On Monday NASA announced that it had selected CSC to run a new “Shared Services Center”, which CSC will locate at Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. That means around 500 jobs for Mississippi, which beat out Huntsville and Cleveland for the center. And that’s not sitting well with some folks in Cleveland:
“It’s incredible that the administration, which won the election with the help of Ohio, would kick Ohio to the curb,” [Rep. Dennis] Kucinich said. “It’s hard to understand how it could happen. It shows where the administration’s priorities are. Apparently, they don’t need Ohio anymore.”
The “Ohio card” alone, it would seem, is not enough to make a winning hand.
This is a bogus argument, since that part of Ohio was > 70% Kerry. The irony of hearing Kucinich talk about this is amazing.
Just another example of NASA understanding the “rules” of Capital Hill. Keep Trent Lott happy and everyone else can have some crumbs. Lott can shake down almost any agency for jobs when he really wants a piece of the pie.
Its also a bogus argument cause the white house should never have to micro manage NASA, no matter who is there.
I completely agree that it’s shameless for Kucinich to try to use NASA for in-district patronage. I’m glad that it didn’t work. If only Tom DeLay had to play by the same rules.
So your “assumption” Greg is that Lott was the deciding factor?
But then a representative seeking money for his/her state/district is not an unusual thing. That IS how it works, not saying that is good but it is true. Lott/DeLay didn’t invent the notion, ask the senior Senator from West Virginia.
All political paranoia aside, it could just be that cheaper non-union labor in Miss. was indeed a factor as stated. It was certainly a factor in BMW’s building SC, so it could easily apply in this case as well.
I didn’t make any assumptions as to why Stennis got this contract. Although I agree that it is a fair question!
My assumption is that Tom DeLay pencilled Johnson Space Center into his district for the sake of political patronage.
I am well aware that neither Lott nor DeLay invented the idea of patronage. Caesar brought riches to Rome, and that was no precedent either. That doesn’t make it okay!
> This is a bogus argument, since that part of Ohio was > 70% Kerry. The irony
> of hearing Kucinich talk about this is amazing.
A lot of states “helped Bush win reelection,” and a lot of states (including Florida and Texas) could have swung the election. Ohio stands out not because it contributed the most electoral votes, but because its vote tally came it late. Bush doesn’t “owe” Ohio any more than he owes Texas or Florida, whose centers compete with Ohio for funding.
Moreover, the NASA employees union endorsed John Kerry for President, not George W. Bush, so even if you assume Bush “owes” Ohio, there is no logical reason to assume he “owes” NASA-Glenn.
Not that this administration pays much attention to such things anyway. They are more interested in “reaching out” to the other side (whether it’s liberal Democrats or France) than in helping their supporters. It’s safe to say that 90% of free-marketeers probably voted for Bush, but instead of a free-market space policy, we have a policy that says “human spaceflight will remain the province of government [i.e., the province of the union that endorsed Kerry].”
Before Cecil Trotter raised the point, I hadn’t considered whether it makes sense for Stennis Space Center to win the “Shared Services Center” competition, or indeed any competition with other NASA centers. It seems that Stennis is in the most stagnant economic backwater of any of the NASA centers. There is even a group, Patronage for Stennis, that applauds Stennis Space Center for being in a backwater. (Actually it’s called Partners for Stennis.)
Even going on an anti-union argument, I see no practical reason that Stennis was chosen over Marshall for this. Or for that matter, Langley, which is relatively close to the prime contractor for the “Shared Services Center”.
“applauds Stennis Space Center for being in a backwater”
Exactly what at http://www.partnersforstennis.org/about.shtml led you to the above conclusion?
The page brags about the monumental difference that Stennis has made to the region. As I’m sure it has. It’s not like Johnson Space Center: Houston without JSC would not look all that different from Houston with JSC.
Another interesting thing about Stennis is its name. They could have named it after a space pioneer (like Dryden or Goddard) or a benevolent military leader (like Marshall). They could have named it after just any famous Mississippian (like Jim Henson or Tennessee Williams). Or they could have named it after an astronaut (like Fred Haise), or some brave worker at the center who died on the job. But those options were too subtle for NASA and South Mississippi. Instead they named Stennis after a political benefactor, John C. Stennis. But hey, at least he voted against civil rights.
“The page brags about the monumental difference that Stennis has made to the region.”
So of course that indicates that the area was a “stagnant economic backwater” prior to Stennis? But then don’t big projects, government or otherwise, always have the effect of “monumental difference” in the areas they’re conducted? My state/county has undergone “monumental difference” in my lifetime due to government projects, private industry and other causes. I guess, by your logic, my area was also a “stagnant economic backwater” before these changes.
Oh wait, you stated above that “Stennis IS IN the most stagnant economic backwater”, present tense. So which is it? Did Stennis make the area change, or is it still a “stagnant economic backwater”?
I think you just look for negativity wherever you can manufacture it in order to prop up your preconceived notions.