[mmcdermott]

> something a congressional rep is deciding on.

Congress does not, by and large, get down to that level. They are typically approving a line time that encompasses a form of lump sum (i.e. "$100 million to NSF across these categories").

You can see the budget request here: https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2026

Defense spending would typically be a gruesome bidding process.

But either way, your proposal must at some point speak to something a generalist would understand. And that is how it should be - anything else is taxation without representation.

[ceejayoz]

> Congress does not, by and large, get down to that level.

Oh, they love to do precisely that.

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/reps/dr-paul-delivers-ope...

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/11/senator-misleads-absurd-sc...

> But either way, your proposal must at some point speak to something a generalist would understand.

A competent generalist, sure. But we've gone and given significant veto power to random Twitter influencers like @libsoftiktok.

[mmcdermott]

> Oh, they love to do precisely that.

I think it's been pretty well established that most legislators do not take the time to understand the details of bills prior to voting.

Moreover, these articles refer to an attempt to question how grant money already given (and presumably spent) was used.

Scrutiny is an inherent part of the powers of the purse. I.e. "we gave you $100 million to provide disaster relief, economic development in our sphere of influence, etc - what did you do with it?"

It's fair to want to retain the spending being questioned, but Congress is explicitly responsible for this function.