually will.
Similar threads
