Posted on 03/05/2016 6:48:07 AM PST by snarkpup
That's a good question. There are a lot of government agencies, whole departments, that I don't think should be funded. That is to say, they should not exist. At one time, I would not have thought NASA was one of those agencies. However, now that a key purpose of our "space program" is to build self-esteem among Moslems, the whole concept of NASA becomes questionable. Perhaps it should have been questionable from the start, since there was always the possibility of its degenerating in some way, if not this specific way. It's a lesson about what happens when government does something.
If we start from the premise that, if something is of benefit, then the Federal government should fund it, then funding of basic research is definitely a go. However, that premise is nowhere in the Constitution.
Me Rove you rong time.
Some people think that the reference in the Constitution to the "general Welfare" covers this.
Some people think the enumerated powers in the actual articles of the Constitution describe precisely how the Federal Government is authorized to promote the general welfare.
However, even accepting “anything goes for the general welfare,” a good case can be made that the vast majority of government-funded research serves only the individual welfare of those who receive the money and those government employees who make the disbursement decisions and “manage” the programs.
This giant rent-seeking apparatus actually harms the “general welfare.” It can be argued that, while some important discoveries are made, these would be made by research funded in some other way, if not a dollar came from the Federal Government.
Then call me a luddite Philistine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.