The Monkey Cage

I received the same letter (“Dear Robert” rather than “Dear Scott”) from Udall. So, while Scott is probably correct in suggesting that the form letter was not in the hopper, it appears UDall did receive enough notices to merit composing a form letter.

I wonder, however, if instead of this letter being generated in Udall’s office, it was was generated by the Caucus. Anyone from other states receive the same letter with appropriate state-based identifiers changed to your own state?

Here is what came to Louisiana residents from Vitter. Note how he trumpets his support for the AICA (which never made it to the floor), even though he ended up voting in favor of the Coburn Amendment.
—————————————

Dear Dr. Brox,

Thank you for contacting me in opposition to excluding the behavioral and social sciences from receiving grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF). I appreciate hearing from you on this important subject.

You may be glad to know that the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, of which I am a member, recently passed the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act with a bipartisan, compromise amendment that ensures the NSF is not limited from funding research in the social sciences. As you may know, the NSF is an independent federal agency created by Congress. It serves to promote and develop new and imaginative ideas in the fields of science and engineering, and this bill will help us continue to promote innovative research in the social sciences, physical sciences, and other fields.

I have always been a strong supporter of research and development and was proud to support increased funding when I voted in favor of the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006, which included a 3 percent increase for the NSF. I understand the critical role that research and development plays in the success in the fields of science and engineering, and our economic expertise as a country is dependent upon new and ground-breaking ideas.

Rest assured that I will continue to support our critical research programs and will keep your concerns in mind. Once again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future with other issues of concern to you and your family.
Sincerely,
David Vitter
United States Senate

Well, the way the mechanics of this work (or at least did when I was on the Hill, many years ago, but I can’t imagine it’s changed) is that the LA or LC has to compose an individual response when the first letter comes in, and then that’s your template for the future, although you wind up if necessary with “pro” and “con” versions. They aren’t hard to write, because you’re using the same material that you need to recommend a vote to your boss. So, if you have recommended a “yes” vote, then you toss in some boilerplate supporting that vote to constituents who agree, and the easiest source of such boilerplate is from the lobbyists on that side of the issue.

The Vitter letter is a textbook example of a “disagree” letter — spend as little time as possible on the specific issue of disagreement, and emphasize stuff the Member does that the constituent probably agrees with.

When it comes to legislative staff, Vitter clearly knows how to shop for the best…

According to Udall’s math, we spend less than $10 million each year on political science research. That just can’t be right. APSA has 15,000 members. Do we spend an average of $670 each year on our research?

I assume that figure doesn’t account for salary, which allows me to noodle around with data in my office. Apparently that’s pro bono work.

My experience working on the Hill more than 15yrs ago was similar but not identical to Jonathan’s. Even if letters did not arrive in large numbers, the staff would collect similar letters for a single response.

I suspect that 95% figure was due to sloppy writing. Might it be that NSF funding contributed 95% of federal money for political science research?

Much as I admire Udall’s sentiments, there’s just no way NSF funds 95% of poli sci research. I’m gonna go out on a limb and postulate that Carnegie, MacArthur, Smith-Richardson, and general university funding is more than $90,000 per annum.

My hill experience was slightly different, in that “unique” letters were still farmed to the LC most closely responsible for that area. In my case, as an intern, I actually ended up writing a fair number of the unique letters myself.

However, Vitter’s guy/gal IS good…the letter manages to say that Vitter is in favor of the thing he voted against.

Is it worth writing back if you get a form letter that you disagree with (not over the math from Udall, but the vote from Vitter)? I’ve always wondered if they then address the real issue raised.

From Bob Menendez:

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the Coburn Amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010. Your opinion is very important to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this critical issue.

As you may know, the Coburn Amendment #2631, would eliminate funding for the National Science Foundation’s Political Science Program, which has existed since 1965. Political science research funded by NSF include both domestic projects such as research to help understand communities reactions to unexpected events such as hurricane Katrina, and international research such as the Minerva project jointly done with the Department of Defense to provide greater cultural and political understanding of other nations. You will be please to know that I voted against the Coburn Amendment as it would discontinue funding to these research programs and pending research projects. This amendment was defeated by a margin of 36-62.

Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have been a strong supporter of funding for the National Science Foundation. I believe it is critical that our nation’s research centers and universities have the necessary funding to work towards discoveries and to solve some of our world’s most pressing problems. Please be assured that I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to advocate for increased science funding.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of more assistance. I invite you to visit my website (http://menendez.senate.gov) to learn of other important issues to New Jersey.

To be fair, since I signed the peition on Petition2Congress.com and sent my rep and senators an automated form letter, I can hardly complain about a form letter back.