As DOGE identifies waste, the affected parties are floating to the surface, belly up.
In 2007, Israel bombed a nuclear reactor nearing completion in Syria. Israeli intelligence was caught off-guard by the existence of the structure. A very strange thing happened after the destruction of the reactor building. There were the standard condemnations from Syria, the UN, the Arab League, etc. But a curious and most vociferous condemnation came from North Korea. And while the Hermit Kingdom was never a great friend of Israel, the language and rage in the official communication was surprising for events so far away. It turned out that North Korea was an active partner in the construction of the reactor, and apparently some of its workers were killed in the aerial attack.
We today, in a similar manner, can learn from the howling, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments who was on the dole from a country approaching $40 trillion in debt. Politico can’t make payroll. Brazil rescinds its ban on the social media app, Rumble. Various overseas “charities” and NGOs either shut shop or wail that they are no longer able to perform their core missions. As the old joke used to go, if your kid doesn’t call from college, stop sending him money. You’ll hear from him in no time.
On cue, my jihad-loving alma mater, Harvard, sent out an overwrought note from the new white, male, Jewish president of the joint. The boys of DOGE found that every grant given by NIH includes “overhead” which is supposed to cover non-research expenses like keeping the lights on, having secretarial and support staff and the like. Approaching 40 years ago, when I did research at the University of Illinois in my dad’s lab and at Harvard, overhead rates varied from 50% to 100% of the value of the grant added on to the actual research-related expenses. So a $5 million grant with the standard 60% overhead that lit a red light for DOGE would be presented for $8 million. The NIH wants to cap "indirect expenses" at 15%, which is the going rate for private grant providers.
When I was finishing up my doctoral work at Madison, I noticed some really nice new equipment in the lab. I asked around as to the reason why the new stuff appeared, and my answer was the following: “The grant we have runs out shortly. We have a surplus, so there are two options. Use up the money or return it. Say hello to our new equipment!” The whole granting process is problematic, and professors spend a large part of their time writing grants for money that they need to keep their research going. A roommate of mine at Wisconsin worked in a lab that had temporarily run out of funds. They borrowed stuff from other groups and kept a running tab so as to return what they used when new money arrived.
From the president of Harvard on the new proposal to cap non-research expenses:
“Implementing a 15 percent cap on indirect support, as the NIH has announced it intends to do, would slash funding and cut research activity at Harvard and nearly every research university in our nation. The discovery of new treatments would slow, opportunities to train the next generation of scientific leaders would shrink, and our nation’s science and engineering prowess would be severely compromised. At a time of rapid strides in quantum computing, artificial intelligence, brain science, biological imaging, and regenerative biology, and when other nations are expanding their investment in science, America should not drop knowingly and willingly from her lead position on the endless frontier.”
This is the old gun to the head from Blazing Saddles: give us the money or we’ll shoot ourselves. The reality is that universities would have to do two things should the new arrangements become a reality: first, they would need to make their operations more efficient and thus less costly. Additionally, they might have to foot the tab for things that the government used to cover up until today. Neither point will go over with the bloated and pampered university systems. Uncle Sam has been a generous supplier of funds for decades, and getting leaner and more efficient was never part of the research university plan. While people howl that the universities should dip into their multibillion dollar endowments, that will not happen. When I was at Harvard, there was a rule never to take out from the endowment. The profits that the endowment monies generate are used to support university operations and tuition requirements for needy students. The endowment itself is treated as if it does not exist. No money will come out of it. If the investments do well, there is more money to cover expenses. If not, not so much. Harvard stands to lose tens of millions of dollars per year if the DOGE proposal is accepted.
Harvard and its fellow research universities are being quickly introduced to a new reality. For decades, federal research spending has gone only one-way: up. There were fights as to how much the budget should go up, but nobody asked professors to tighten their belts or expect less money than was accepted for overhead. The 15% cap, should it be enforced, would make universities start to look at all of the non-research expenses, from electricity to staff to infrastructure and disposables like paper and pens. Could it be painful? Yes. Is 15% too draconian? Maybe. But, when a country is $40 trillion in the hole, then everyone has to expect some reductions in spending. The research schools just want the savings to come from someplace else.
Harvard’s president finishes his note with the claim that the terror-loving, leftwing dumps known as universities are so important that one should not touch their dough:
“Along with our fellow research universities and many others across higher education, industry, and the wider scientific community, Harvard will continue to advocate for a nation strengthened and enriched through its research efforts, a nation that wields knowledge in service of its people. Our institutions are as necessary for the health and prosperity of our country as they have ever been. With rapid advances in so many areas of the life sciences, breakthroughs are becoming more frequent and more consequential. Now is the time to defend the research partnership that has done so much for our nation and the world, and that can do even more in the future.”
“Knowledge in the service of its people” is a little rich, coming from the school that coined the phrase “birthing people” and promised not to turn illegal alien students over to federal authorities. Pompous Harvard demands that its share of the federal pie should not be decreased, yet its service to the United States has been downhill since one of its professors invented napalm during World War II. The universities have become cesspools of brain-dead leftwing ideology. Intellectual diversity is the only kind of diversity sorely missing on campus. Cut the overhead to 15%. They’ll get by and the U.S. will save billions annually.