Bush Flatlines Medical Sciences Spending

Bush is looking to double spending in the physical sciences and leave biomedical research spending at current levels, again. I guess he likes laser beams more than cancer and diabetes research. From Science:

President George W. Bush today proposed a flat budget for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2009 while asking for double-digit increases at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The numbers, part of his request to Congress for the 2009 fiscal year that begins 1 October, mirror previous budgets by emphasizing the physical sciences at the expense of the biomedical sciences.

The dichotomy has drawn a convoluted response from the scientific community, encapsulated by this comment from Robert Berdahl, president of the 62-member Association of American Universities. "Question: Is the President's budget good or bad for the vital research and education that is performed by America's research universities? Answer: Yes."

Presidential science adviser John Marburger says the increases for the physical sciences reflect the Administration's belief that a previous 5-year doubling of the NIH budget, which ended in 2003, threw the federal government's science portfolio out of whack. That's why, he noted, the Administration's request for a doubling of the physical sciences in its American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) would occur over 10 years. But Marburger also thinks that the biomedical community should be able to do more research with the same amount of money. "Frankly, I think that an argument can be made that better management [of NIH] can bring about much better productivity even with flat resources," he told reporters at a budget briefing. "The private sector does it all the time." [Seriously? Did I really just read that? The private sector is FOR PROFIT. My god.]

Predictably, that view doesn't sit well with biomedical scientists. "We reject the premise that funding science in one area or at one agency must come at the expense of another," says Bob Palazzo, president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Bethesda, Maryland. "There is no doubt that NSF and DOE merit the significant increases the president has proposed. But neglecting NIH at the same time is failing to grasp the interconnectedness of science."

Science lobbyists are counting on Congress to sustain the president's ACI request while pumping up NIH's flat budget. Last year, the community got the worst of both worlds with a last-minute cut in the DOE science and NSF budgets, whereas NIH's budget failed to keep up with inflation for the fifth straight year.

The amount of money proposed for the NIH is $29.5 billion. To put that in perspective, Bush's war on "terrah" costs taxpayers $15 billion... PER MONTH (with many more details in this PDF report from the Congressional Research Service).

FISA And SOTU

Wow, ThinkProgress is super-blogging the state of the union (SOTU) address. One of Bush's major pushes is to get the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) passed with retroactive immunity for telecoms that have likely illegally spied on US citizens. ThinkProgress has a great list of facts to counter Bush's SOTU statements.

Thankfully, it's not only ThinkProgress countering Bush and the GOP on FISA. Today, Democrats in Congress temporarily stopped immunity for the telecoms. The fight continues tomorrow and likely beyond. Greenwald has a decent recap of the day's FISA related events here.

Will Democrats keep a spine on this issue? I want to hope yes, but how likely is it that they'll stand strong against Daddies Cheney and W?

Legacies

The legacy of Bush, complete with references. Some of the numbers don't seem as dramatic when you think about population dynamics, but many of them look much, much worse when you think about population dynamics. Have a click though and see for yourself.

Wow

When does the lush Bush economy start? The Dow was off some 300 points this morning and the Fed cut a rate by 3/4 of a percentage point. Yahoo Finance has more info.

Acceptable Losses

Q: What does the Bush administration consider appropriate in American health coverage?

A: 11,000 children thrown out of the system.

That's compassionate conservatism at work. Absolutely stunning isn't it?

Frightening Hate For Health Care Coverage

ThinkProgress is reporting that a popular conservative blog is receiving kudos from the White House for its stand on SCHIP. Comments at the blog call for ruining the family at the center of a right-wing smear campaign. ThinkProgress has more information on the campaign under their health care tag. The amount of hate being directed at SCHIP recipients is astounding.

Lunchtime Blogging

The following are things I'd love to blog about in detail.

The legacy Abu Gonzales: We torture.

Bush doesn't care if children have healthcare or not.

People still don't like Bush.

The House votes 389-30 for a bill allowing the prosecution of contractors in Iraq and elsewhere.

A non-discriminatory ENDA is important. It really is.

It's still Hell in Burma.

The People Bush Aligns Our Country With

Saudi TV fantasizes about the futuristic concepts of movie theaters and allowing women to drive. Smell the freedom!

Onto Iran, Ugh

The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment passed today (h/t Jonathan) with minimal changes from the version that shut down the vote yesterday (ThinkProgress has many posts on the lead up to the impending attack on Iran).

Sadly, both of my senators, Schumer and Clinton, voted for it.

The Bush crime family will take any reason, no matter how legally flimsy, to further their agenda; they've shown us that with their warrantless surveillance, murder of habeas corpus, and extraordinary rendition.

Thirsting For Iran

Rawstory reports that Cheney is busy writing pretext for a strike against Iran while an elite air force strike unit is reassembled for just that purpose. This is scary stuff and I'm not as optimistic as Jonathan that $8/gallon gas will move Americans to do much other than complain. The upper-middle-class white guys who form the core of the "get your war on" party will clamor for the blood of the brown regardless of cost.

Hubris And The Meek

The President has the nerve to ask for permanent warrantless surveillance powers:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act governs when the government must obtain warrants for eavesdropping from a secret intelligence court. This year's update — approved just before Congress' August break — allows more efficient interceptions of foreign communications.

Under the new law, the government can eavesdrop without a court order on communications conducted by a person reasonably believed to be outside the U.S., even if an American is on one end of the conversation — so long as that American is not the intended focus or target of the surveillance.

In requesting the change, the Bush administration said technological advances in communications had created a dire gap in the ability to collect intelligence on terrorists.

Such surveillance generally was prohibited under the original law if the wiretap was conducted inside the U.S., unless a court approved it. Because of changes in technology, many more foreign communications now flow through the U.S. The new law, known as the Protect America Act, allows those to be tapped without a court order.

Civil liberties groups and many Democrats say the new changes go too far. Democratic leaders in Congress set the law to expire in six months so that it could be fine-tuned; that process now is beginning on Capitol Hill.

Democrats hope for changes that would provide additional oversight when the government eavesdrops on U.S. residents communicating with overseas parties.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said lawmakers understand the need to update the law, but also the need to protect the rights and liberties of Americans.

"For over five years, the president carried out a warrantless surveillance program that ignored the law and the role of court oversight," Rockefeller said. "Today, the president continues to seek unchecked surveillance powers that many of us in Congress cannot support. The fact is, the Protect America Act did provide authority for collection, but it did not include sufficient protections for Americans. There's no reason we can't do both," Rockefeller said.

Of course the democrats we've elected to reign in this wealthy frat boy maniac will, after some impotent rambling on the floors of Congress, roll over like puppies for biscuits.

Same As It Ever Was

The Iraq troop reduction fairytale schema is this - Congress hold hearings, the media covers it, some serious political types nod approvingly, most yell about partisan politics, the president hints that he might bring home a small number of troops sometime in the distant future, the media headlines the president's non-plan as a very wise compromise that will bring our boys home, the undecided voter buys every bit of it, and we remain at war forever.

Greenwald Speaks

Glenn Greenwald on General "It's always sunny in Baghdad" Petraeus:

I'm not much on the eternally awkward video blogging format, but Mr. Greenwald makes some great points.

I'd add the question, "How many times can an alpha-presenting male lie to a swing/moderate/undecided male voter before the voter realizes that his daddy figures aren't heroes and that it's OK to say so?"

I'd estimate the answer hovers around 100. At that rate it should take us twenty to forty years to collectively realize that the wise old men of DC are dedicated to staying in Iraq forever and sugarcoating (a euphemism) the lack of progress (more here). This realization will be instantly forgotten upon initiation of the next war. War forever!

(h/t atrios)

Seven More Soldiers

Seven more soldiers have died in this useless war. Bush says, "we're kicking ass" in Iraq.

In a reality where Bush and his war make sense (Novakuland, WSJ editorial pages, FauxNews), those seven deaths are supporting evidence to Bush's thesis. Dead soldiers mean we're fighting them over there and not here. Failed reconstruction efforts mean more work for American contractors (hush hush on that one though). Every new crack in Iraq's fragile government is just democracy in action.

Smell the freedom, on to Iran.

Progress

President Bush was on the teevee this holiday weekend telling me about the great progress he observed during his surprise visit to Iraq (and he didn't even need to leave a secured air base to tell).

I know he wouldn't lie to us. I mean, I've seen him in his flight suit and he looks like a very well endowed he-man, and brother, they don't lie. So, I'll just have to designate to the realms of hysteria the recent independent report from the GAO that finds Iraq reconstruction efforts stalling and little change in daily attacks against Iraqis. Bush and his war in Iraq are teh awesome.

Awesome too will be our inevitable invasion of the new big bad, Iran (Qaeda is so post 9-11).

We are a village of doomed idiots.

Abu-Gonzales Gone

Alberto Gonzales resigns. The NY Times related coverage. Did he do anything good?

ThinkProgress has more including speculation by US News that Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff will replace comrade Gonzales.

Gonzales related posts from my archives:

• One of My Senators

• Lying Attorney Generals

• Email Dump

• Perspective

• Lying Attorney General

• Gonzales and What America Wants

• Sparrow Smarter than 30% of Americans

• TFGIFF

Wanna Call Me Paranoid Now?

So, the big telecoms were helping Big Brother Bush monitor American citizens. Anyone rolling their eyes and crying, "tinfoil hat" at those worried about privacy, inappropriate government surveillance, and well, the constitution, can now, very appropriately, STFU. From the NYTimes:

“Under the president’s program, the terrorist surveillance program, the private sector had assisted us, because if you’re going to get access, you’ve got to have a partner,” Mr. McConnell [director of national intelligence] said in the interview, a transcript of which was posted by The El Paso Times on Wednesday.

AT&T and several other major carriers are being sued over their reported role in the program, which permitted eavesdropping without warrants on the international communications of Americans suspected of terrorism ties. The administration has sought to shut down the lawsuits by invoking the state-secrets privilege, refusing even to confirm whether the companies helped conduct the wiretaps.

Republican Prosperity

2005 incomes were below 2000 levels:

Americans earned a smaller average income in 2005 than in 2000, the fifth consecutive year that they had to make ends meet with less money than at the peak of the last economic expansion, new government data shows.

While incomes have been on the rise since 2002, the average income in 2005 was $55,238, still nearly 1 percent less than the $55,714 in 2000, after adjusting for inflation, analysis of new tax statistics show. ...

The growth in total incomes was concentrated among those making more than $1 million. The number of such taxpayers grew by more than 26 percent, to 303,817 in 2005, from 239,685 in 2000.

These individuals, who constitute less than a quarter of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped almost 47 percent of the total income gains in 2005, compared with 2000.

People with incomes of more than a million dollars also received 62 percent of the savings from the reduced tax rates on long-term capital gains and dividends that President Bush signed into law in 2003, according to a separate analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, a group that points out policies that it says favor the rich.

The group's calculations showed that 28 percent of the investment tax cut savings went to just 11,433 of the 134 million taxpayers, those who made $10 million or more, saving them almost $1.9 million each. Over all, this small number of wealthy Americans saved $21.7 billion in taxes on their investment income as a result of the tax-cut law.

The nearly 90 percent of Americans who make less than $100,000 a year saved on average $318 each on their investments. They collected 5.3 percent of the total savings from reduced tax rates on investment income.

Bush prosperity!

And as Pam notes, this year's sweet Bush prosperity news is that foreclosures are up 93% from the same period last year. Now that's progress!

Night and Day

NY Times headline last night: White House Acts to Limit Health Plan for Children

NY Times headline this morning: New Rules May Limit Health Care Program Aiding Children

The links different addresses, but the articles are essentially the same. Thank heavens we have newspapers, the last great bastion for mainstream progressives.

The article describes how the Bush White House is trying to limit a state's right to manage healthcare for children. One technique is by requiring 95% enrollment for families at the state set income requirement. That just doesn't happen. When was the last time you heard of 95% of eligible voters voting.

The other techniques are just as telling. The director of the federal Center for Medicaid and State Operations, Dennis G. Smith, has requested that states charge copays and premiums approximating those of private plans, and wants a one year waiting period, to demonstrate lack of coverage, before a family receives healthcare.

These two paragraphs (from the first version of the shifting titled article) displays the hearts of these brave defenders against "socialized medicine":

As another precaution, Mr. Smith said, states wanting to cover children above 250 percent of the poverty level must show that “the number of children in the target population insured through private employers has not decreased by more than two percentage points over the prior five-year period.”

Two Republican senators, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Pat Roberts of Kansas, urged the Bush administration last week to deny New York’s request to cover children with family incomes up to four times the poverty level. The proposal, they said, violates the original intent of Congress, which wanted to focus on lower-income children.

So, state rights are important for all things LGBT, but not for anything that might threaten the pockets of private healthcare providers (i.e. Insurance industry lobbyists are working hard to fight any government provided healthcare).

I'll remember this move and the senators supporting it the next time, "what about the children?" is thrown about by conservatives. "The children" is always cover for protecting the industries that contribute to reelection campaigns.

Money Troubles (Poor Tony)

We should all have such problems:

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow plans to leave his job before the end of the Bush administration in January 2009 because of financial concerns, a spokeswoman for President Bush said Friday.

Snow, who has cancer, plans to stay "as long as he can," White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore said, and "will not resign before Labor Day."

Snow, 52, a former television commentator for News Corp.'s Fox News, makes $168,000 a year as White House press secretary. He is married and has three children.

I'm betting this divorced mother working three jobs would be glad to make the sacrifice and take over Tony's lowly public service position with its paltry salary. She already has Bush's nod of approval:

MS. MORNIN: Okay, I'm a divorced, single [57 year-old] mother with three grown, adult children. I have one child, Robbie, who is mentally challenged, and I have two daughters.

THE PRESIDENT: Fantastic. First of all, you've got the hardest job in America, being a single mom...

MS. MORNIN: I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute.

THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?

MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)

MS. MORNIN: Not much. Not much.