Skip to comments.Feds spent $700,000 on a climate change musical
Posted on 03/27/2014 4:26:15 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
It looks like the National Science Foundation has been handing out grants for some unorthodox research projects, according to House Republicans.
This includes $700,000 in funding for a climate change musical.
House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith questioned White House science czar John Holdren in a Thursday hearing over whether or not the National Science Foundation (NSF) should have to justify its use of taxpayer dollars to fund projects. Smith pointed out some examples of questionable projects the NSF has funded.
$700,000 on a climate change musical
$15,000 to study fishing practices around Lake Victoria in Africa
$340,000 to examine the ecological consequences of early human fires in New Zealand
$200,000 for a three-year study of the Bronze Age around the Mediterranean
$50,000 to survey archived 17th Century lawsuits in Peru
$20,00 to look at the causes of stress in Bolivia
The Administrations willful disregard for public accountability distracts from the important issues of how America can stay ahead of China, Russia, and other countries in the highly-competitive race for technological leadership, said Smith, a Texas Republican.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
1) What did the Republicans in the House do to stop this “discretionary” spending by the president? The answer is nothing. They caved and gave him everything he wanted. So why the fake outrage?
2) Most of the “research” money mentioned is going to reward the academics who are indoctrinating our youth in the progressive agenda.
3) Congress years ago abdicated its oversight responsibility by appropriate huge sums of money to departments and giving the bureaucracy discretion over how the funds would be spent. Return to a line item budget and require the President to come to Congress for emergency appropriations when there is a real emergency.
4) I am convinced the budget can be balanced anytime Congress wishes. In the private sector, when a company is in trouble new management is brought in to cut spending to the bone. The organization is downsized to live within its means and the priorities of the organization are reduced to be achievable within the resources available. All of the projects and programs not critical to the survival of the organization are eliminated. This has never been tried with the federal government, at least in my lifetime.
You are, of course, right. It just keeps getting worse, no matter who is in power.
and yet the low information 60% don’t believe in it or support it.