The article is about something much more sinister than not giving out appropriated money: The administration is now giving out nearly all of the appropriated money, but by paying a termed lump sum to far fewer projects—the only money these projects will ever get for at least four years, paid out in one payment right now, effectively halving the grant money projects receive while simultaneously meeting the obligations to congressional appropriations, decreasing investment in science and research, and preparing to allow for drastic budget cuts to science research next year.

The article explains this much better than I can, complete with visualizations after every sentence since this is _The Upshot _:

In the past, the N.I.H. typically awarded grants in five annual installments. Researchers could request two more years to spend this money, at no cost. Under the new system, the N.I.H. pays up front for four years of work. And researchers can get one more year to spend this money. Which means that they get less money on average, and less time to spend it.

As a result of this quiet policy shift, the average payment for competitive grants swelled from $472,000 in the first half of the fiscal year to over $830,000 in the last two months.

From $472,000–a-year to $830,000–for-four-years, and that’s unadjusted for inflation.

The Conservative government response to a 2016–17 parliamentary petition demanding proportional representation said that “A referendum on changing the voting system was held in 2011 and the public voted overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the FPTP system.”[209] Tim Ivorson of the electoral reform campaign group Make Votes Matter responded by quoting the petition’s text that “The UK has never had a say on PR. As David Cameron himself said, the AV referendum was on a system that is often less proportional than FPTP, so the rejection of AV could not possibly be a rejection of PR.”[210]