“The US government, all of government needs fiscal reform. That means a reduction in jobs.”

I’m all for increasing government efficiency, but hacking jobs for the sake of hacking jobs, and not changing the work load, fails. It’s the most ignorant thing to do. If you want to change the number of people needed for a job, then address the requirements and efficiency of the task.

And since the job of the government is to serve it’s citizens, blindly removing the ability to serve the needs of it’s only customer is not the best way to do that.

Put in context with this blog topic, not serving the needs of the commercial sector is going to make America weaker and less competitive around the world. Is that what you advocate for?

If Congress doesn’t want to pay to regulate the commercial space industry, then they should remove all need to regulate it. Allow the industry to self-regulate themselves. There’s good and bad in that of course, and Congress is unlikely to do that, but they can’t have it both ways.

That was an easy call. The $85B sequester was about money that would be expended on jobs. $85B (sequester)/$60,000 (mean salary) ~ 1.5 million. BTW, it was the non-partisan CBO that came to that conclusion. “Most Democrats” and Boehner just repeated that conclusion. That probably happened. As you say, the federal bureaucracy preserved itself. But no one was misled. Do you even read what you write?

As in “jobs lost” does not equal “federal jobs lost”, and no one ever said it did. But the dream of much of the GOP, that the sequester would result in the loss of 1.5 million FEDERAL jobs, was quashed. They lost. Get over it.

“Yesterday, a GAO report claimed that in reality a single federal job was lost.”

Well duh. But you are looking at the wrong metric, and really the only metric that matters – if the government can’t function to service business and citizens, then it is failing, regardless what political machinations are causing the failings.

In this case if FAA/AST is not properly funded then U.S. businesses are affected. Apparently from a political standpoint you think that’s good, but then again you’ve never seemed to be very pro-businesss anyways.

I’d say as more and more activity is being done in space, that the agencies budget should indexed to that activity in some way.