My brother’s dog and my dog fight with each other constantly — playfully, of course. Perhaps it’s because they’re young and they have seemingly endless amounts of energy, or maybe they’re bored and that is what they enjoy doing, besides the popular activities of sleeping, eating and barking at the random passersby. But when they need something, like a treat off the counter or a trip outside, they come together and figure out a way to solve the problem at paw.

One would figure that if dogs could negotiate in crisis diplomacy or typical day-to-day doggie problems, humans could manage it too, with human problems, of course. Unfortunately, our current Congress has been unable to tackle the nation’s problems because of constant fighting, name-calling, blaming and any other immaturities that display during disagreements.

Instead, Congress is playing a drunken game of darts, blindfolded, disregarding the repercussions of their actions with not a concern of what gets hit or by how much.

The latest result of a drawn out battle for solving the nation’s debt issue is the sequestration and across-the-board budget cuts that hit last Friday. The long-overdue and contentious cuts, “the sequester,” was passed under the Budget Control Act of 2011, then further delayed to March 1 in a deal to avert “the fiscal cliff.” Unlike previous Congress’, which worked together to solve problems, like those of the 90s, this Congress is infamous for kicking the can down the road and accomplishing little. 

The sequester is an aimless attempt at deficit reduction to the tune of $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Half of the $85 billion cuts this year affects defense discretionary spending (weapons purchases, base operations, construction work, etc.), and the other half affects mandatory (Social Security and Medicaid) and domestic discretionary spending.

The current cuts sacrifice essential domestic programs and strain the nation’s defenses for the sake of an it’s-better-to-get-something-done-than-nothing mentality. And this mentality stems from a lackluster approval rating, which is holding steady near historical lows at 15 percent, according to Gallup.

As part of the sequester, the appropriations of the National Science Foundation will be reduced by 5 percent in fiscal year 2013. This reduction will significantly impact the amount of new research grants funded by approximately 1,000 for 2013 alone.

As a top research institution in the world, this funding is essential to the University’s mission. The University received more than 400 grants in 2010 ranging from as little as $3,000 to $90 million. We ranked second among all national institutions receiving NSF funding and first among universities. Absent Blue Waters, the project at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, which received more than $90 million, the University ranked fourth among national research universities.

Over the semester, I have been assisting my professor with his proposal to digitize the historical trading data of the New York Stock Exchange dating back to the 19th century. His proposal, like many research proposals across the country and at nearly every college in the University, may not receive funding by the National Science Foundation because of the sequester.

However, not all NSF funding the University received went to research. Some distributions include support for undergraduate and graduate students.

Taking a look at the big picture, according to Macroeconomic Advisors, “the sequestration would cost roughly 700,000 jobs (including reductions in armed forces), pushing the civilian unemployment rate up ¼ percentage point, to 7.4 percent,” levels which would linger for several years. And that is just one report. Stephen Fuller, an economist at George Mason University, using information before the delay in the sequester, claims that 2.14 million jobs would be lost, increasing unemployment by as much as 1.5 percentage points to over 9 percent.

Cutting spending is a good thing. It’s a sign of improving efficiency and extracting the most out of our taxpayers’ dollars. Except these changes to the federal government’s spending are not planned or calculated. As the president said, they were merely made to meet an arbitrary number set by a dysfunctional Congress. Not a good thing.

Yes, spending cuts are desperately needed. So are further increases in taxes. But the current policy that Congress is using to tackle our debt and deficit problems will leave many essential defense and domestic programs gutted. 

Thoughtless cuts to discretionary spending will impede potential proposals that could provide a serious, social benefit to this country.

I want my professor to receive NSF funding. I want Blue Waters to be the fastest supercomputer in the world. Not only will this funding provide immense research benefits, but it could advance scientific discoveries. This is something we should be proud of and spend more on, not less. What we need are smart, purposeful cuts to spending and thought-out reforms.

Tommy is a senior in Business. He can be reached at [email protected], and follow him on Twitter @tommyheiser.