Los Angeles Times

Plan could slow economic growth

Plan would make cuts that may slow economic growth

- By Don Lee

Trump’s budget would make cuts to research and developmen­t that may hurt competitiv­eness.

WASHINGTON — For all of President Trump’s promises to strengthen America’s economy, his first proposed budget would make significan­t cuts for research and developmen­t that analysts say in the long run would most likely hurt U.S. competitiv­eness and slow economic growth.

While Trump’s 2018 budget blueprint released Thursday would sharply boost federal defense spending by $54 billion, that would be offset by slashing funding for the National Institutes of Health — a center of world-class medical research — and education and science programs at the Department of Energy, Environmen­tal Protection Agency and other agencies.

The budget proposes to streamline functions, eliminate ineffectiv­e programs and shift the financial burden to states and the private sector. But analysts say that shrinking federal support for things such as basic research is unlikely to be made up by others, and could further reduce the nation’s research and developmen­t spending because universiti­es and private companies often rely on and build upon the groundwork made by government scientists.

Although companies account for the majority of the country’s spending on research and developmen­t, the federal government is by far the top supporter of basic research, funding about 45% of the national total compared with about one-fourth by businesses and another quarter by universiti­es and nonprofit organizati­ons, according to the National Science Foundation. Trump’s blueprint did not specifical­ly mention the NSF, but some experts foresee a whack to its budget as well.

“If they were to be enacted, these cuts signal the end of the American century as a global innovation leader,” said Robert D. Atkinson, president of the Informatio­n Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonpartisa­n think tank. “America’s lead in science and technology was built on the fact that in the 1960s the U.S. government alone invested more in R&D

‘If they were to be enacted, these cuts signal the end of the American century as a global innovation leader.’ — ROBERT D. ATKINSON,president of the Informatio­n Technology and Innovation Foundation

than the rest of the world combined, business and government. The Trump budget throws this great legacy away.”

In recent years U.S. private and public spending for R&D — nearly $500 billion total in 2015 — has grown at a modest annual rate of around 1%, although it remains the largest in the world.

But the federal government share of R&D expenditur­es has not kept pace, and the U.S. as a whole now ranks No. 10 globally in socalled R&D intensity, or spending as a percentage of gross domestic product, according to the Organizati­on for Economic Cooperatio­n and Developmen­t. The U.S. trails countries such as Israel, South Korea, Japan and Germany.

U.S. federal support for research has been crucial for advances in treating diseases and developing new technologi­es. Analysts worry that large-scale cutbacks would have significan­t consequenc­es for future productivi­ty, which is key to raising Americans’ standard of living.

In addition to losing $900 million in the Energy Department’s Office of Science, Trump’s budget proposes an outright eliminatio­n of the department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, a program modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which played a vital role in the developmen­t of the Internet.

“The private sector is better positioned to finance disruptive energy research and developmen­t, and to commercial­ize innovative technologi­es,” Trump’s budget report said.

As a blueprint, the budget did not spell out in many cases which group or function would suffer from an agency’s overall funding cuts, but lawmakers were combing through the 53page report to see any potential threats to interests for their districts and states.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee, has been particular­ly interested in the Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheri­c Administra­tion, which studies and monitors environmen­tal conditions and warns of weather dangers and threats to coastal resources in places like Florida.

“Fortunatel­y, Congress will have the last say on any reckless cuts to NOAA,” Nelson said. “What isn’t clear from this outline is whether the administra­tion plans to slash funding for the next generation of weather satellites, which provide critical data for forecasts. If they do, then they’re going to have a big fight on their hands.”

Dozens of department programs and independen­t agencies would face cuts, with some eliminated outright, such as the Corporatio­n for Public Broadcasti­ng and the National Endowment for the Arts. Others targeted for eliminatio­n are less-familiar entities, such as the Chemical Safety Board and the Manufactur­ing Extension Partnershi­p inside the Commerce Department.

While perhaps obscure, the manufactur­ing partnershi­p was created in 1988 to help smaller manufactur­ers identify technologi­es and other ways to help them grow. It has a federal budget of $124 million and is a unit of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, whose mission is to promote innovation and industrial competitiv­eness.

Trump’s budget report said the program was originally intended to transition to non-federal revenue sources. But Gregory Tassey, who until 2013 had been NIST’s chief economist for more than 30 years, said it would be a mistake to cut support for the program.

The manufactur­ing partnershi­p, he said, was one of the few that helps transfer technology, to translate breakthrou­ghs or developmen­ts in labs into gains in the real world of commerce.

“One can argue over how it functions, what its priorities are and things like that, but the basic functions are highly justifiabl­e,” said Tassey, now a research fellow at the University of Washington’s economic policy research center. “When you start wiping out major portions of programs like these ... that will greater hinder the developmen­t or deployment of these technologi­es.”

 ?? Al Seib Los Angeles Times ?? MARINE BIOLOGIST Leslie Wickes, left, works on a NOAA research ship near the Channel Islands in 2015. “Fortunatel­y, Congress will have the last say on any reckless cuts to NOAA,” Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said in reaction to President Trump’s budget proposal.
Al Seib Los Angeles Times MARINE BIOLOGIST Leslie Wickes, left, works on a NOAA research ship near the Channel Islands in 2015. “Fortunatel­y, Congress will have the last say on any reckless cuts to NOAA,” Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said in reaction to President Trump’s budget proposal.
 ?? Joe Raedle Getty Images ?? CLAUDIO RONCOLI, recipient of a National Endowment for the Arts award, in his Miami studio. President Trump’s budget plan calls for eliminatin­g the agency.
Joe Raedle Getty Images CLAUDIO RONCOLI, recipient of a National Endowment for the Arts award, in his Miami studio. President Trump’s budget plan calls for eliminatin­g the agency.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States