The Republican National Committee recently issued a document dubbed the “Obama Spend-O-Meter”, describing what it calls “Obama’s liberal fiscal agenda”. And in the midst of that lengthy list of spending initiatives, totaling over $1.2 trillion, is this one:
Obama Has Proposed $2 Billion In Additional NASA Funding. “Sen. Barack Obama has detailed a comprehensive space plan that includes $2 billion in new funding to reinvigorate NASA and a promise to make space exploration and science a significantly higher priority if he is elected president.” (Marc Kaufman, “Obama Suggests $2 Billion In New Funding For NASA,” The Washington Post, 8/19/08)
The list, it should be noted, doesn’t mention where planned spending is offset by cuts elsewhere (recall that Obama’s early education program, in its original incarnation, was infamously funded in part by delaying Constellation), or which programs a McCain administration would similarly fund. But on the face of it, it’s a little jarring to see space associated with liberal spending agendas…
Space is pork barrel, plain and simple. I am tired of it being treated as a sacrosanct entitlement to a contingent of white collar welfare workers.
Please, the technology transfers more than make space pay for itself:
GPS (navigation, banking (timing signal is GPS primary mission), agriculture), satellite radio/tv, medical advances, solar power, weather forecasting (satellite images, ocean temperature measurements), agriculture (soil use, erosion, crop planting), numerous scientific discoveries, emergency recovery (SOS beacons in remote areas and at sea), telephone/data from remote regions (most international calls are now submarine cables), solar storm forecasting (protects airplanes flying polar routes and northern/southern latitude power grids), etc., etc., etc.
I just came across this article today:
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM7WD6EJLF_index_0.html
Oh and NASA gets less than 1% of the federal budget. Though I’d argue that NASA needs to be reinvigorated with new goals, leadership and removal of duplication of work between centers.
Nuff said.
sc220, the investments made in space exploration and research activities are what has helped drive innovation and growth in the United States over the last 50 years. There are large numbers of students, educators, and scientists that are engaged in research from the space program. A large number of blue collar workers are also employed by space launches in Florida, Virginia, and California.
sc220:
Ah come on! A few days ago the Federal government decided it was essential to spend 700 billion (with a B) dollars to fail out the part of the financial service industry that hadn’t already been paid 300 billion dollars. And Congress pitched another 25 billion to American car manufacturers who couldn’t figure out — after a century of experience –how to build automobiles to Japanese fuel and safety standards.
And you’re pissed because some other politicians want to spend another 2 billion dollars on the manned space program. “White collar welfare workers”?
You’re a troll, fellow. You’re slime.
For what it’s worth, in their list of “liberal spending” they also include this:
Obama Would Implement The Lugar-Obama Legislation To Crack Down On The Smuggling Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction. “[Obama] also will fully implement the Lugar-Obama legislation to help our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.” (Obama For America, “Barack Obama: The War We Need To Win,” http://www.barackobama.com, Accessed 3/3/08)
* According To The Congressional Budget Office, Implementing The Lugar-Obama Legislation (S. 2566) Would Cost $2.2 Billion Over Five Years, Which Averages Out To $440 Million Per Year And $1.76 Billion Over Four Years. “CBO estimates that implementing S. 2566 would cost … more than $2.2 billion over the 2007-2011 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.” (Congressional Budget Office, “S. 2566: Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, And Conventional Threat Reduction Act Of 2006,” http://www.cbo.gov, 5/31/06)
There’s worse company to keep than the Lugar-Obama legislation…
TAKA: Please, the technology transfers more than make space pay for itself:
LONG LIST OF BENEFITS FOLLOWS.
Taka,
If NASA actually focused on developing and delivering specific, clear and credible benefits to the American people, then NASA would find it to be a lot easier to acquire funding increases.
Many in Congress are quite critical of NASA **because** NASA’s current plans make “benefits” a secondary priority to “exploration” and developing the Ares 1 and Ares V rockets.
Even Dr. Marburger of the White House is implicitly critical of NASA’s Constellation program, since Constellation clearly does not deliver “economic, national security, and science” benefits that Marburger has repeatedly stated that any program should measured by.
Griffin has intentionally ignored the will of Congress, and the White House, in this regard. The key figures of merit for ESAS should have been the level of economic, science and national security benefits delivered to the American people.
Any real systems engineer would have taken the key requirements from their boss (the WH) and developed a strategy against those requirements.
Unfortunately, Griffin (the so-called systems engineer) made sure this did not happen. History will assign the failure to him for wasting the last four years (and many billions in taxpayer funding).
For those who want more money for NASA, we must first change the strategy, the plan, and the program to deliver the benefits that the taxpayers want.
Again, the way to change the strategy is to assess the alternatives against the benefits in economics, national security, and science.
FWIW,
– AL
“Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”
NASA does indeed to make return on taxpayer investment a priority, as I have long argued. Especially now.
Exploration for its own sake is not a sustainable plan.
However, to bash space as pure entitlement is ridiculous. If we did not have earth monitoring systems we would not know, the scale or destination of a given hurricane, as but one example that saves millions of lives per year.
NASA will need to be directed to pursue more vigorous benefits. This is so because it has created a culture and reward system around exploration. This can be adapted towards a more balanced portfolio. Isn’t it worth an experiment to see what Congress would do?
The RNC also listed funding the Lugar-Obama bill to control loose nukes as part of Obama’s liberal spending spree. Apparently the Republican National Committee i against spending money to keep nuclear material out of the wrong hands. I didn’t know this.
reading that neat GOP spending meter is like reading a list of all the things government should have been doing the past eight years, but chose to ignore in favor of rich tax cuts and war.
Disclaimer: This is not a plug for Senator Obama, merely a statement of facts as verified by many independent sources, for the express purpose of neutralizing some otherwise inaccurate spin of a partisan nature. There are many people on many threads who are still undecided about who to vote for and it does them and us a huge disservice to state political spin as fact. It causes people to make decisions based on untrue foundations.
While some of Senator Obama’s rhetoric does fall into the category of spin as well, it appalls me that I have yet been able to sort out a coherent and most importantly, verifiable statement of Senator McCain’s economic policy and funding sources. I would be pleased if someone could do so for the benefit of us all, as I have been unable to sort out spin from fact on a large portion of Senator McCain’s economic positions. I am reasonably sure however that this is a result of people other than campaign officials spinning for their personal favorite and that being propagated over the internet to the point that his real policy becomes murky. But doing that is unhelpful and only muddies the waters.
Ok – Senator Obama’s policy from 10,000 feet: Senator Obama’s economic policies are essentially fiscally neutral, as verified by several independent economists. While not popular with a very specific segment of the population, the major funding of his programs are paid for, in large part, by repealing the Bush tax cuts on the top 2% of the American population. And lest you think that is insufficient, we are talking about thousands of people who make between 2 and 5 million dollars a week and more, a sizable percentage of who, because of the Bush plan, pay absolutely no income tax at all. President Bush gave those people a huge tax break on the theory that it would trickle down and create jobs, when in fact all it ended up doing was lining their pockets and lifestyles, and Senator Obama intends to take it back and put the money instead into the economy. Additionally, there are a significant number of businesses that maintain an overseas post office box for their corporate offices, and therefore pay no corporate tax either on billions of dollars of otherwise taxable corporate income. These two sources alone will cover the cost of a major portion of the economic programs Senator Obama intends to implement, including the new, additional funding for NASA. There are other sources as well, most of which can be lumped into shutting down government operations that do not provide value added for their cost. The devil’s in the details of course, but that’s the view from 10,000 feet.
Can anyone provide an equally brief overview of Senator McCain’s economic policy and where he will get the money to fund his economic program? I would appreciate that.
[…] Republican National Committee’s “Obama Spend-O-Meter”, which includes Obama’s plans to increase NASA funding as part of a “liberal fiscal agend…, has attracted the attention of Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL). “The McCain campaign has just […]
[…] Curiously, he also said this: “If I’m elected president I won’t cut NASA funds like Sen. Obama.” Obama, of course, reversed course in August on an earlier plan to delay NASA’s Constellation program by five years to help pay for his education program, and has also proposed adding $2 billion to NASA’s budget, something that, ironically, the Republican National Committee included in its “liberal fiscal agenda” charge against…. […]
I’m a hardcore conservative and I say screw you to all that say get rid of the space program. NASA has inspired me, many of my classmates to pursue our goals, not some socialist health care program or a government take over by Obama. I’ve watched all the space shuttles go up after Return to Flight, its an amazing site.