Nick Petrovsky
LightNews LightNews
banner
nickpetrovsky.bsky.social
Nick Petrovsky
@nickpetrovsky.bsky.social
340 followers 150 following 11 posts
Laboratory for Public Management & Policy (LaMP), Department of Public and International Affairs, City University of Hong Kong. I focus on citizen-state relations, public service performance, and managerial turnover. Views are my own. nickpetrovsky.com
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Nick Petrovsky
donmoyn.bsky.social
Two takeaways from this piece:
*GOP members of Congress would much prefer to say they are voting for "savings" than for cutting cancer research.
*It is important to fight Trump's slowrolling of NIH spending now. By the time we get to rescission and reconciliation it may be too late.
The House Republican majority is very narrow. They barely held together to pass the CR in March. NIH remains very popular with the public: cutting cancer research isn’t something most House members want to be associated with. So on its face, it seems like the NIH budget should be relatively safe from Congressional cuts. But… the rescission trick explained above can be used to create a huge NIH budget cut, and a cut that is more politically palatable for swing Republican House members. Instead of voting to cut cancer research, Congressional Republicans can spin their vote for NIH rescission by saying “well, NIH didn’t spend the money, what can I do?!” That’s the combination of DOGE actions and Congressional procedure that is likely the biggest threat to the NIH budget.
April 28, 2025 at 2:06 PM
nickpetrovsky.bsky.social
Congratulations, Bill! Big loss for California!
April 28, 2025 at 2:45 PM