Shortsightedness and taking conservation to the far right will be the conduit through which the United States will lose its innovative leadership over China in one of the largest industries for job creation—renewable energy.
If the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a group of 175 House Republicans, gets its way, the day when America will take second or even third place in the global race for energy conservation is not far off.
“The conservative movement is hell-bent on forever ceding leadership in the most important job-creating industries of the next several decades,” according to a recent Climate Progress website article.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has taken the lead in tackling America’s growing debt crisis with his introduction of the Spending Reduction Act of 2011, H.R. 408, in January. Slating what he believes to be wasteful programs, H.R. 408 is supposed to eliminate $2.5 trillion of U.S. government spending.
“Without continued investment across the technology innovation cycle—from invention at the federal labs and publicly sponsored universities, to public-private partnerships aimed at commercializing and licensing new technologies, to technical assistance to make our manufacturers the most advanced and efficient in the world—we will forfeit whatever leadership we have managed to gain,” the Climate Progress article warns.
Cutting Waste
“Take a look at the huge list of government agencies. There is a bureau and a bureaucrat for every imaginable function of our overgrown government. And each one has a deputy and a secretary,” according to akdart’s Pork Page website.
Granted, it is about time that a great number of government programs addressed in the Spending Reduction Act be slated for elimination, such as cutting the federal travel budget in half. This is a program that suffers a lot of abuse by greedy government employees, and the budget reduction would save $7.5 billion in taxpayers’ funds.
Not many would cry if duplicate or overlapping programs and agency missions were eliminated, as they drain scarce resources. Programs that are either a duplication of federal or state programs include the Save America’s Treasures Program, the Legal Services Corp., the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, and the Federal Community Development Fund.
Other programs that won’t cause more than just a few people heartburn if they are eliminated include the beach replenishment projects, and ending the congressional printing and binding of documents, which could be much more cheaply provided via the Internet, saving $47 million annually, is not a bad idea.
“The first place to trim runaway federal spending is in waste, fraud, and abuse. Congress, however, has largely abandoned its constitutional duty of overseeing the executive branch and has steadfastly refused to address the waste littered across government programs,” according to a 2005 Heritage Foundation article.
Read More . . . The other side of the coin
Looking at the Other Side of the Coin
“But the American Dream depends on American prosperity and leadership. And several of the committee’s cuts explicitly undermine our future prosperity, especially in the area of clean energy technology,” the Climate Progress article states.Eliminating the Department of Commerce Technology Innovation Program, which has a $70 million budget, would be detrimental to America’s global leadership position, as it helps keep American innovation alive and supports those who may not have the funds to be innovative.
The Climate Progress article states that cutting the Department of Energy applied research program would reduce the department’s budget by “cutting $1.27 billion from this core set of activities designed to identify which new innovations in America’s labs and universities is primed for actual commercialization and market-readiness.”
Slating a small $125 million budget from the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program for budget cuts will put many small- and mid-sized companies at risk of losing out in the competitive environment. This program provides essential technical and managerial advice that many of these smaller firms could not buy in the market otherwise.
In addition, the Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration provides vital information to states about how to put their economies to best use, gives seed money to new ventures, and brings companies, universities, and government entities to one table for developing innovative ideas or expanding existing technological breakthroughs. To slate for extinction $293 million from this program, a relatively small amount, is the wrong strategy. The RSC forgets that such cooperative efforts created Silicon Valley, one of America’s most successful ventures.
The Climate Progress article ends its report with a scathing assessment of the situation. “By undercutting the programs that most efficiently and effectively invest in these building blocks of innovation, the RSC will consign America to the role not of global leader but of global consumer.”
Energy Spending
“The energy business requires investments of capital at a scale that is beyond the risk threshold of most private-sector investors?” said Steven Chu, the 12th American Secretary of Energy, when speaking on the subject at Washington’s National Press Club in 2010.In 2010, the U.S. federal budget was $3.6 billion, of which $5.1 billion, less than 1 percent, was slated toward energy research and development (R&D).
The U.S. government should increase its present spending for energy R&D by $16 billion, while the private sector has to come to fore and put another $10 billion on the table, according to a report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
“American economic competitiveness, environmental stewardship, and enhanced security depend on picking up the pace of energy technology innovation in this decade. Many other countries are quickening their step, and we must do so as well if we are to retain our leadership position,” advocates the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in a November 2010 report to the president.
In 2010, America spent approximately $90 billion for defense R&D, around $30 million for health R&D, and in contrast, only $20 million for energy R&D.
Cutting Waste
“Take a look at the huge list of government agencies. There is a bureau and a bureaucrat for every imaginable function of our overgrown government. And each one has a deputy and a secretary,” according to akdart’s Pork Page website.
Granted, it is about time that a great number of government programs addressed in the Spending Reduction Act be slated for elimination, such as cutting the federal travel budget in half. This is a program that suffers a lot of abuse by greedy government employees, and the budget reduction would save $7.5 billion in taxpayers’ funds.
Not many would cry if duplicate or overlapping programs and agency missions were eliminated, as they drain scarce resources. Programs that are either a duplication of federal or state programs include the Save America’s Treasures Program, the Legal Services Corp., the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, and the Federal Community Development Fund.
Other programs that won’t cause more than just a few people heartburn if they are eliminated include the beach replenishment projects, and ending the congressional printing and binding of documents, which could be much more cheaply provided via the Internet, saving $47 million annually, is not a bad idea.
“The first place to trim runaway federal spending is in waste, fraud, and abuse. Congress, however, has largely abandoned its constitutional duty of overseeing the executive branch and has steadfastly refused to address the waste littered across government programs,” according to a 2005 Heritage Foundation article.
Read More . . . The other side of the coin
Looking at the Other Side of the Coin
“But the American Dream depends on American prosperity and leadership. And several of the committee’s cuts explicitly undermine our future prosperity, especially in the area of clean energy technology,” the Climate Progress article states.Eliminating the Department of Commerce Technology Innovation Program, which has a $70 million budget, would be detrimental to America’s global leadership position, as it helps keep American innovation alive and supports those who may not have the funds to be innovative.
The Climate Progress article states that cutting the Department of Energy applied research program would reduce the department’s budget by “cutting $1.27 billion from this core set of activities designed to identify which new innovations in America’s labs and universities is primed for actual commercialization and market-readiness.”
Slating a small $125 million budget from the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program for budget cuts will put many small- and mid-sized companies at risk of losing out in the competitive environment. This program provides essential technical and managerial advice that many of these smaller firms could not buy in the market otherwise.
In addition, the Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration provides vital information to states about how to put their economies to best use, gives seed money to new ventures, and brings companies, universities, and government entities to one table for developing innovative ideas or expanding existing technological breakthroughs. To slate for extinction $293 million from this program, a relatively small amount, is the wrong strategy. The RSC forgets that such cooperative efforts created Silicon Valley, one of America’s most successful ventures.
The Climate Progress article ends its report with a scathing assessment of the situation. “By undercutting the programs that most efficiently and effectively invest in these building blocks of innovation, the RSC will consign America to the role not of global leader but of global consumer.”
Energy Spending
“The energy business requires investments of capital at a scale that is beyond the risk threshold of most private-sector investors?” said Steven Chu, the 12th American Secretary of Energy, when speaking on the subject at Washington’s National Press Club in 2010.In 2010, the U.S. federal budget was $3.6 billion, of which $5.1 billion, less than 1 percent, was slated toward energy research and development (R&D).
The U.S. government should increase its present spending for energy R&D by $16 billion, while the private sector has to come to fore and put another $10 billion on the table, according to a report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
“American economic competitiveness, environmental stewardship, and enhanced security depend on picking up the pace of energy technology innovation in this decade. Many other countries are quickening their step, and we must do so as well if we are to retain our leadership position,” advocates the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in a November 2010 report to the president.
In 2010, America spent approximately $90 billion for defense R&D, around $30 million for health R&D, and in contrast, only $20 million for energy R&D.
Calling for an increase from $15 billion to $25 billion in R&D spending, which would be used to bring together America’s brightest and most innovative people for the development of renewable energy, researchers from the American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution, and Breakthrough Institute published the October 2010 Post-Partisan Power report.
“The choice is whether America will focus on what really matters when it comes to energy technology and on what the vast majority of Americans want: innovation,” the researchers said.
