The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune are among the first major US newspapers to publish editorials on Bush’s proposed new space policy. An editorial in Saturday’s Post casts a skeptical eye on the proposal, primarily because of the perceived high cost and other priorities (Head Start, housing assistance, AIDS) where the money could instead be spent. Contrasting the proposal with Bush’s previously-announced AIDS plan, the editorial notes:
It’s not clear, by contrast, what practical results, if any, would be yielded by Mr. Bush’s moon-Mars agenda. A more modest evolution in spaceflight technology—officials Friday were talking about a 5 percent increase in NASA’s budget—would be worth debating in ordinary times. But Mr. Bush’s past fiscal recklessness puts a heavy burden even on modest proposals—and flying to the moon is not modest.
An editorial in Friday’s Tribune, though, is more supportive of the measure. Remarking on the recent success of the Spirit mission and the possibility that Mars might once have been more like Earth, the editorial notes ,”What better way to unlock mysteries than to do it in person?” It then adds, perhaps with a bit of tongue stuck in cheek:
Come to think of it, though, Bush will be out of the White House by then, whether or not he wins a second term. Would it be a surprise if he’s thinking about a next job that requires extensive travel?
Actually, a Moon-Mars initiative has at least one very real, and very practical, result: MORE JOBS.
I would also argue that AIDS initiatives, while important, are receiving much more attention than other, more deadly diseases such as malaria, heart diesease, cancer, and mental illnesses.
The ongoing issue is balance. The United States should strive to do all things, each at an appropriate level, not just a few at the expense of many. Consider that we successfully landed on the Moon from 1969-1972 not once, but six times during a period of great cultural unrest and a pointless war. That is an example of doing a profound thing at the worst possible time in terms of domestic (but not foreign) policy. Nevertheless, it got done. Imagine the possibilites if all things were addressed adequately…
“Actually, a Moon-Mars initiative has at least one very real, and very practical, result: MORE JOBS.”
How do you figure that it will result in more jobs as opposed to fewer or merely different jobs? The money to pay for this doesn’t come from nowhere. It comes out of someone’s pocket which means he has less to spend on other things. With less to spend on other things, there is less need for people to make or do those other things. Given that the government wastes plenty of the money that it collects, is it not conceivable that a Moon-Mars initiative could result in a net loss of jobs?
No. A new initiative will create new jobs, it’s just a question of how many people and where. Consider that the Apollo Program emploed 30,000 people at the peak. Once the program was over, most of these people were out of work. Also, these thousands of employees (government and mostly contractors) need a place to stay and other services. Cocoa Beach, FL, for example, essentially dried up when Apollo concluded, but sprung back when Shuttle geared up. When the Shuttle program experiences an accident, the community really hurts.
“A new initiative will create new jobs, it’s just a question of how many people and where.”
How do you know that?