dr adams criticized the bush administrations policy

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: on how well our nation can meet the demands of the global marketplace for the highly skilled researchers and advanced products we're going to need. As policymakers we must do what we can to support this growth. But here's the reality. We are faced with the largest deficit in our nation's history, and at the same time nations around the globe are pouring money into their research and development systems with the hope of attracting our scientists in surpassing our nation in cutting edge technologies. Here's our nation's challenge. How do we support America's spirit of innovation while being realistic that the federal government cannot sustain our current level of spending? The answer is that we must prioritize our spending in a manner that gets the biggest bang for the taxpayer's buck. We have to prioritize fundamental, basic research. And we have to make sure that our previous federal investments do not go to waste. In my home state of Arkansas we've worked hard to grow our research and development capacities. Many stakeholder groups have aligned across the science and technology spectrum from our university system to the private sector to make sure that new innovations get out of the labs and into the marketplace. We are also working hard to educate our students and inspire them to pursue the science, technology, engineering and math fields. We must continue our commitment to fundamental research that cannot be carried out by the private sector because of long development timelines and high costs. This fundamental research is critical to maintaining our global technological advantage. But we must do this in a fiscally responsible way. It is in this context that I think we need to evaluate our federal investments in research and development, stem education and make sure that all of our investments represent the most efficient and effective use of the taxpayers' dollars. Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 186 Mercury Politics ***Links – Space Treaty Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 187 Mercury Politics Space Treaty – Unpopular Treaty outlawing space weapons massively unpopular – ensures backlash by Congress, Defense, and lobbies Myers, New York Times, 8 [Steven Lee, 3-9-8, Published in the New York Times “Look out below, The arms race in space may be on”, p 3, Lexis, LGK] The White House, on the other hand, opposes a treaty proscribing space weaponry; Mr. Bush's press secretary, Dana M. Perino, says it would be unenforceable, noting that even a benign object put in orbit could become a weapon if it rammed another satellite. A new American president could reverse that attitude, but he or she would have to go up against the generals and admirals, contractors, lawmakers and others who strongly support the goal of keeping American superiority in space. The reason they cite is that the United States depends more than any other country on space for its national security. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that an M1-A1 tank couldn't drive around the block in Iraq without them. And so, research continues on how...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online