An undersecretary in the Department of Defense, Dov Zakheim, stood at the podium in the Pentagon's briefing room Friday and made a case for next year's big increase in the defense budget. Zakheim has thick glasses and a big mustache, and he bears a striking resemblance to Groucho Marx. Only instead of a cigar, Zakheim wielded a pointer as he paraded back and forth during a slide show of graphs and charts.
Speaking in a rapid-fire manner, he explained why the Defense Department may end up receiving one-half of the entire federal discretionary budget, or 50 percent of everything that's requested from Congress for the year, according to the president's 2005 budget.
That's not all.
The president also proposed that research and development would be increased dramatically -- mainly through investments in defense-weapons development and homeland security. Yet certain crucial areas would be neglected -- and Zakheim sailed right past them during his presentation.
Case in point: Applied research in the defense budget, which involves specific, achievable goals within six to 10 years, would receive only $3.83 billion, a 13-percent decrease from the $4.43 billion it received in fiscal year 2004. And the funding request for basic research, generally seen as having a payoff in 10 to 20 years, is $1.31 billion in fiscal 2005, down 4 percent from the actual funding of the previous year.
Many people in the scientific community are shaking their heads over the president's budget and Zakheim's defense of it. They worry that curtailing funding for basic research is a shortsighted move that could jeopardize future military innovation that brings benefits for society. Past successes include the Internet, laser technology, and the global-positioning system.
Previously the military had shown support for a goal of 3 percent of its total budget for "science and technology," such as basic and applied research. So why have Zakheim and his colleagues decided to abandon this goal?
Because, he explained, it's "not relevant anymore."
During Zakheim's presentation, he explained how his department is focused on immediate needs. Still, he seemed to acknowledge that the desire to achieve short-term goals at the expense of longer-term ones may be inconsistent with what Bush administration officials have said previously. For months now they've spoken about the need to create new jobs in this country and to promote future economic growth. Yet these goals are not emphasized in the president's budget.
The decision to eliminate certain items from the budget may, in fact, lead to the same kind of problems that beset the No Child Left Behind education program. In that case, the administration has failed to fund the program at the levels authorized by Congress. As a result, say critics, the education program is deeply flawed and may not provide the best, long-term solutions for classroom teaching.
Yet Zakheim doesn't seem to be worried about losing long-term benefits for the scientific community.
"You're putting an awful lot of money into universities, into labs, into research centers, and you don't know if anything is going to come out in military terms because that's what basic research is all about," he said.
In addition, the reduced funding levels could undercut opportunities for math and science education. The Department of Defense is responsible for about one-third of federal funding at universities for math, engineering, and computer sciences, according to Kei Koizumi, director, R&D Budget and Policy Program, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
"You can expect that with a decline in [long-term Defense Department] research, federal support for those disciplines would fall," he said. "That means fewer funds to support education, engineering, and computer sciences, which could mean less innovation. And that could affect the economy later."
Concerns about the Bush budget are also being raised at the National Science Foundation, which oversees research and educational programs at universities and schools across the country.
On Monday, foundation Director Rita Colwell said that the administration faces "a stringent budget" this year at a time of "exigencies in federal government."
Tens of millions of dollars used for scholarships and K-12 programs had been coming from fees levied on visas for skilled foreign workers. Last year, however, the cap on these visas was dropped from 195,000 to 65,000. At that level, those fees are not even collected.
The cuts are hitting the K-12 set the hardest. And some scientific experts have voiced concerns that the United States is "eating our seed corn," drying up the pool of students who will someday become scientists and engineers. This comes at a time when U.S. students are testing below their peers in other countries in math and science. Needless to say, these are areas that experts see as critical to future U.S. competitiveness in the world market.
The depleted funds could lead to a "hollowing out" of the educational level for elementary and high-school students, say some experts. On Monday, House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert said, "The budget chapter on [research and development] includes the quotation that, 'Science is a horse. Don't worship it. Feed it.' The budget does not reflect that advice. After a few years of spending at the levels proposed in this budget, science would be an emaciated, old, gray mare, unable to produce any new ideas or young scientists. A healthy investment in [research and development] is the only way to ensure that our economy will continue to create jobs over the long term."
Science Committee Democrats have also criticized the budget for similar reasons.
A manufacturing initiative -- the Advanced Technology Program, which provides funding for risky research in the private sector and has been touted by Commerce Secretary Donald Evans -- has also been eliminated. The initiative funds the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which established technical-assistance centers for small and medium-sized technology companies at the reduced rate of $40 million from fiscal 2004, down from $106 million of the previous years
Democratic Senator Kent Conrad is concerned about the effects these omissions will have on the future.
On Monday he said on the Senate floor, "There is no plan by the president to deal with the long-term economic security of the country."
Nevertheless, Zakheim went over the same material about the Defense Department budget -- and produced the same slide show -- on Monday. He seemed unperturbed by the concerns of scientists and experts on the Hill. During the second presentation, in fact, he seemed even more confident about the budget.
"We met all our objectives and goals," Zakheim said. "Next slide, please."
William New is a National Journal Group senior writer.