Some professor at USC (Prakash Nagarkatti) says that the sequester is going to hurt USC's funding for basic research, and that's going to hurt the local economy because of...well he's a little fuzzy on that.
Here's what he says:
In 2012, USC received a record $238 million in external research funding, more than 60 percent from federal sources. Every $1 of research funding generates an estimated $2.21 in local economic growth, making the impact of USC research more than half a billion dollars.
First of all, we're not even talking about losing a half billion dollars of money from the economy even if you assume for the sake of argument that the multiplier effect of this money is correct as Keynesian economic theory would have you believe. Let's assume that his economic assumption is totally right. I'm not going to address economic theory and the multiplier effect today.
Let's just talk about this guy's little research program. (By the way, this guy ain't an economics professor.) I'm not a scientist, but it looks like he's into research smoking pot as it relates to cancer. If someone can decipher what the heck he's actually researching, let me know. But I digress.
Ok, so last year alone, USC got $238,000,000.00 in funding for research. I don't care who you are, that's a lot of money. Ok, so 60% of that came from federal sources, which is $142,800,000.00. With me so far?
Let's just talk about this guy's little research program. (By the way, this guy ain't an economics professor.) I'm not a scientist, but it looks like he's into research smoking pot as it relates to cancer. If someone can decipher what the heck he's actually researching, let me know. But I digress.
Ok, so last year alone, USC got $238,000,000.00 in funding for research. I don't care who you are, that's a lot of money. Ok, so 60% of that came from federal sources, which is $142,800,000.00. With me so far?
Ok, so now the big, scary sequester is here. For those of you who don't remember, the sequester is cutting 2.23% from the federal budget. So 2.23% of $142,800,000.00 is $3,184,440.00.
To recap, in 2012 USC received $238 Million dollars. For that year alone. For just research. Now, USC faces the possibility that it's only going to receive $234.8 Million in 2013? We're talking about a little over $3 million dollar cut. That's not that big of a difference.
However, this professor says that "sequestration could cost USC up to $12 million in competitive federal grants." Ok, fine. Even using his numbers, that means USC research has to subsist on $226 Million each year.We're talking about a 1.74% funding decrease here, pal. You can still buy a lot of pot and Cheetos for $226 Million.
Oh nooes! Only $226 million (each year) to research and study things! What will become of us?
Here's the part that really galls me:
While we understand the difficult budget situation our country faces, and recognize that shared sacrifice is the only path to recovery, our research universities are significant contributors of growth and prosperity.
Shared sacrifice? This professor is saying that USC and Columbia are going to really suffer if the extra $12 Million of Uncle Sugar's money don't come to his little research programs. What part is he sacrificing? He can't even sacrifice a little bit of his research program in our shared sacrifice. And he's not just talking to his pals about this over coffee. He's running an op-ed in The State to try and convince everyone that he can't do without his precious little 1.74% of a funding cut, and saying that we need to engage in "shared sacrifice" so he can keep researching stuff with no decrease in funding.
Maybe he should get some people to research the word "shared".
Maybe he should get some people to research the word "shared".
Cry me a river.
No comments:
Post a Comment