Live data from Hacker News

WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

scientificamerican.com

91–100 of 676 posts

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#91
> The OMB is headed by Russell Vought, lead architect of Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 plan for the Trump administration.

This is far scarier than any single rule about research grants, and I'm not sure why nobody's talking about this.

The OMB writes the budget to enact federal policy. And critically, no federal regulation can exist with the OMB approving it. By making this appointment explicitly political, they have carte blanche to completely rewrite all federal regulations to be exclusively conservative ones. This would have been crazy to attempt before, but with Trump 2.0, this is the new norm.

One of the things they are doing right now (it's been approved and the rules are now active and legal, so it is now happening) is converting 50,000 civil servant jobs into political appointments. This means having a job in government no longer serves the whole nation, it's now an ideological function to serve a single political party. Literally weaponizes the federal government to punish opposing political views and enforce one view on everyone (there's no other point to political appointment). And if the party in charge ever changes, it now means everyone will be laid off and replaced. Every few years. So nothing will ever get done in government now, except for extreme short-term pushes for radical political agendas, because nobody will stay long enough to know how the government works to do anything else. Move fast and break things with the largest economy in the world, radical political agendas, and 380M people.

The OMB also can review and block all proposed legislation going to Congress, vet all official congressional testimony, and block any agency from publicly disagreeing with the President. Military generals, health officials, science experts, ecologists, intelligence directors... they can block all of them from giving any testimony to Congress. That's an actual power the OMB has.

They can also block money Congress has already allocated, meaning that your representatives in government are now completely useless, because whatever party is in the Executive can nerf anything your reps have passed. The Supreme Court could do something about it, but won't, because it's now a Conservative Supermajority. There is no reason for them to disagree because they already ideologically agree.

Finally, the OMB can issue a rule that every agency that wasn't officially under the Executive before, has to submit all its rules for Executive approval. Meaning the Executive would control all government agencies.

In any other context, in any other country, this would be called a single-party authoritarian coup. When they create rules that outlaw other political parties (that's what authoritarian governments do to retain single party control) - and assuming the democrats don't just give up - it will be the official start of civil war. Coming to you Fall 2028.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#92
post #82

Well, america had a good run i guess? Hope china can step up and fill the gap.

[flagged]

The spoils system…

> contrasts with a merit system, where offices are awarded or promoted based on a measure of merit, independent of political activity.

What is commendable about this? Why should anyone who isn’t close enough with political winners to get the spoils want this?

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#93

But it's got electrolytes! My question is now: Which company is gonna buy the IRS now?

"Intuit IRS" has a ring to it. In the same umbrella org as Turbo Tax, for the obvious revenue-growth synergy, and long-term strategic alignment that unlocks tax-payer value.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#94
It seems seeding chaos is the only thing these guys know how to do. What happens (or happened) when the shoe is on the other foot and the other guy wants to push climate science and vaccines? Run to Texas courts to stop the federal government? Thereby wasting lot of time doing nothing.

I can only say Bravo to Americans who think this constant fighting is somehow going to help the country.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#95
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statement, "everything is just people" begs the question. That question is about appropriate roles. No one is debating that Congress has the power of the purse. That is one of their primary roles. They appropriate, but obviously cannot and should not make every detailed decision, particularly where expertise is required and political neutrality is preferred. Accountability is another primary Congressional role. T…

> That question is about appropriate roles. That's exactly what I meant when I said: "the important question is: who are the people who have the power to decide how taxpayer money is spent?" The answer obviously is: political actors. Ultimately it's Congress. And sometimes Congress has delegated that role to the President. Within that framework, the institutional principles of "science" are irrelevant, except insofar…

You've restated your flawed assertions, you continue to reassign the roles, and you're conflating Congress with political appointees.

>The problem scientific institutionalists face is that they've squandered a lot of public trust over the decades

The left generally trusts science and the scientific community, while the right has fallen prey to the right-wing war on science and truth. This war was explicitly designed to enable exactly what is happening here—the transfer of more power to the right, rationalized by a seeded distrust of institutions.

Hence, it's not surprising that the people who want political appointees in charge of science are on the right.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#99
post #84

This may seem extreme, but it must be considered in the full context of the package of policy proposals that would also eliminate the grants themselves. This balances out any concerns of bias. See you in 50 years when we read about the consequences (on European electronics.) :')

Europe needs to get it's shit together. It has very not been together.

Nothing like the collapse of the global hegemon to spur you into action...

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#100
post #82

Well, america had a good run i guess? Hope china can step up and fill the gap.

[flagged]

Your comment suggests you think cronyism was in some part responsible for America's rise as a global power. Common sense would indicate that we became a power despite the cronyism, not because it, and you've provided nothing to support your wildly counter intuitive claim.

This is your comment basically:

People really need to read their history. When America definitively surpassed the UK in 1880 as the richest country in the world (per capita), tuberculosis was a leading cause of death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis

The advancement of antibiotics did not happen until the mid 20th century, which significantly postdates America's rise to the top. It would be a great idea to rollback science to that time when we didn't have all these life saving vaccines and antibiotics.

Post reply on HN