Beyond the Election Noise: Why Real Leadership Matters
From debt crises to scientific misconduct, America’s future depends on leaders who are ready to act
With the presidential election less than two weeks away, it’s a good time to remember that who we choose to lead the executive branch really does matter — beyond just “Orange Man Bad” or Kamala’s notorious “word salad” responses. Our country faces serious challenges that demand real leadership, not just slogans and deflection.
This week’s first TL;DR article dives into the critical issues that are being ignored by both presidential candidates, reminding us why we need leaders who can tackle the federal government’s biggest problems head-on. The other two articles highlight the need for proper oversight in scientific research and space exploration, as recent failures at the NIH and NASA demonstrate. These aren’t just missteps — they’re costing us our health and our future.
Maybe we should call this week’s edition Bad Government Files, because the glaring lack of accountability from our leaders is on full display. Because these issues so frustrate me, I’ll be including a personal insight on each. Let’s dive into the top three issues that should be on everyone’s radar.
Reminder: I’m offering a 50% percent discount on annual subscriptions, valid through Friday, Oct. 25. Subscribe today using this link!
The Policy Elephant in the 2024 Election
Veteran GOP political strategist Karl Rove’s essay in the Wall Street Journal highlights three critical issues America faces that both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, have largely ignored: the growing national debt, the looming bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare, and the country’s unpreparedness for a potential global conflict. Rove criticizes the candidates for offering voter-friendly but economically damaging proposals, while neglecting to address these urgent challenges. Here are the takeaways:
National Debt Crisis: The U.S. national debt has reached $35.7 trillion, and the country is now spending more on interest payments than on defense. Both Trump and Harris have made proposals that would add to the debt without promoting real economic growth. “The Congressional Budget Office projects that absent any significant changes, the debt will reach nearly $50.7 trillion by the end of 2034. Without presidential leadership, we’ll be on a road that ends with our children and grandchildren much less prosperous. Yet neither candidate seems interested enough to offer voters a plan to do something about it.”
Social Security and Medicare at Risk: Social Security’s trust fund is expected to be depleted by 2035, and Medicare’s hospital trust fund by 2036. Neither candidate has offered solutions to avoid these looming bankruptcies. “Mr. Trump would end taxes on benefits of wealthier Social Security recipients, causing the program to go bankrupt two years earlier. Ms. Harris wants to add an expensive home-healthcare benefit to Medicare but won’t say what it’ll cost or how she’d pay for it.”
U.S. Security Deficit: A bipartisan commission report warns the United States is unprepared for a major global conflict, with outdated military capacities and a lack of technological adaptation. “The commission argues that to prevent war, the U.S. must prepare to fight and win any conflict. Strength is the best deterrence.
Yet here again, both candidates are mostly mute. Mr. Trump occasionally asserts he alone can keep the peace—a claim so vague as to be silly. Ms. Harris largely ignores the issue, thereby raising doubts about her as a prospective commander in chief.”
In My View: I truly believe the American people can handle the truth about all three issues. It is profoundly troubling to me that our national elected leaders are not courageous enough to work through the tough discussions needed to effectively address them.
NASA Is a Profound Managerial Mess
This tome from Casey Handmer, who earned a Ph.D. in Theoretical AstroPhysics at Caltech, is a scathing critique of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS), which has been plagued by astronomical costs, inefficiencies, and delays. Despite being intended as NASA’s flagship rocket for the Artemis moon missions, SLS has launched only once and remains prohibitively expensive, costing $4.1 billion per launch. Handmer argues NASA has compromised its technical integrity to prop up this failing project, causing ripple effects that have delayed or canceled other important missions. Here are the takeaways:
SLS Is an Objectively Monumental Failure: Despite over $100 billion in development costs, SLS has only launched once and remains a bloated and underperforming project, burdening NASA with high costs and limited functionality. “Four years ago, I wrote that the best time to cancel the SLS was 20 years before, and the second best time was then. Four years on, the program has consumed another $20b with nothing to show for it … This program burns $12m per day!”
Ripple Effect of Mismanagement: The SLS debacle has created budgetary strain across NASA, forcing delays and cancellations of other critical projects, compromising future space exploration efforts. “NASA has abandoned all pretense of caring about or delivering cost control on any major project, with scope, schedule, and budget blowouts affecting practically every major program and forcing the cancellation of many of them. This is symptomatic of an agency who, compromising their technical integrity on their flagship program, subsequently lost the ability to maintain technical integrity anywhere else.” The list of projects in the essay is astounding.
Private Sector Outpacing NASA: The article highlights how private companies like SpaceX are providing more cost-effective, advanced alternatives, showing how NASA’s leadership and outdated procurement models have fallen behind modern space industry standards. “If not for SpaceX, both the U.S. and Europe would lack adequate strategic access to space.”
In My View: Is it a coincidence that NASA Administrator Bill Nelson spent the bulk of his career as an elected official in the Florida state legislature and the U.S. House and Senate? Honestly, I can’t recall if he’s an R or a D, and I don’t care. This is clearly an agency that needs more governance and less politics. Houston, we have a problem1.
PICTURE IMPERFECT: Scores of papers by Eliezer Masliah, prominent neuroscientist and top NIH official, fall under suspicion
In 2016, after Congress increased funding for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s research, Eliezer Masliah was appointed to lead the National Institute on Aging’s neuroscience division, overseeing billions in research funding. However, his tenure has since been marred by allegations of research misconduct, with more than 100 of his published studies found to contain manipulated data, according to this blockbuster reporting from Science. These wasted years have severely hindered progress in finding treatments for diseases that impact the lives of 7 million Americans. The takeaways:
Allegations of Research Misconduct: Masliah’s work has been found to include manipulated images across numerous studies, casting doubt on a significant portion of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s research. “The enormity of apparent problems … stunned 11 neuroscientists who agreed to review it for Science. ‘Breathtaking,’ says neuroscientist Christian Haass of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. ‘People will, of course, be shocked, as I was. … I was falling from a chair, basically.’”
Impact on Drug Development: Masliah’s questionable research has influenced the development of key experimental drugs, like prasinezumab, potentially delaying or misguiding treatment advancements for Parkinson’s disease. “The volume of papers and resources involved are enormous—as is Dr. Masliah’s leadership and influence on the field, including drug development pipelines,” says Vanderbilt University neuroscientist Matthew Schrag.
Erosion of Trust in Neuroscience: The scale of the alleged misconduct not only threatens Masliah’s reputation but also undermines public trust in scientific research at a time when confidence in science is already declining. “I worry about it giving science a further black eye, just as the public’s confidence in science and scientists is sinking to new depths,” said Tim Greenamyre, director of the University of Pittsburgh Institute for Neurodegenerative Diseases. “In the interest of transparency and scientific integrity, this sad story has to come out.”
In My View: I agree wholeheartedly with Greenamyre. As highlighted in Friday’s newsletter on the lessons learned from the problematic COVID vaccine rollout, declining public trust in science is A. Big. Problem. Friend of the Files Jennie Vana shared an excellent article about the need for the federal government to better fund and execute communications on its science programs. More on that in a future GGF!
In Other’s Words
Playwright Eugene Ionesco reveals how to discover something useful:
It is not the answer that enlightens, but the question.
H/T James Clear
Guitar legend B.B. King on learning:
The beautiful thing about learning is nobody can take it away from you.
Legendary journalist Walter Cronkite offered this pessimistic take about the public’s ability to elect effective leaders back in 2005.
We’re an ignorant nation right now. We’re not really capable, I do not think, the majority of our people, of making the decisions that have to be made at election time and particularly in the selection of their legislatures and their Congress and the presidency, of course. I don’t think we’re bright enough to do the job that would preserve our democracy, our republic. I think we're in serious danger.
Programming Note: Next week’s TL;dr will focus on elections. I’m feverishly searching for articles that contradict Cronkite’s gloomy assessment. 🤞
Onward and Upward.
For younger readers who may not get the reference, here it is.