On March 1, if congress does not do anything (or, if they do something, if the president does not sign it because it is unacceptable to him (and presumably to a majority of voters)), the "sequester" will occur. This is a mandatory cut in spending for all agencies. American Geophysical Union sent out an email yesterday that included:
" Sequestration will implement across-the-board cuts to every federal agency program. The non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculates the new sequester deal would mandate an across-the board funding reduction of 5.1 percent for non-defense discretionary programs, which includes all science grants and programs funded by federal agencies. These across-the-board cuts would be indiscriminate and impact the essential missions of science agencies. Research is a long-term investment in our future, and deep cuts today deprive the innovators of tomorrow of the tools and knowledge they will need to keep the U.S. competitive in the global economy."

AGU members were asked to contact their elected representatives (US representatives and senators.). Guess I should, although I rarely do this.

A 5% cut in NSF and USGS funding is not a 5% cut for me: it may be a 100% cut. USGS would presuambly cut the external part of their National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program. Over the last 15 years a good chunk of my funding has come from there. I (and the people I work with) tend to be a bit on the edge of what is funded, so if NSF gets cut 5 or 10%, my funding odds will drop a lot.

As I posted earlier, I'm considering consulting, presumably for the petroleum industry. Not sure I can make that work, however.

Like the fiscal cliff, I suspect that there will be a delay or partial solution to the sequester at the last minute. But that solution could include may include cuts.

Not for me to say how much money should be spent on science, but it does seem clear that things should be well thought out.

Chris

• AGU sequester link.