It was really only a matter of time. The coverage of the sequester-based cuts has been strange. Of course, there was a major uproar over the threat of longer waits at airports. The major cuts were held back from the more obvious (and more public) areas. This fed the narrative that the cuts did not really have much of an impact -- which implied that government was so bloated that a major cut would not be disruptive. More than one budget hawk let out a major guffaw of "told you so."
Now the stories are starting to come out about the long-term effects. After the break is a link to a story about major cuts in medical research.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/03/news/economy/science-budget-cuts/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Of course, there are many more stories to come out. Only over time will we see the effects on programs like the major homeland security grant program (that had already seen major cuts in the preceding years) and social welfare program.
There is an important lesson for evidence-based public management (EBPM) here. The heart of EBPM is the need to bring data and information to any sort of decision. Across-the-board cuts are as poorly designed as across-the-board increases. Of course, the politics of budgeting makes anything else difficult. It is worth considering. What sort of data or information would be useful to make rational budgeting choices and to compare the potential losses in areas as diverse as scientific research, nutrition support, military forces, etc.?
No comments:
Post a Comment