E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy Tanya Lewis
LiveScience
With the deadline for government-wide spending cuts just hours away, attempts to avert the cuts — which would affect medical research, space exploration and defense spending — have all but failed.
President Barack Obama must sign the $85 billion in cuts, known as "the sequester," into law by 11:59 p.m. Friday night. The White House Office of Management and Budget estimates an effective 9 percent cut to nondefense programs, including basic science research, and a 13 percent cut to defense programs. The blow to researchers and government workers will be felt widely, experts say.
The president met this morning with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., but no action to avert the cuts was taken. Obama supports a long-term budget deal that would include both spending cuts and tax increases.
Stinging cuts
The impact of the spending slash on research will be severe. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) estimates a total research and development cut of $8.6 billion in 2013. This includes a $5.4 billion cut to the Department of Defense, a $1.5 billion cut to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and a $283 million cut to the National Science Foundation (NSF). The sequester could also result in significant cuts to NASA.
Some effects will be immediate: "Federal agencies are going to be either restricting or completely eliminating training and travel for the remainder of 2013," Joanne Carney, director of government relations at AAAS, told LiveScience. "There's going to be an amazing increase in competition" for grants, Carney added, so "universities are going to have to start becoming a bit more strategic, not only in proposals to the federal government, but also in looking for sources of alternative funding." [How the Sequester Will Affect Science]
Other effects could take weeks or months to set in. Some agencies have warned that employees may face furloughs, or mandatory unpaid leave. But federal agencies are required to give employees 30 days' notice before furloughs can commence, so the soonest they could happen is April.
Young researchers will likely be some of the hardest hit by the cutbacks. Spencer Diamond is a doctoral student at the University of California, San Diego who is studying photosynthetic bacteria that could be used to produce green fuels and chemicals. Diamond's work is funded completely by the NSF and the NIH.
"A major loss of government research funding would severely impact most individuals at my university, and would significantly set back the basic scientific research we are doing to help develop alternative fuel sources," Diamond is quoted as saying in a letter Alan Leshner, chief executive officer of AAAS, wrote to Obama in December. "This is research on which we can build the foundations of U.S. energy independence," Diamond said.
The cuts come on top of significant cuts already put in place in the last couple of years, according to Mary Woolley, president of the not-for-profit advocacy group Research!America.
What happens now
All agencies will be funded through March 27 through what's known as a continuing resolution, but if Congress fails to pass budget legislation by that date, the government will be shut down, except for essential employees (such as emergency workers).
The hope is that Congress might reapportion the cuts to provide flexibility, Carney said. "Some agencies may see more in funds, and some may see less," but it would be a more balanced approach than across-the-board reductions, she said.
The sequester was designed as a last-ditch measure in case Congress couldn't reach a deal to reduce the deficit. It was scheduled to take effect Jan. 2, 2013 — the so-called "fiscal cliff" — but was delayed until March 1.
Follow LiveScience on Twitter @livescience. We're also on Facebook and Google+.
- 7 Great Dramas in Congressional History
- 10 Historically Significant Political Protests
- 6 Politicians Who Got the Science Wrong
Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Leave a Comment:
No mon, no fun. We need some political courage in Washington and it simply isn't there.... and that will not change anytime soon, if ever. It's not about principle; it's about winning.
It's all lies straight from the pit of hell, anyway. No one believes in science.
Right, the earth is flat anyway and only 6000 years old. So who needs to do any more research? Just read the bible. NOT
Here we go with still more sequester consequences. People listening to the news these past weeks over how disastrous losing this 85 billion is would think the remaining 3.6 trillion budget was inconsequential.
It's important to remember that this isn't a cut at all because even with the entire 85 billion cut, the budget is still greater than last year. The correct characterization is not a budget cut, but a reduction in the amount of budget increase.
This something like a 2.5% reduction in available funds and would be handled seamlessly by someone with even mediocre competence, obviously, that's not Obama.
Thanks Wet Willy, we're all sure you're a great genius. Thanks for playing!
Willy you seem to only be focused on the bottom lines when what you should be focused on is how those cuts are being distributed. A $1.5 billion cut to NIH is game over for research science in America.
So don't get cancer, dude.
1,000,000----> 1 million
1,000,000,000---->1 billion
85,000,000,000---> 85 billion
1,000,000,000,000 --> 1 trillion
16,000,000,000,000 - 85 billion = Peanuts.
This is the Democrats FAULT they think they can keep spending and can tax the golden goose till the goose is DEAD. NO NEW TAXES cut SPENDING
How about the free tax loopholes for the rich? They amount of hundreds of billions per year, if not more. No, the Republicans won't allow their rich friends to get in trouble now, will they?
Only Congress authorizes spending. President has no authority to spend anything not authorized by Congress. The "golden goose" is being taxed at the lowest rates in 50 years, that plus two unfunded wars are what broke the bank, not 'democratic spending.'
R-738279
Have you been living on Mars for the last fourty years????? It has always been REPUBLICANS that grew government and charged up the countries credit card. I know you Republican types suffer from selective amnesia so let me refresh your defective brains....... President Clinton [ Democrat ] balanced the federal budget only to have your hero G.W. Bush give the nations surplus away to his already filthy rich pals.
You people are unbelivable you keep singing the same worn out song that is full of lies and B.S... GET OVER IT FOOLS! Try joining the world of truth and reality and stop wasting our time......
@BigAl: Not really meaning to stir the pot or anything, but I do have to mention that Clinton never balanced the budget. What he did was invoke a little know clause that allowed him to borrow from the SS fund, since this was technically all the same gov money it showed as a balanced budget/surplus. However, the SS money still has to be repaid at some point so in reality it still was a deficit during those years.
I'd say democrats are just as selective in their memory/awareness.
Mitchell
Dear BigAl and AB-1981, please check the congressional record you will find that, to your shock, that both Democrats and Republicans has voted for the past budgets and tax loop holes. You may be shocked to find that some of these so called rich and big oil loop holes were installed to build the nation that we live in today. As John-14... has said the president dose not authorize any thing, please see the US constitution, it is Congress that passes all legislation, the Presidents only recourse is to veto the bill BEFORE signing into law. We are here do to everyone. The current problem is that the Democrats want to spend more money than all the wealth of the nation.
R-73,
If I hand you a noose, and you take it put it around your neck, tighten it up, tie the end to your balcony railing and jump off, who is responsible for the outcome?
The Democrates have an agend to spend this country until it is broke... or a communist as Thacker said, Socialiam is great so long as you use someone else's money the top earners, who are the people who invest in this country....
R-738279, it's not the Democrats who started the expensive Iraq war or put in the tax loopholes.
Nor was it the Republicans... it was muslin extremest - Al Qeada did., please check the history of the last 15 years!!! The attach on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was the only way to protect us. Did Iraq have WMD who knows and there is no proof either way and not finding anything is not finding anything. There is information that says the threat was over stated... but the truth is Iraq leadership was in the same league as Hitler. Is this a waist only history will tell, we do not know how this will end.... As for loop hole both the Dems and the Republicans have done so and anyone who think other wise needs to go back to the congressional record....
To the extent we believe in evidence, Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda or WMDs. Find some other ignorant village folk to troll. Hitler or not, it wasn't our business. And you cannot say Hitler until you can establish a head count of at least six million.
Maybe you can live with 6 million deaths on your head, but I remember these words: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Martin Luther King, Jr.. The world has accepted too many deaths because it was not "there business" or maybe it was not good for business... blood diamonds of recent events... yet deBeers is still allowed to operate... that is all I have to say
R-738279, the biggest killers by far are not terrorists or mass murderers - they are diseases. Science funding includes medical funding to protect us from diseases. Maybe you can live with 600 million deaths from disease, but I cannot.
thank you for pointing out the obvious. These same people justifying GWB's Iraq adventure don't hesitate to criticize Clinton for getting involved in Bosnia.
john-1453080, how many American soldiers were lost in Bosnia? Zero? The mission was temporary and had specific objectives.
AB-1981 are you a medical researcher working on these problems? If you are I congratulate you, if not how much of your personal income do you donate to research and which programs do you donate to? If you are a researcher then you of all persons would understand that life is tenacious, virus and bacteria have out smarted us and will continue to do so given our limited current technology. As for genetic diseases and cancers we stand at the beginning to even understand the cause much less the cure. When the problem of disease is gone there will for other consequences that could be much more grave.
AB-1981 and how many Bosnians died do to Clinton's lack of action? If loss of life due to disease haunts you, then what about all the mass graves of children because they were the wrong parents or religion???
Did you just use MLK to justify war?
I really hope that I don't have to tell you what is so deeply and disturbingly wrong about that.
As for disease research - I am a researcher. I can tell you that virus and bacteria (including those that attack our crops) will continue to adapt and kill despite our technological advances. They will never be defeated. It is an ongoing war without end, but one that must be fought continuously if our species is to maintain our level of advancement and population size. You have incorrectly assumed that disease will be defeated in its entirety. Crippling our ability to keep up and fight this fight will bring grave consequences, not to mention a serious brain drain in America (something this country obviously can ill afford).
As for Clinton's lack of action in Bosnia - I seem to remember many republicans hamstringing him politically that contributed to the inaction. Let's not forget the GOP claims of "wag the dog" when Clinton tried to respond to Al Qaeda's first attempt on the WTC! It is clearly unfair to blame Clinton for Bosnia, a conflict that did not involve us. The fact that we stepped in at all is to be commended, otherwise should we blame America for not stopping every war on the planet?
After years of various administrations basically running government programs on borrowed money, is anyone surprised that even small efforts to curtail that overspending are going to hurt a bit? The US has been living beyond its means for a long time now. Perhaps it's time to get used to a "new normal" that is closer to the means of the country... And cuts like this are a drop in the bucket. Neither the Republican "no taxes, all cuts" or the Democrat "all taxes, no cuts" approaches are really going to do it here - and all the finger pointing one way or another is a bloody joke.
What's more, the cuts to the sciences were relatively small as far as I can tell.
Amen the answer is in the middle with neither side getting what they want
SteveJNB, a 9% cut in science funding isn't relatively small. It's huge. Numerous major programs will now have to be shut down.
Maybe 9% isn't large either but I do think it is a mistake.
Our governor thought 13% was just a little when he illegally took it from public servants, unfortunately many lost their jobs too. 13% turns into 63% for a family pretty quickly under those circumstances.
9% cuts come on top of deep cuts that have been continually enacted over the last decade. That 9% is like squeezing blood from a stone. At universities all over the country labs are shutting down or operating on skeleton crews. Expensive equipment are no longer serviceable, nor is there money to replace them. When the parts cannot be found the labs that rely on them will close.
I don't know a single researcher who has gotten a new grant in three years. When someone on my campus gets a grant it is like finding out your neighbor won the lottery - except the lottery is only $20,000 - hardly enough for more than a year's operation.
Many researchers have become salesmen at lab supply companies and equipment manufacturers. All day long they ply the college campuses trying to sell equipment that no one can afford. I predict many of them will soon lose their backup jobs as salesmen too.
As a scientist when I hear how many in the GOP talk ignorantly about science and then say things like 9% is a small cut to the NIH, I want to bash my head in. There really is no bottom to the dumbness and willful ignorance of some conservatives. Perhaps if they cut 9% out of their beloved oil subsidies?
If there are limited funds coming from us taxpayors for scientific research...then I guess the option is to get more private funding.
Either that or simply consider the possibility that it isn't the God given right of the US to be the science leader. Private funding for research has been increasingly going to other countries for a while now because they're either more regulation friendly, give significant subsidies to get that research done in their borders, or just have lower overhead costs for a variety of reasons (think India).
Oh, don't get me wrong, it probably will be the science leader for a while yet, and then one of the science leaders for a while after that, but... Research costs money. The US is a place where the populace expects more money dumped into frivolous things than almost anywhere else in the world, and this eats out of functional and long term thinking things in a big way. What's more, the money that you have is in part illusory or just not there any more. The only way it has continued for as long as it has is a stupendous amount of borrowing sold to you by politicians which you have happily accepted because the populace just figures it's entitled to the many bells and whistles it has, and they rarely get a look at how bleak your credit card statement is.
This is what a power in decline looks like. Get used to it... You're a long way from bottom. And you know what? It's not the end of the world. People are perfectly happy in places across the globe and, as the lifestyle many US citizens feel they are entitled to starts to fade away, you can still be happy as well.
One reason the 'lifestyle many US citizens feel they are entitled to' fades away is because our government has for many long years decreased spending on basic research, including medical. If you think this is just 'normal' and that we are 'a long way from the bottom' you need to think again, and maybe do some reading on global research in medicine and technology. The drop to the bottom can happen in a heartbeat, and the steep climb out will be painful.
Steve, We do not have a god given right to be a science leader - we just recognize the benefits to our economy, our infrastructure, health, safety, and living standards that being a leader in science provides.
As for private funding being a viable alternative: These types of funding sources are never interested in basic research. They want products. That means that private funding is often only applied to research that has already benefited from and stood on the shoulders of public support. Except for the many walk-a-thons out there, private money funds very little basic research and what research it does fund is small potatoes compared to what gets funded through NIH and NSF. Private institutes just don't have the financial resources to take over the burden of research - that is a pipe dream.
Big projects have gone to other countries (CERN) because the US has decided that they aren't important - not because other countries have less regulations or cost of business. These large projects are funded in large part by public money no matter where they are in the world.
29% of all US lands are owned by the US government. There are lots of assets the government could sell off. Many of those lands are held by the Bureau of Land Management, and a lot of it was available for recreation - until road closures and access restrictions excluded public use. The cost of holding these lands compared to what they could yield should be factored into whether lands should be sold or utilized. The government is sitting on wealth while crying poor.
No, thanks. Not everything needs to be turned into a parking lot.
DanP, interesting throght, but I think it would be better to leave it wild as best we can.... it is only money and China already owns too much of this country....
We already know the type of people your comment appeals to, namely the poachers and stealers of publicly owned wildlife and trees, which they steal with near impunity. "It is our wood" they claim, and then take it for themselves, leaving a wasteland in national forests. These pathetic people deserve no sympathy and rather deserve public castration to set an example.
John-14....
Sir you are mistaken, you sir have no idea what kind of person I am, your attack of my character only reflects on your own. I sir am an independent. I vote and support those who voice and act similar to my beliefs.
I do not approve or condone poaching, or stealing of public property. If the US government enter into
contract that is what it is. Do you belong to the Sierra Club, PETRA or some other group that is actively working on these misuses??? What are you doing to make a change? Enquiring mind would like to know....
The fact is that since Obama and the Democrats have taken leadership they have raised the public debt to new levels. It is a fact that China owns the largest portion of US and the world debt. It is a matter of public record that they have not changed anything to stop billing abuse by doctors and hospitals... Is it right for a hospital to charge my parents $1.50 for a single aspirin? Obama speaks but gives no detail.... the whole political systems is broken and neither side at this point has shown any leadership!!!!!
Independent = uninformed. You may have opinions that don't fit well into one party or another (gun toting liberal or fiscally responsible but socially accepting). That doesn't make you an independent, by your tone it is clear your affiliation, but why hide it?
Not everyone falls lock step into a party's beliefs, but many do out of simplicity or laziness. 90% of you are the same religion and political affiliation as your parents were.
Independents don't exist, unless they're existing in a vacuum.
You can blame Obama for $1.50 aspirin, or you can blame the companies charging that noticing that the biggest jumps in health costs are occurring now, before they are reined in by the ACA. For-profit companies will screw you over as hard and as fast as they can before it becomes too difficult to do so in 2014.
I agree we need better leadership, but it has been made pretty apparent which side wants to negotiate and find a balanced approach and which side has dug into the sand and will sacrifice 98% of the people to get their way.
I blame the US government and Obama heard it up and has offered no solutions....
Bob-2112, you should check the dictionary or a thesaurus: independent does not mean “uniform” nor is it a synonym. May be you should check your words before you click submit.... just saying
As a scientist who has worked as a contractor for a government lab, I have observed the direct impact of this sequester. Funding that once was there, was put on hold while they waited to see what would happen. Now, the scientists that actually work at the lab that hire the contractors are wondering if they will be cut, there are no more new contracts to work on as many current projects have been put on hold (and the money already spent on these projects will be wasted unless the project is completed). New hires are in limbo as young scientists promised assistantships or positions within a national research laboratory are told to wait until at least August 2013 for everything to be worked out and even then, there is no guarantee so these scientists are being told to apply elsewhere, even though they may have already been recommended for these positions because they were found to be some of the most outstanding young scientists in their field and they will be permanently lost once they move on.
You have to understand that for many government labs, while there are scientis ts that work at these labs, that sometimes they use scientists at universities as contractors to work on specific projects within their larger project. However, there is a "brain drain" currently going on with our national laboratories that have a hard time finding qualified US citizens to work at the PhD level in these labs.
The problem with the sequester and science is that in terms of National Security, some of the technologies that are being developed through government or military laboratories are essential for continued safety of the US. Furthermore, many of the technologies eventually trickle down to the citizen and improve the overall quality of life of people so the science is a worthy investment. There are also a lot of non-defense related science programs which provide a wealth of data to the scientific community as a whole. For example, NOAA and the NWS and NFS. This is why large scientific organizations like AGU (American Geophysics Union) tried to organize a campaign to have congress deal with the sequester and not cut science funding.
To sum up, the sequester hampers scientific advancement and only creates a situation in which the US is no longer at the cutting edge of science, but trying to play catch up with the scientific advances in other countries.
GOOD! This means no more money wasted on robotic squirrels and shrimp on treadmills. Those two costs us over a million.
I think you have never worked in basic reasearch... One never knows what basic research can lead to in the future or how it will touch your life.... that all I am saying...
Basic research is fine when you have the money for it but the two mentioned had no true value.
Spoken like a true shrimp on a treadmill.
John-145... what area of research have you worked in??? Enquiring mind would like to know...
The shrimp treadmill cost $1000 and was part of a larger study (total cost of $500,000) that focused on the health and environmental changes that affected major oceanic resources - like fishing and seafood production (billion dollar industries). Studies that were put in place to measure and address drastic changes in the environment (oil spills, garbage dumping and climate changes).
FoxNews and others belittled the research and misrepresented it as a $500,000 shrimp treadmill, but once again, doing 5 minutes of actual research instead of puking out FoxNews "facts" could have helped this discussion.
Other research that was belittled included studies of honeybees - most notably by Palin and Bachmann who said the work was useless and frivolous. For these twits to suggest that studying a domesticated animal that is responsible for more than 25% of our annual crop yields and which is currently being devastated by a mysterious illness is wrong is beyond ignorant and gets into the realm of criminally negligent.
How can you be so sure were you involved?
Science will have to go back to the private sector for funding, as was the case prior to WWII. Let the great corporations once again pay for the research that creates the products which brings them their fortunes.
The US, the richest nation in the world, is not the leader in science and has not been for decades. Why? Because the same politicians who vote more money for "education" every year because they claim we're "slipping behind in science" don't vote any money for the scientific research that would have kept us on top.
That money is seed money. When the EU is making trillions selling fusion reactors to the rest of the world and the US is one of their clients, it will be because the US stopped its fusion program, just to take one example. Another example--NASA could have built a compoletely reusable space boostger in the '70s that would have cut launch costs from the current $30,000 or so a pound to around $500 a pound--the ISS would have cost millions instead of billions as a result, satellite services would be cheaper and there would be all sorts of other benefits. But they didn't because Congress kept cutting the budget and cutting the budget and cutting the budget until we got that dangerous piece of crap they called a "space shuttle" (everybody who died on that thing is on the heads of Congress, but they'll never admit it).
Still, at this point we're in such a deep hole that everybody is going to have to cut to get out of it, and the "sequester" isn't really going to make a difference.
As long as the government has to borrow to pay the interest on the debt (which adds more interest which they are going to have to borrow to pay) the hole is just going to get deeper and deeper.
I don't know what the solution is, but "closing tax loopholes on the rich" is like trying to fix a severed limb with a band-aid--it may give the appearance of "doing something" but it's not going to save the patient's life.
Further, anything big enough to make a difference that the government cuts at this point is going to put more people out of work.
I'm afraid that we're going to have to accept a major across-the-board tax increase to get out of the hole, but I'd want to see it implemented by Constitutional Amendment in such a way that Congress has to spend it on debt reduction and not pork, has to pay down the debt to zero before they can borrow more, and has to reduce taxes (all taxes, not just income tax) to half the current levels and keep them there for a while before they can increase spending on anything other than paying down the debt.
SpaceX: $133 million to deliver 2,000 pounds to LEO. $66,500 a pound.
Shuttle: $485 million to deliver 45,000 pounds to LEO. $10,777 a pound.
Saturn V: $185 million to deliver 260,000 pounds to LEO. $711.53 a pound.
Getting a pound of payload to orbit just keeps getting more expensive. Of course it is worth noting that today's dollar is only worth 4 cents in 1960 dollars. Government has debased our money by spending money it doesn't have until now we are $17 trillion in debt. The dollar can buy only a tiny fraction of what it once could.
It is ALL SIDES. In fact it has been going on since BEFORE 1776. And every year it's been another gimmick to upstage the antics of the last year. dems whigs repubs feds...oh no, it goes back WAY back further than even all of that!! Pharos, Kings, Ceasars.....all had reason to convince their country men to give THEM more money. Specifically THEM. Now I'm a dem, and railed to this very day that bush was an idiot dumber than a jackrabbit, but I am not fooled. Obamba is not any better. He is angling for a higher place in the history books than just first black president. Hard to blame him in the overall scheme of things, honestly makes him a little rat at this point, race is but a fleeting issue, and more so as we move into an ever homoginized world culture. Let's get right to it. HE signed the bill. Nothing forced him to sign the bill, in fact it was all kinda his idea, actually and, as he has said, a stupid idea it is. I give him credit for part a of the brinkmanship, but that's only half the game. Personally, I doubt I would of signed it, he could of picked a better battle at a better place, but I already know that' not his game. Chess is not his game. Yes he stood up and smiled, didn't sweat, looked us square in the face and told us the repubs were holding back. But he coulda cornered them on another deal later, matter of factly, there are lots of ways he coulda saved 85 billion bucks, heres one, forget the f'n mandantory health insurance on people like me...first we don't f'n want it, certainly not the witch doctor money grubbing ad driven establishment we see today...oh no, don't saw off me arm, no not me leg...honestly doc, my hands' fine, well I had two good eyes when I walked in here....access to health insurance is not access to health care. That is a given. And what kinda of ?tax? is collected by third party establishments to parcel up with to other third party non government for profit entities?? that right there tells you the supreme court has abdicated their duty!!, they really should be impeached, in fact they set the first reasonable tort of an armed insurrection I have EVER seen!!...I never seen anything like it in my life!! Although they had been getting off their own turf and encroaching on the legislative and executive territory several times in the past couple of decades, with the exception of not counting every vote, I never saw them out right abrogate a human beings god given unalienable constitutional right before...I am still shocked..It's going down in history as suspiciously partisan and nondescript corruption .and on to the point, a lot of us don't want it, besides the fact that the country cannot afford it, no one has even tried to do the math apparently. It is not that hard, but of all things, the docs are gonna want more once they get a lot busier, and the insidious greed already rampant in the industry is gonna mushroom cloud on out. Given. SO, LET MY PEOPLE GO FREE PRESIDENT OBAMBA!! FREE US OF THIS INDENTURED SERVITUDE NOW!!! I have no desire to be a slave to anyone, let alone the united states government. And by doing so you will save plenty more than your lousy 85 billion dollars you just signed into sequestration, and give me back something I want more than life itself. FREEDOM. Freedom to do as I wish my health, my life, my well being. WE WANT FREEDOM!! GIVE IT TOO US NOW!!!
Putting Good and Honest Values Back Into the Government
Punching Through The Hole into the Politicians "Fort Knoxx"
There is one weakness that all Americans overlook when dealing with the corruption of government. That one weakness is the money that government invests and becomes rich off of while they still earn a paycheck that is based off of our tax dollars. Why should any government official earn a retirement paycheck that is drawn from tax money when they make $5,000,000 a year in investments that are kept hidden in off shore oil and Swiss Bank Accounts
George Bush Jr. is worth an estimated $35,000,000 and still earns $190,000 a year in retirement that over 20 years adds up to $3.8 million dollars. That $3.8 million dollars is TAX PAYER money going into the coffers of someone who is worth $35 million dollars. DO YOU see any sense for someone worth $35 million to receive $190,000 a year retirement? Money that could be going back into the economy. Back into America and not towards such a politicians luxuries. I'm not talking about Democrat or Republic, Conservative or Liberal. I am talking about ALL politicians who make over $50,000 a year from investments being paid ANY retirement. Retirement money that comes from the taxpayers pocket. Money that is being spent by the politician for their luxuries when everyone else has to pay for their luxuries.
If that isn't tyranny then I don't know what is.
The more that we bring about values back to the American government the more likely other nations will follow suit and replace their corrupt terrorist governments.
The real question is how much are politicians retiring on when they do not need such retirement.
I bet the overall cost to the taxpayers is well into the trillion dollar level.
They don't need it yet they still take it from the American taxpayer.