Most people here, one would suspect, are in favor of promoting democracy and human rights throughout the world, and taking steps to shore them up in countries where they are struggling to thrive, especially when those efforts cost a relatively modest amount of money. But, why should NASA pick up the tab?
Earlier this week Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) introduced S.3457, the “Support for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia Act of 2008″. The legislation outlines some of the challenges democracy and human rights are facing in Ethiopia, despite some recent positive progress, and asks the president to “support the implementation of democracy and governance institutions and organizations in Ethiopia” through a number of measures, ranging from unspecified programs to protect human rights to Voice of America programming. The legislation authorizes $20 million to carry out these activities by this means: “Of the amounts available to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2009, $20,000,000 shall be available to carry out the provisions of this Act.”
In a statement introducing the legislation, Feingold said he made the decision to fund the bill through an offset because of fiscal responsibility:
I make it a practice to pay for all bills I introduce, and the authorization in this bill is offset by a transfer of funds from NASA. Some may disagree with me on the need for an offset, but recent Office of Management and Budget projections confirm that we now have the biggest budget deficit in the history of our country.
We cannot afford to be fiscally irresponsible so we must make choices to ensure that our children and grandchildren do not bear the burden of our reckless spending. Instead of cutting specific programs, which are likely to have begun and thus would cost more to close, transferring $20 million from the general budget would allow appropriators to evaluate, at their discretion, how best to make this transfer.
What he doesn’t explain, though, is why he (and co-sponsor Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT) chose NASA as the source of the offset, as opposed to another government agency. Like, say, the State Department?
why he (and co-sponsor Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT) chose NASA as the source of the offset, as opposed to another government agency. Like, say, the State Department?
Because given the choice between less money for diplomatic missions or less money for space missions, taking from NASA is more defensible. What I would like to see is his history in taking money from other agencies. Is it often NASA? Is it random? What other agencies has this been done to?
Like, say, the State Department?
Ironic that the day after 9/11 you suggest talking money from State rather than NASA. I’m as big a space supporter as anyone, but if there’s one area that needs work, it is development of broader non-military solutions to foreign relations issues.
Well, the ISS budget should have always come out of State’s hide, since it was more of an international policy initiative than a space program.
Hmmmm. I could almost add Sen. Feingold’s friend John McCain to this as a cosponsore, or his other friend Sen. Obama, and the language would not be out of place.
It is not like this is unpredictable. The news I heard this morning is that the budget deficit is now being estimated at $438 Billion.
FWIW,
– Al
Get used to it. This is just the start of the pillaging you’ll see in the next few years. NASA is a low priority, and its budget will be cannibalized to support other efforts.
Some may counter this by citing the policy statements issued by the candidates that arm-wave support for the Space Program. However, these will have no bearing on what happens after January 2009.
Hum, just how many earmarks were added to the NASA budget by Sen. Russell Feingold? I’m sure NASA would be happy to use those funds for the Senator’s little project.
Well, the ISS budget should have always come out of State’s hide, since it was more of an international policy initiative than a space program.
Please.
And anyway, we’d be in a lot less of a crunch if we weren’t spending $3 billion PER WEEK (!!!!) on Afghan/Iraq operations. Those who bemoan the fate of space funding and support the military operations that have consumed this nation for 7 years really have little to stand on but spin. Put $3B/week into perspective: That’s the price tag of a Shuttle orbiter EVERY WEEK. Are Americans really much safer because of it (I’d argue no, of course, as our operations since occupation phase have only led to dramatic increases in the terrorist ranks).
All ‘injustified wars’ claims aside, American bureaucracy is proficient at developing serious bloat. Neither NASA nor the State Department are innocent on those counts. The difference? The State Department is a good deal bigger and has an awful lot more bloat on a $ for $ measure. It would be interesting to see how much State Department money actually goes toward our various conflicts and defense of the nation and how much disappears in over-priced toilet seats and projects that never materialize. I’d bet more than a trivial amount gets channeled elsewhere, especially given the state fo affairs in the military hospitals and on the vehicle armor early in the Iraq conflict.
All that aside I always liked Feingold, but I’ve lost a taste for him of late. I felt the same way about McCain.
Aremis
This might prove informative for the economics and deficit part of the debate.
Remember that just because a piece of legislation is proposed does not mean that it will be enacted or even proposed. The chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is one Joe Biden, who might have enough capacity for embaressment not to allow a piece of legislation to be considered that contradicts the current position on space policy of the ticket that he is part of. Also, Bill Nelson is a member of the committee as is Jim Webb, who is from Virginia, a space state. Come to think of it, Barack Obama is a member. Presuming that all of the Republican members vote against the measure, Nelson’s and or Webb’s vote to kill it in committee.
So, no, it is not the start of the pillaging. It’s just a quixotic gesture by one of the Senate’s most liberal members.
They just laid out two (2) – $100 billion dollar lines of credit in the financial sector? How much space can that buy ya? You guys are not thinking clearly.
Let’s take a look at where the ‘Heratige Foundation’ stands on all of the important issues of our day :
http://www.heritage.org/research/
You know, I don’t see space nor science nor NASA nor NOAA anywhere in that llist or discussion. Gosh, I’m just speechless. Just hat do you expect to accomplish in the discussion here with such a fringe and crackpot link?
I find it ironic that when introducing legislation to send money to Etheopia from a United States agency charged with the exploration of space, aero research, etc, he says, “we must we make choices to ensure that our children and grandchildren do not bear the burden of reckless spending”.
Sure, lets not just save the money, lets still spend it but instead of spending it on here on US workers we’ll send it to Africa.
I think it’s been a tradition for 40 years for Wisconsin senators to try to reduce the NASA budget. Why should this ever change?
Mark: “Remember that just because a piece of legislation is proposed does not mean that it will be enacted or even proposed.”
???
I just got confused.
Senator Feingold just lost cool points.
suggesting the $$ be taken from State instead is idiotic. how about some of that Alaskan bridge earmark money that we keep hearing about instead?
Senator Feingold just lost cool points.
So NASA is so fragile now that $20 million is gonna hurt it? Let me explain :
This is a test of the emergency budget system. Do not be alarmed, this is only a test. For the next 60 days, congressional representatives in your area, in cooperation with NASA and other federal, state and local aurthorities, have developed this system in order to keep primary government services operational in the event of an actual budget emergency. If this had been an actual budget emergency, this message would have been followed by official information, news or instructions to kiss your beloved NASA goodbye. This concludes this test of the emergency budget system.