Lots of interesting responses, folks -- and all polite about it, too! Keep up the good work!
(And since there's so much above, I won't try to quote individuals, but will try to say what I'm responding to)
@Someone(?tirsales?) wrote that government funding is superior because it doesn't differentiate, is guaranteed, etc.
History in the use suggests otherwise. For example, throughout the Jim Crow era in the US, government funding most certainly
did differentiate on the basis of (ethnic) group membership. During the same period, much private philanthropy did too... but quite a bit did not. In fact, the private philanthropists were waaaaaay out in front in terms of supporting causes that served people the government left behind.
On the front of governments providing "guaranteed funding," I observe (anecdotally) that government funding is by no means guaranteed. Two examples:
- My mother-in-law was the director of the Central Pennsylvania Blind Association, a charity providing support and services for the visually handicapped in the center of the state. They were funded partly through private donations and partly via the state budget (for services provided on a contract basis). One year the newly-elected Governor (a Democrat, not that it really matters) who face a small budget short-fall simply zeroed out the budget for all support services for the disabled. Statewide. Across all kinds of disabilities. My MiL's group (and other Blind Associations around the state) survived only because they could turn to private philanthropy to help close their budget gap.
- Research funding from NASA: Hurricane Katrina -- in addition to the damage to New Orleans -- also did $4Billion in damage to various NASA facilities. Their budget did not include money for repairs (it's rather hard to budget for a hurricane a year in advance!). So they asked Congress for a solution. Congress passed a bill allowing NASA to redirect their previously allocated budget to effect repairs, but provided no additional money. So the NASA administration unilaterally cancelled all outside research contracts. No warning. No payment for any bills not yet presented at the time of cancellation, even if the work had been conducted under a valid contract. [NOTE: This would be blatantly illegal if done by any entity other than the gov't. Even for a gov't agency it would be questionable -- except for the aforementioned bill.]
Now let's consider the research funding cycle: you submit proposals now for funding next fiscal year. If you yank current funding, there's no way for the researchers to get new funding until next fiscal year. Unilateral instant cut-off destroys entire research groups who depended on the funding allocated for this year. Further, signing the official contract often doesn't happen until 6 months into the 1-year contract -- but work begins on day 1 under a memorandum of understanding. Funding regulations put the project PIs at individual financial risk for non-payment under a MoU (but not under contract). But it's not a problem, after all. The Gov't always pays. Right? So we wound up with a bunch of mid-career professors who were personally liable to repay their Universities for the expenses incurred under cover of an MoU -- often 20x-50x their annual salaries! When the dust settled, a pile of Congress-critters sent a letter to NASA saying that this particular redirection was clearly outside their intent and directed them to continue funding both existing contracts and MoU work through the end of the fiscal year, so none of the PIs wound up on the hook. But a whole bunch of multi-year research contracts were abruptly terminated at the end of that fiscal year.
Continued in next post, clicked submit too soon.