When I've written about dumb ideas from Oklahoma before, they were from
James Inhofe, Oklahoma's senior senator. Today's dumb idea comes from Tom Coburn, Oklahoma's junior senator. What is it?
Senate Amendment
2631 to House Resolution 2847. Scroll down the page to find it in context. If you don't feel like clicking through to Thomas (or if the link isn't working), here's the text of the amendment:
At the appropriate place in title III, insert the following:
Sec. __.
None of the funds appropriated under this Act may be used to carry out
the functions of the Political Science Program in the Division of
Social and Economic Sciences of the Directorate for Social, Behavioral,
and Economic Sciences of the National Science Foundation.
That's right. Coburn is proposing to eliminate funding for research in political science at the National Science Foundation.
Among the items Coburn cites as an example of misspending by NSF is the funding they provided to support some of Paul Krugman's research. His evidence that the money was misspent? Well, NSF
congratulated 2008 Nobel Prize winners who had received NSF funding. Paul Krugman was among those congratulated, and the paragraph describing him mentions that he is "a well-known columnist for The New York Times and one of the country's
foremost liberal commentators on economic, political and policy issues", and that's the only thing Coburn cites.
1 He doesn't bother to mention that the preceding paragraph in the NSF statement provides a pretty compelling case for the importance of Krugman's contributions.
2Krugman's work on international trade and economic geography represents a paradigm shift in research on global economics. Beginning in 1979, Krugman proposed a new model that provided a theory for the effects of globalization and free trade. It offered a better explanation than the well-established theory of foreign trade that certain countries have a comparative advantage over others in more effectively producing particular goods based on factors such as climate, natural resources or supplies of labor or capital. Krugman recognized that the traditional theory did not fully explain modern trends that showed international trade becoming increasingly concentrated among smaller numbers of producers and nations. His work shed light on key economic issues such as why countries import and export the same goods, how companies decide where to locate, how people decide where to live and why dense urban areas become centers of economic activity while existing alongside sparsely populated rural areas.
Dan Drezner (a political scientist) sums it up pretty well.
Basic research in the hard sciences or the social sciences is
a public good -- these things tend to get underprovided in a perfectly
free market. It's not clear to me at all why Coburn thinks that the $9
million spent on poli sci is a waste but the gazillions from the public
trough spent on the hard sciences are not a waste when private
corporations, industrial associations, scientific publications,
universities, and private citizens couldn't fund this stuff.
I'd say that money spent on learning how to implement public policies effectively and on uncovering the factors that influence the ways in which individual, institutional, and societal preferences and values affect the choice among public policies is money well spent.
Coburn's right that
CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, the print media, and a seemingly endless number of political commentators on the internet ... pour over this data and provide a myriad of viewpoints to answer the same questions.
But by Coburn's logic we could eliminate the National Institutes of Health, because there are thousands of web sites providing "a myriad of viewpoints" on health options. Me, I'm glad we have the National Institutes of Health, and I'm glad that the National Science Foundation funds research in political science (and economics and other social sciences).