Re: The Senate action on the NSF Budget -- Opposing views (or supporting )

[David Farber <farber@central.cis.upenn.edu>]

To: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu (David Farber)
Cc: interesting-people@eff.org (interesting-people mailing list), gnu@toad.com
Subject: Re: The Senate action on the NSF Budget 
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 93 21:17:46 -0700
From: gnu@toad.com


> The Mikulsky Committee voted on the NSF budget last Thursday.  There budget
> recommendations are the usual - barely 2% increase, etc.  The disastorous
> thing is the text which went with the bill.  I have copied it below.  It
> mandates that 60% of the funds be used for 'strategic' spending and has
> specific language safeguarding against the shrouding of 'curiosity driven'
> research as being strategic.


The Committee knew that some people would object to their attempts to
jerk the chain of the "we do science -- you owe us money" crowd.  But
the committee is right.  If you want to do science because you're
curious, give me back my taxes and fund it yourself.


Basic scientific research has historically never been funded by
governments.  It's been funded by visionaries, entrepreneurs,
industries, and philanthropists.  I don't think the taxpayers fall
into any of those categories.  It's time to end the Cold War free
ride, guys.  Make it pay, make it march, or find your own
philanthropist!


        John Gilmore
        (whose 1988-91 Federal tax bill was close to $500K -- and they
         just raised the rates again)