Scientific Infrastructure Attack
American science cannot flourish without any educational system that can include talented people into graduate programs. Therefore, naturally, funding for them is also being targeted. This is partially a function of the administration’s intention to abolish education, but it seems that there is a special focus on programs that target low -income people.
For example, Gear -up program Yourself is “designed to increase the number of low -income students who are ready to enter and succeed in post secondary education.” The OMB document described it as a symbol of the past when higher education institutions needed financial privileges to engage with low -income students and increase access. ” It claims that it was “not a hindrance to the students of limited sources.”
Similarly, SEOG Program Funding is “given to an undergraduate student who shows extraordinary financial requirements.” OMB’s view, colleges and universities have been used to ” [it] Instead of students and their success, to fund the radical leftist theory. “Another Kit” is claimed to eliminate equity relief centers that have attracted children.
In addition, the Federal Work Study Program, which subsidizes jobs on campuses for students in need, is also receiving a $ 1 billion deduction. Once again, the document states that states can pay for it.
–
The end of the US leadership
This budget is a prescription for eliminating US leadership in science. With similar damage to highly trained individuals and a type of research material, it will cause harm to generation by force to close the labs. At the same time, it will strangle the educational pipeline that can eventually change these disadvantages. Given that the United States is one of the most important sources of research funds in the world, if it is approved, global budget results will be yielded.
For those inside the OMB who prepared the document, these are not disadvantages. This document makes it quite clear that they see many examples of scientific thinking and evidence -based policy a little more than the form of ideological prejudice, perhaps because the evidence is sometimes contradictory that they would like to believe them.