Comments on: Comparing the two authorization bills

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 20:13:30 +0000

Assigning responsibility to SMD to save the Earth is not that smart.

Assigning it to NASA at all is not that smart.

By: vulture4

vulture4 — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 19:52:22 +0000

Everyone has programs they view as worthless and wonders why the money can’t simply be transferred to programs they support with no increase in taxes. But in reality expenditure of tax dollars competes against the tax cuts that would result if it were cut. The only way you can pay for increasing the budget of a discretionary program like NASA is to convince the public it is worth the tax increase needed to pay for it.

By: Hiram

Hiram — Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:35:44 +0000

Mr. Brooks comments were pretty stunning. He berates his minority colleagues,”my friends across the aisle”, insisting that although their proposed budget bump-up is desirable, “the minority does not come up with a way to pay for it”. The way you pay for it, in fact, is for Appropriators to make some hard choices about how do distribute their budget allocation. The purpose of an Authorization effort is to establish what agency activities are deserving. The Appropriators role, on the other hand, is to decide what’s affordable. Brooks is essentially arguing that (as Ranking Member Edwards notes) the job losses that will be levied on his district are deserved.

NASA is less than 0.5% of the federal budget, and the increase proposed by the amendment was a tiny fraction of that. In that context, Brooks is just grandstanding about “welfare and giveaway programs” (which I have to assume, in his comments, is not referring to NASA aerospace contracts).

At least he admits that the financial responsibility in the last decade or two was by both parties.

His comments were really pretty ugly for a historically bipartisan committee, the final vote notwithstanding. As you say, a new low for this group.

By: Stephen C. Smith

Stephen C. Smith — Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:08:41 +0000

I posted yesterday’s House Space Subcommittee hearing on YouTube. It’s at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjQt602aGTw

I recommend hand sanitizer. A new low for this group. And that says a lot.

By: Robert G Oler

Robert G Oler — Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:40:43 +0000

“pro NASA” and that means what? Just shovel money? “Pro” any agency in GOP speak is simply code for shovel money without much caring for results. You are a big government toady RGO

By: Neil Shipley

Neil Shipley — Thu, 11 Jul 2013 01:04:43 +0000

Yes the Dem’ bill is not great for getting the best deal out of Commercial Crew for taxpayers. Ommission of optional milestones is an obvious ‘fail’. These are real ‘value add’ items.
I might be reading things into this that aren’t there but this just has the taste of another pork arrangement coming. Hopefully I’m wrong.
Also very curious the way this reads in trying to get SAA outcomes from a FAR contract.

By: Aberwys

Aberwys — Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:24:25 +0000

So, why shoukd we go to Mars vs Europa? Isn’t there enough evidence that there is no life there?

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Wed, 10 Jul 2013 20:18:38 +0000

It’s red pencil time for Project Muddlethrough.

By: sftommy

sftommy — Wed, 10 Jul 2013 19:44:36 +0000

$16.8B all around??? = NO COMMITTMENT !

GOP has no commitment to SLS beyond the campaign contributions they can garner from the big corporate guys. All that $$$, hoping for two flights in 10 years, hopefully before GOP itself cancels it as too expensive?

The cost of GOP tax breaks to the wealthy? NASA on the ground churning out bonuses, stock dividends, and campaign contributions from and for the wealthy. Wouldn’t even get the $16.8B out of GOP except for that.

By: A M Swallow

A M Swallow — Wed, 10 Jul 2013 18:17:42 +0000

It is worse than that. The House GOP SLS is $165.8M than the Dem (SLS + Ground) total.