In last night’s debate, Sen. John McCain reiterated his campaign’s stance on reducing spending through a (nearly) across-the-board budget freeze:
So we’re going to have to tell the American people that spending is going to have to be cut in America. And I recommend a spending freeze that — except for defense, Veterans Affairs, and some other vital programs, we’ll just have to have across-the-board freeze.
The “other vital programs” phrase keeps the door open for space advocates to hope that NASA will be exempt from the freeze, although the McCain campaign has not delineated exactly what those “other vital programs” are. Florida Democrats, though, are assuming that it doesn’t, and will make their case at a press conference this afternoon where they will, in their words, “denounce Senator John McCain’s plan to freeze NASA spending and his Republican Party’s attack on the space program.” They plan to play up the potential loss of thousands of space industry jobs (ironically, on the same day that NASA plans to deliver a report to Congress saying that fewer jobs will be lost after the shuttle’s retirement than previously reported.)
The full release about today’s press conference follows:
JUST LAID OFF FROM THEIR SPACE INDUSTRY JOBS, WORKERS TO RESPOND TO GOP’S ANTI-NASA STANCE
As RNC Attacks Obama’s Plan To Save Space Industry Jobs, NASA Administrator Praises Obama’s Leadership
ORLANDO – TOMORROW, WEDNESDAY, October 8, engineers and other space industry workers will hold a press conference to denounce Senator John McCain’s plan to freeze NASA spending and his Republican Party’s attack on the space program.
Workers will also be making phone calls to Space Coast voters to inform them about McCain and his Republican Party’s troubling stance on NASA and Senator Barack Obama’s plan to invest an additional $2 billion to help save vital space industry jobs.
The Republicans’ criticism of Senator Barack Obama’s $2 billion plan to save space industry jobs comes as NASA Administrator and Republican appointee Dr. Michael Griffin thanked Senator Obama personally for his “leadership†in getting critical legislation passed to help maintain an American presence in space. Griffin wrote to Obama: “without your leadership, this would not have happened.†Obama urged the Congressional leadership to pass the waiver NASA had asked for, which will allow it to purchase trips for American astronauts aboard Russian spacecraft if necessary to maintain an American presence in space. The New York Times also recently credited Obama with breaking the gridlock on this legislation and helping get it passed.
Obama’s plan would reduce the gap between the retirement of the Space Shuttle and the launch of its replacement, helping to save the jobs of thousands of space industry workers and keep their families from becoming victims of Florida’s historic economic slump. Speaking during a conference call with reporters on Monday, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida said the Republicans do not understand the impact of letting NASA fall apart.
“They’re attacking now Barack and me about wanting to put more money into NASA in order that we don’t end up where we are, laying off American NASA engineers,†Sen. Nelson said. “This is not only ridiculous. It shows they are just totally out of it and don’t even know what they are talking about.â€
Event is open to the media:
WHO: IBEW Union Members and Space Industry Workers
WHAT: Press Conference; phone bank to follow
WHERE: Space Coast Labor Council, 1122 Lake Drive, Cocoa, FL
WHEN: WEDNESDAY, October 8 at 2:45 pm
Jeff, I appreciate you pointing out what I’ve been trying to make clear to some (anonymou.space, you there?).
John McCain considers manned space access a national security issue. Though he has not explicitly declared what his “vital” programs are, I work for the McCain campaign in Space Outreach not because I am highly, though perhaps a bit, partisan but because securing a strong American manned Space program is one of my key issues. For me, it is right up there as my top two or three, none of which I will compromise on when it comes to choosing a candidate. And campaign officials have left me with the distinct impression that, given what the candidate has said about NASA, about closing the gap, about the importance of American manned access to Space, and about giving NASA an additional $2B to move Orion/Ares IOC up, I know that a President McCain will make sure that NASA has enough to do its job of making America number one in Space.
“Jeff, I appreciate you pointing out what I’ve been trying to make clear to some (anonymou.space, you there?).”
If your point is that McCain really will increase NASA’s budget despite repeated promises to freeze spending, I don’t see how Mr. Foust is making your point any more clear. Rather, Mr. Foust is pointing out how conflicted McCain’s position remains with no indication of whether NASA falls into the category of a “vital program” or not. Mr. Foust is also pointing out that the Democrats in Florida are taking advantage of McCain’s muddled and contradictory positions on NASA spending to paint McCain’s support for NASA (or lack thereof) in the worst possible light.
“John McCain considers manned space access a national security issue.”
Evidence?
Again, in the Orlando Sentinel article, McCain only said that “space access”, not “manned space access” is vital to national security.
And again, any candidate who claims that human space flight is important to national security is just demonstrating their ignorance. NASA’s human space flight programs have played no national security role (nevertheless been important to national security) since the 1980s.
“Though he has not explicitly declared what his ‘vital’ programs are”
If you admit that McCain has not made this declaration (explicitly or otherwise), then why do you insist on claiming that NASA is exempt from the budget freeze?
“And campaign officials have left me with the distinct impression”
I don’t mean to be a jerk here, but a “distinct impression” isn’t worth a hill of beans. A revised policy on the McCain campaign website, a campaign press release, and/or a transcript from a speech by McCain or his surrogate is what’s needed to clear up the campaign’s conflicted positions on NASA spending.
“and about giving NASA an additional $2B to move Orion/Ares IOC up”
McCain has only mentioned the $2B increase once, on a bus trip to Cocoa Beach back in August, and he never said that the $2 billion would go towards Ares I/Orion acceleration, only to “lessen” the gap, which can be achieved a number of different ways. See (add http://www.):
floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080818/BREAKINGNEWS/80818009
FWIW…
I have said this before, but this bears repeating. I could get excited about McCain’s impact on our national space agenda if he showed an inkling of applying “maverick” approaches or “change-oriented conservatism” to space policy. To be specific, maverick ideas would include:
* PRIZES (McCain has proposed a $300M energy prize. Why not a space prize to “shorten the gap”? Why not listen to Newt?)
* TAX CREDITS (McCain likes tax credits, such as for health insurance. How about a tax credit for investing in commercial space transportation, which would deliver national security benefits?)
* ZERO-G/ZERO-TAX (McCain likes tax incentives. This is a good idea that has been around for years. It is budget neutral, since it gives tax incentives to new industries that do not yet exist, meaning it does not increase the projected deficit.)
* FIRM-FIXED PRICE CONTRACTING — McCain is committed to applying this approach the DoD. Why not say he will take the same approach at NASA?
* SARAH PALIN AS CHAIR of National Space Council — Now this would shake things up, and make life very exciting for our national space policy.
* EXPAND COTS — One way to eliminate the “gap” is to radically expand the COTS program. You would think this would be consistent with the philosophy of a Maverick Republican.
* NEWT GINGRICH AS NASA ADMINISTRATOR — If you think Sarah Palin would scare the “big money interests”, imagine what would happen if Newt was appointed as NASA Administrator. Change really would be coming.
Unfortunately, I don’t see any indication of support for any of these maverick space policy ideas from the McCain campaign.
I asked Mr. Hillhouse to go ask some questions of the campaign on such ideas nearly two months ago. He promised to go ask. His silence indicates to me that he has not received an answer either.
FWIW,
– Al
PS — Mr. Hillhouse, before you jump in and say “Vote for McCain because he is likely to do some of the above” … please remember that we just lived through 8 years of a conservative Republican who did very little on these same issues. I had hopes in late 2000 and early 2001 … hopes that were completely misplaced. I see no reason believe that McCain will give national space policy a higher priority than the benign neglect given to it by Bush. If a Shuttle had not blown up, President Bush probably would have gone the entire 8 years without personally doing much of anything about civil or commercial space.
I’m convinced that McCain wants a strong defense. I’m convinced that getting rid of wasteful spending is a top priority to him. It seems strange that he would put so much emphasis on Ares/Orion as Jim H. suggests, when Ares/Orion seem to me to be to be irrelevant to a strong defense (the DoD didn’t even want the Titan, and doesn’t need that kind of manned program), and contrary to cutting wasteful, or at least excessive, spending.
Why would McCain let Obama beat him in the space policy area in these areas? Obama’s newer space policy document is for export control reform, operationally responsive space, space prizes and student contests, COTS, etc. These all encourage a strong defense, fiscally conservative spending, commercial space, etc – all areas that McCain should consider his. They even leave the possibility for the kind of manned suborbital and orbital space program that might be relevant to national defense. I don’t see any reason to thing Obama wouldn’t follow through on them, since they’re all cheap. Also see the suggestions from Al.
In the end, all Jim has to offer is his opinion on what his interpretation is of the McCain space policy. John McCain has not, and I seriously doubt he ever will, been specific on how to interpret his statement about a spending freeze. I suspect that he himself really doesn’t know what he’ll do yet. John shoots from the hip and is not known for long range planning. So many of his public statements fall into this category on a wide range of topics; a lot of nice, encouraging sounding generalities and very little actually specific. He is fond of saying “I know how to do thatâ€, and he has used the phrase so often that it makes one wonder why he hasn’t already “done it†(whatever “it†is) thru these 26 some odd years he has been in public service.
I’m convinced that is a deliberate campaign strategy. It allows him to actually “commit” to nothing and let folks like Jim, who honestly believe in him, offer their informed opinions without McCain actually committing to anything. It makes him look better than he really is. That way he doesn’t have to take a stand and leaves all his options open. In the end, when folks like Jim who expect him to follow thru are left disappointed, he can truthfully say “I never said thatâ€.
Take a look at his ENTIRE list of campaign pledges. Tons of generalities, but show me anything “specific”. That list is extremely small and, unfortunately, does not include NASA.
Obama, on the other hand, continues to be specific about what he will and will not do. We know where he stands, specifically. As for McCain, unfortunately all we have is Jim’s informed “opinion†based on his faith in John McCain and his interpretation of the measure of the man.
I’m not putting Jim down with this post, because he is obviously a dedicated man who is putting his money and his heart where his mouth is. Not enough people do that. In that respect I appreciate Jim and encourage others to follow his example. I would only caution him to not let his belief in McCain cloud his objectivity. Jim is certainly entitled to his opinion, but so long as it remains unsubstantiated by a corroborating specific statement from McCain, it remains just his opinion, not McCain’s intent.
CHUCK: Take a look at his ENTIRE list of campaign pledges. Tons of generalities, but show me anything “specificâ€. That list is extremely small and, unfortunately, does not include NASA.
Obama, on the other hand, continues to be specific about what he will and will not do. We know where he stands, specifically.
It is amusing to consider the complete role reversal.
During the primaries, Obama was heavily criticized for his generalities and platitudes, as compared to Senator Clinton.
FWIW, I have to think that a great deal of credit for Obama’s detailed & specific policy goes to Lori Garver. When you add up the 6-page policy document (which has many positives as summarized by Red), plus the fact that Obama acted to help NASA on INKSNA, we should all give Ms. Garver a pat on the back.
I would say the same for anybody who had a similar impact on Sen. McCain’s space policy positions.
– Al