[qcnguy]

If it's government funded it was indeed always under political control, just that some prior politicians chose to let it drift.

Having politicians exercise more direct control over this type of spending is good and as it should be. The concept of people taking money via force from other citizens yet answering to nobody is dystopian. The sort of people who support this idea are often, it seems, those who suspect their ideas and plans are so deeply unpopular that people could not be easily persuaded to fund them directly.

[exasperaited]

> If it's government funded it was indeed always under political control, just that some prior politicians chose to let it drift.

Right, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is under executive control? Is it not the case that Congress usually decides, one way or another, where the money goes, and it's the executive's job to see it does?

[qcnguy]

Congress puts political appointees in charge of the executive branch specifically to ensure political control.