Perspective: AAAS Calculations on Projected Cuts in R&D Spending

The recent analysis by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) of the Clinton Administration’s future project for federal nondefense R&D funding is certain to draw much attention this year (see FYI #71.) Last year, there was great concern about a Republican budget blueprint to make future R&D cuts. The questions arise: how did we get here, when support for research and development is strong on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and can anything be done to prevent these reductions?

The cuts which research and development are facing over the next seven years are not unique, and are probably significantly less than many other areas of federal spending. They have come into focus as a result of agreement that the federal government’s budget should balance by the year 2002.

In reaching this balance, the hands of government leaders are tied by a number of factors. One, there does not seem to be any desire to increase federal taxes. While this sentiment could very well change, the new push to reduce the gasoline tax is an indication of the unwillingness to raise taxes. Two, there is no way to avoid paying interest on the national debt, which has become an ever-increasing part of the federal budget. Three, there is not enough political muscle to enact entitlement program reform. The resounding defeat of the administration’s health care reform package, and as Rep. Vernon Ehlers’ (R-MI) recently put it, the crucifixion of Republicans over their efforts to reform Medicare are clear signs that entitlement reform is some ways off.

With these constraints, and a goal to balance the budget by 2002, the only remaining area that can be cut is discretionary spending -- that part of the budget which is controlled by annual appropriations. There is general agreement that, except for efforts at the margin, defense spending cannot be cut further. That leaves domestic discretionary spending, which is the source of federal R&D spending.

Making this even more difficult is the continuing percentage of the federal budget consumed by entitlement spending. Ehlers, at a recent AAAS R&D colloquium, said that at the rate entitlement spending is growing, there will be nothing left in the federal budget for domestic discretionary programs early in the next century.

In the coming squeeze, Ehlers warned, “there will be no sacred cows.” Similar warnings were given by Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who said that “the pie is shrinking so dramatically.” Echoing these remarks was a senior Office of Management and Budget official who said at a recent PCAST meeting that “It’s going to be a tough haul over the next couple of years.” NSF Director Neal Lane agreed, declaring, “For a while, we are going to have to make some tough decisions.”

There are, of course, a number of ways to avoid these reductions. There may yet be significant entitlement reform. Political leaders could agree to increase federal revenues. Most likely of all, the willingness to make the deep cuts in domestic discretionary spending, which Domenici estimated to be $46 billion in one of the later years of the seven year plan, might not be there. Domenici said no one on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue would be prepared to make cuts of this magnitude.

Nevertheless, science budgets are often charted over several years, particularly for big ticket existing projects and new starts. The relentless downward spiral in the domestic discretionary slice of the federal pie from which this money will come has to be of concern.

What should be the response of the science community to these indicators? Rep. George Brown (R-CA) offers both a recommendation and a warning: “The only way the numbers are going to improve above the President’s projections is if the R&D community and the public give Members and the President a reason to change them. As of now, the community is making inadequate efforts to educate the public and politicians about the stakes of these programs and making only weak efforts to get involved in the process of setting budget priorities. Spending public money and setting national priorities is an inherently political and increasingly partisan process. We can all regret this situation, but we still have to cope with it. The scientific community needs to step up to the challenge or live with the consequences.”