Trump / Musk (other than DOGE) Omnibus Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 324K
  • Politics 

This is a really insightful explainer of how devastating massive budget cuts will be for academic medical centers.

"We can debate about how NIH funds the infrastructure costs for doing research—including the buildings, scientific labs and materials, training of scientists, maintenance, support staff, clinical care, and ever-rising costs of ensuring compliance with federal rules about how funds are spent. We can also debate how the overhead rate is determined. Those are all fair subjects for discussion. But let’s be clear about what this NIH cap on overhead means in terms of practical politics: It is the Trump administration taking a swing at two favorite targets: science and higher education.

If you want to take a whack at the American scientific enterprise and higher education in general, it’s a smart way to do it. The issue is wonky and difficult for the public to understand—who knows anything about indirect rates? And university administrators don’t make the most attractive faces for public appeals for support.

But the effects will be felt well beyond universities, medical schools, and medical centers.

First, the cuts will especially damage medical research, care, and training. Medical schools and centers are among the largest recipients of these funds. Americans rely on these schools for their health care, with teaching hospitals providing the highest quality of care. Medical centers and schools are also where the vast majority of clinical trials for new medical treatments happen. Notably, private health care entities, including the pharmaceutical industry, are deeply reliant on the biomedical and health research produced at universities across the country. Isabella Eckerle, the Director of the Geneva Centre for Emerging Viral Diseases, said on Bluesky: “I feel so, so sorry for my colleagues in the US. How can someone destroy the decades-long lighthouse of science in less than 2 weeks? The US used to be the place to go to do great science and/or learn state-of-the-art medicine. It’s just pure madness.”

Second, it will cripple a world-beating American industry. American higher education generates lots of stable middle class jobs, and not just in blue states. It generates large positive economic externalities. This handy tool lets you estimate the economic impact of these funds in your state. Universities in places like Michigan, Texas, Wisconsin, Texas, and Georgia can, in no small part because of the quality of their research programs, attract international students who generate about $40 billion per year, subsidizing American students. “Red states have universities too,” observed one unnamed Trump official after the announcement. Although these cuts are presented as budget “savings,” their real effect will be to deeply damage a successful industry, many state economies, and ultimately medical care and our health.

So, yes, the effects of this change will be harmful, maybe dire. But there’s another reason the Trump administration shouldn’t be capping the NIH overhead rate, a simpler reason: It’s illegal."
 
If FEMA were ran correctly and wasn't politized the right people would be getting help. The Biden administration put illegals ahead of citizens. One of many reasons the voters put Trump back in office
Yeah and immigrants wouldn't be eating pets and hurricanes could be stopped by nukes and covid could be stopped by ingesting bleach . . .
 
So, yes, the effects of this change will be harmful, maybe dire. But there’s another reason the Trump administration shouldn’t be capping the NIH overhead rate, a simpler reason: It’s illegal."

From his keyboard to God's ear.
 


This former NSF / House Science committee fella discusses why any such cuts are illegal. Granted, it's unclear that legality matters anymore.

Presumably there are lawsuits coming? Whereas red states happily shuttered DEI offices, I don't understand how they'd allow hospitals and universities to shed tens of thousands of employees with catastrophic ripple effects. Not to mention, some red states have recently made enormous investments in research universities--why crater that?

They think government’s sole purpose is to safeguard the property of the rich, not to provide for the common good.
 
Some unconnected thoughts:

1) This is part of the ongoing class warfare in which the administration is directly targeting the jobs of the "elite" in government and academia.

2) The fact that they are optimizing around medical research rather than say, space exploration, speaks volumes. Every time they have a chance to invest in people, they pass.

3) Reform on indirect costs is needed, but the current "move fast and break things" approach is going to kill people. It will shut down clinical trials that desperately sick people are relying on. Next fall's flu vaccine development is already in jeopardy.

4) Universities need to step up and apply their endowments against the shortfall. If they don't, that says as much about the schools as it does the current government.
 
And there it is.

No surprise at all to be sure, but it would seem we have yet another MAGA troll not interested in a good-faith discussion.
Not a 100% sure he's MAGA. Definitely a troll, though. Also, I make it about that same 100% that he'll never show up with a reputable source or likely any source for what he's spewing.
 
Last edited:
You consume way too much left wing propaganda!! No wonder left wing media is failing at epic proportions!
Facts are facts. They don't belong to any political persuasion.
They are not "right" or "left". They are not "liberal" or "conservative".
They are not Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green Party or MAGA.
Opinions are not facts. Entertainment is not facts. Using buzzwords like "left wing media" and "left wing propaganda" only indicates bias.
It has no bearing on what is factual and what is not.
 
You're missing the point. FEMAs job isn't to send money to luxury hotels.
Actually, FEMA is authorized and directed by law to provide emergency housing assistance to certain migrants while their cases are being handled:

“The Shelter and Services Program (SSP), as directed by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, is administered by FEMA in partnership with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). In Fiscal Year 2024, Congress appropriated $650,000,000 for SSP. SSP provides financial support to non-federal entities to provide sheltering and related activities to noncitizen migrants following their release from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The intent is to support CBP in the safe, orderly, and humane release of noncitizen migrants from short-term holding facilities.”


This funds were separately authorized and are different than the much much larger pot of hundreds of billions of funds and authorizations for disaster relief also administered by FEMA.

People in some remote areas use tent shelters because there are no available brick and mortar shelters due to hurricane damage and simple lack of motels or any other structures in remote mountain areas. Migrants in cities are placed in empty hotel space because that is what is available in a dense urban area.

When motels were available, FEMA provided them in NC:

“…
The temporary housing is provided through FEMA's Transitional Sheltering Assistance program, which covers the cost of short-term accommodations at local hotels and motels for those who have been displaced.

As of January 6, more than 5,600 households were staying in hotel or motel rooms paid for by FEMA, local news station ABC 13 reported.

But the agency has stated that nearly 3,500 households have been deemed 'no longer eligible' for for the program, either because an inspection had indicated their homes were now habitable, they declined an inspection, or FEMA has been unable to contact them to update their housing needs. …”


And FEMA deadlines in NC keep getting extended as needed.

“…
Governor Josh Stein released the following statement regarding FEMA’s decision to extend its Transitional Sheltering Assistance (TSA) program for two months, through May 26, 2025:

“Today’s decision will help eligible disaster survivors stay safe and sheltered as we continue the hard work of rebuilding in western North Carolina. FEMA’s decision to extend the Transitional Sheltering Assistance Program for two months is a positive step forward and frees eligible disaster survivors from worrying about being kicked out of the program in March. I pledge to work with the new administration to find solutions and resources that will best serve disaster survivors in North Carolina. …”

No one is staying in a luxury hotel in Swananoa NC b/c there is no luxury hotel there and even if there had been it probably would have been severely damaged or destroyed like virtually every other structure there.

As for whether FEMA is using “luxury” hotels for migrants in NYC, let’s see some evidence. If they are and there is a luxury premium being paid over what other available space costs, then definitely change that.
 
Some unconnected thoughts:

1) This is part of the ongoing class warfare in which the administration is directly targeting the jobs of the "elite" in government and academia.

2) The fact that they are optimizing around medical research rather than say, space exploration, speaks volumes. Every time they have a chance to invest in people, they pass.

3) Reform on indirect costs is needed, but the current "move fast and break things" approach is going to kill people. It will shut down clinical trials that desperately sick people are relying on. Next fall's flu vaccine development is already in jeopardy.

4) Universities need to step up and apply their endowments against the shortfall. If they don't, that says as much about the schools as it does the current government.
Completely agree with points #1-3 that you made, but in regard to #4, a lot of people have misconceptions about university endowments. (Apologies if what I'm about to write is something you already know. I'm definitely not intending to seem like I'm patronizing or talking down to you! This is just a very rare area in which I happen to have a little bit of expertise.)

University endowments should be thought of like giant mutual funds, not a big slush fund or checking account of sorts that schools can draw from whenever they want for whatever they want. The "endowment" at any major college or university is comprised of thousands upon thousands of small, individual endowments that are then pooled together in one larger endowment fund and invested for both growth and preservation. Let's take UNC, for example. UNC's overall endowment size is about $5 billion. Of that $5 billion, something like 85% of those funds are considered "restricted" meaning that they can only be used for very specific purposes. The 85% of endowment funds that are considered restricted are usually within smaller, individual endowed funds for specific scholarships, professorships, graduate student fellowships, research projects, capital projects, etc. Each of these smaller endowed funds are created by individual donors who sign individual, legally-binding gift agreements which are essentially contracts between the University and the donor outlining specifically how the funds can and cannot be used. So at UNC, 85% of the $5 billion endowment is already "spoken for" which leaves the remaining ~15% or so to be "unrestricted" funds, meaning that they can be used at the discretion of the Chancellor in consultation with other University leaders, administrators, and trustees.

So even though there are schools with endowment numbers that are eye-popping (take Harvard, for example, with a $55 billion endowment), the overwhelming vast majority of funds within the overall endowment are already spoken for and can't be used or "reallocated" to any other purpose other than what it outlined in the legally-binding gift agreement.
 
I respectfully disagree.

1. If endowments are giant mutual funds, then they should be taxed. They aren't because their purpose is to support their institutions. Our nation's non-profits bank way too much tax-free money - they need to spend more for the common good or lose their tax status.

2. In what world is it appropriate for taxpayers to fund a university's indirect costs but it's inappropriate to use the university's resources for the same? Especially in an instance in which the university's core research mission will be affected so dramatically?

3. I recognize that this required a sea change in how university administrators view their endowments. That's a good thing.
 
I respectfully disagree.

1. If endowments are giant mutual funds, then they should be taxed. They aren't because their purpose is to support their institutions. Our nation's non-profits bank way too much tax-free money - they need to spend more for the common good or lose their tax status.

2. In what world is it appropriate for taxpayers to fund a university's indirect costs but it's inappropriate to use the university's resources for the same? Especially in an instance in which the university's core research mission will be affected so dramatically?

3. I recognize that this required a sea change in how university administrators view their endowments. That's a good thing.
1. The option you present is essentially a choice between violating a legally binding agreement with a donor or refusing the gift.
2. Should government funding for other things like emergency aid (food, water, medical supplies) be divided between the functional purpose of the funding and the ancillary costs of executing that purpose (transportation, record keeping, etc)?
 
Back
Top