Slashdot Mirror
Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary
colonist writes "A House appropriations subcommittee voted to cut NASA's budget request by 7 percent on the 35th anniversary of Neil Armstrong's first steps on the Moon. The panel also cut environment and science programs, but increased funding for veterans' affairs. NASA would get $15.1 billion next year, $229 million below this year and $1.1 billion below the President's request. Most of the cuts are on new initiatives. The subcommittee is the first step of a long budget process and major changes to the bill are expected."
Sorry
Face it, during an election cycle, lawmakers would rather be percieved as budget-minded tax cutters than bold visionaries. If any major funding for NASA is to come, it will have to be shortly after the election, when a president is in a better position to advocate major change.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
This is messed up. So we are reducing the cost of something that might explain the Universe and instead throwing money away on lobbying so two people of the same sex cannot get married..
Sorry, but that is fucked up. I know gay marriage and the sciences don't exact relate but that just shows you how our garbage political officials spend money on shit that doesn't even matter and is not even going to explain our fucking universe.
As George Carlin said about political officials "Garbage In = Garbage Out"
Well when taxes are lower, spending has to be cut somewhere. Many programs want more money, many people want more programs, many people (and corporations) want less taxes (there was a story in today's Chicago Trib about some new super-corporate-freeforall-taxloophole bill today, kinda disheartening, our government is 0wn3d).
Like the MS Word issue, where people with unrealistic demands drive software bloat, the unrealistic demands of people drive deficit spending.
And we elect the nice members of Congress to balance these needs. Better them than me.
Sympathy: Dogbert says that if you want to get more funding, you should have your funding publicly slashed and burned for about a year. The sympathy you get will cause your funding increases to double in the next year, and the year after that. Part of the problem with getting new funding is that the old funding can be perceived as too fat if it hasn't been cut recently. Having funding cut will help obfuscate your motives for even more padding in the years to come.
Are you actually implying that supporters wanted the funding cut, so as to increase it in the future?
Government funding doesn't work like that. On the contrary, if you don't use up all your funding, the likelihood of it going up is nil.
If NASA can meet the new budget, Congress says, "See? That's all you need. That's what you get next year."
If NASA underruns, Congress says, "See? You've made improvements. You don't even need THAT much!"
The reality of the situation is that you need to use all your funding / even run over a little bit to justify "getting more" in the next round of appropriations.
sorry I support NASA to the end,
but they waste a lot of money, and i dont mean the "toilets, or wrenches" garbage.
I mean they are a large organization and its a government entity, they waste tons of money in managers talking to each other.
I think every government budget should be slashed, from schools to police. FORCE them to be efficient.
I doubt the US would have put men on the moon, if they were not scared to death that the russians would get there first. I saw an interview with Buzz Aldrin last night, where he pretty well said as much, saying that this was an element of the cold war that they had won. How sad. And once this was accomplished, the budget was cut, despite the fact they had the Saturn V's in mass production at the time, and could have finished the planned missions for a relatively small cost. The NRE was over, and next Apollo rocket and crew was primed and ready to go. Go watch "2001 a space odyssey" (released in 1970) to see where it was widely thought we should have been by 2001.
Setting foot on another world was THE #1 defining moment of human civilization. 10,000 years from now, when we are hopefully spread across the galaxy, what historial event will stand out? A revolution in country X, a war in country Y? The raize and fall of empire Z? No, it will be the first steps off our home planet.
I can only hope in the next few years China makes a dash for Mars, and the west feels a need to upstage them. We should have been there by now.
My rights don't need management.
Let's face it, the American people (on average, not your typical US Slashdot reader - I hope) just do NOT get the fact that you have to HAVE money to SPEND money. Apparently being suckled on credit cards has removed that concept from peoples' minds.
With Bush's multiple rounds of slashing taxes, that means we have LESS to spend. We've got record budget deficits and we have to cut spending correspondingly. Period.
So if you like deep tax cuts, quit whining about budget cuts. This is what the results are - the government HAS to spend less or we're simply pissing in our own well.
Whine all you want about "But they could just cut (Program-I-Don't-Care-About) instead!" The problem is that every other program has their own segment of the population screaming about the exact same thing.
Maybe some nation that understands the concept of debit/credit ledgers can get to Mars instead, and send us a postcard.
Sad.
The 'space program' needs a complete re-think.
Surely some focus and purpose could be brought to the opportunity presented by all that money and 40 YEARS NEWER technology by some new people.
Time for less bureaucracy and more entrepreneureal risk-taking. How incredibly gutsy was it to go to the moon riding on 1960's technology? NASA has done nothing like it since.
I think that Congress has the impression that more research should be done by the private sector. I tend to lean toward Libertarian values, but I can see how funding NASA helps us all.
After all, NASA doesn't need to turn a profit on its research. When the private sector pumps billions of dollars into something it's expecting to get billions in return. So why search for things that (seemingly) won't turn a profit right away.
NASA has benefitted this country so much its sad to see Congress shoving it aside. I guess they're hoping to offshore NASA.
we will not make it to mars or back to the moon. I really think that the next time an American steps on another planet it will be a private effort or as a passenger on another countries missions.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Oh, boy. I just know I'm going to get killed here, but in IMHO Nasa has done more to harm space development in the US than anyone else. For decades, they went way out of their way to thwart private space ventures, and frankly, they invested in a lot of of programs that had awfull returns for the money. Do I even need to mention the two downed space shuttles, the hubble mirror, or the the ft vs meter fiasco for the mars mission? IMHO, if you love space, you should hate NASA and all the godawfull bureauocracy that has come with it. They're presence just keeps something better from replacing them.
Funny; I'd rather scrap the Man on Mars mission and spend the money on science (as opposed to engineering.)
Not that a man (or woman) on Mars wouldn't be unbearably cool, and certainly capable of doing some great science (a human could walk from crater to crater in hours, not months), but the cost is astronomical (pardon the pun). We put two rovers on Mars for less than a hundred million; people on Mars would cost tens of billions.
Of course if they were talking about sending _me_ to Mars I'd feel differently; I'd love to go. But I don't get real vicarious thrills watching somebody else go, so I'd rather spend the money more carefully.
Forty years ago, we looked to the stars and put flags on the moon.
Now we spend all our time worrying about countries that tend to put the moon and stars on their flags.
"Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
In order to pay for Bush's deficits over the past 4 years, NASA would have to have its budget COMPLETELY taken away for about the next 50 years.
So enjoy those tax rebate cheques folks, the money had to come from somewhere.
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
According to the national debt clock, the U.S. is $7.2 trillion in debt. Even if you ignore the gov't-purchased "IOU" bonds, we're just about half that in debt. And of course, the entire Social Security system is running headlong into disaster. More budget cuts, please. Cut everybody. Defense, Space, Research, Healthcare, Retirement Benefits, Student Funding, Habitat Development, etc. We can't afford this any more. And to everyone here crying about these cuts: you are the problem.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -Voltaire
Your correct, I imagine that Steve Ballmer or his one of his children could be the first person to walk on mars. Privatize the mission so the taxpayers don't wring their hands worrying.
Now reality sets in. All the talk and good publicity is over. The media has moved on to newer "news" like Jenna Bush sticking her tongue out at reporters and the latest Hollywood romances that has the people back to their glazed over state. Congress gets the job of deciding how to make up for the hundreds of billions we've spent on Iraq and anti-terror efforts and doesn't really have many options for cutting the budget at this point. So NASA gets hung out to dry once more, and Bush suffers little (if any) bad press. After all, he didn't cut the budget!
God...I hate politicians so much. And not just one party either. They'll all say anything to get re-elected.
-Shadow
This is just the first of the hard cuts that will have to happen to have social security for the baby boomers as they start to retire.
.12 = 3% of your income) is being used for general spending -- it is a effectly an extra tax people under 80K are paying that those who are making millions don't. If we wanted to "shore-up" social security, we should stop using this money to pay the national debt; and start investing it.
Saying that we have to cut NASA funding to fund baby boomers is pure nonsense. The difference between what the boomers will need (in the trillions of dollars) is far far less than the NASA budget). Now... if you want to cut the military, you could make some headroom. But you mentioned social security; so,
Right now the social security "surplus" (about 25% of your payroll taxes, or 25% *
Where to invest billions of dollars? I'll tell you. In education, especially healthcare and initiatives for keeping care of retires. Why?
Well, its simple economics. In another 10-20 years the demand for retirement services (esp. nurses and doctors who specialize in geriatrics) will be fixed -- determined by the increasing retirement age. At that time, the supply will also be fixed, since it takes several years to "learn" someone a nursing degree (from High school all the way through). So, the price will be fixed, and we will have to raise taxes to cover that price. If we work hard at increasing the supply of services now (since they take many years to build-up), we will still pay a price, but a lower price, and hence we won't have to raise taxes as much. Further, if the money is used for general education, the average american will have more skills, and will need less time (due to productivity) to cover the needs of their parents and grandparents.
In short, we should not be using this 3% tax to pay for revenue lost from the estate tax and lower capital gains. We should be investing this 3% into education for the next generations of Americans. Education is the answer, and one frequently overlooked.
We also have a deficit that is rapidly shrinking as the economy wakes up as a result of the tax cuts.
Just like under Kennedy, Reagan, and now Bush tax cuts lead to increased government revenue within 2 years.
The problem I have with Bush is that he won't VETO anything! He spends just like the worst of the liberals he claims are bad.
Oh, our deficits are not record, especially when compared to the GDP.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Hear hear! Drinkypoo's comment has merit.
And now for a few hundred words to soak the brains of those who like to read.
There are ways things are done in order to make people in power look good no matter what the outcome is. Politics is a team sport in a government controlled by a majority party. In an election year, this more than most, we sometimes don't just see the puppets, but the hairy-wrists and the odd hand controlling some sticks. Sometimes we as an audience are less tolerant of the hijinks. In this instance, checks and balances make for the perfect way to duck and run, a necessary part of talking up something for the kids, while still keeping the peace.
A "War" president isn't necessarily a "space" president. It's nice to evoke two cars in every garage, cheap clean power, a trip to mars, and dead terrorists in every evil country around the world. It makes the press happy to posit more WhiteHouse newscrack, and for the President to record a prepared statement. It's all just part of being in office. I heard the "Mars Initiative" statement and watched the nifty presentation NASA made to go along with it (chicken/egg/whatever). This is something a U.S. President is supposed to do. And for those who must ask why, it's simply a bone to throw the education system, something gradeschool teachers can have kids write about, something science teachers can form a lesson plan on, and something NASA can do to justify their role/budget as a vector for science and engineering in education.
The reality of what our government does is veiled behind bought-and-sold opinion, consented to by businesses that control just about every high-visibility "free" vector short of the local "free as in beer" paper that's printed every week and dropped wholesale in convienience stores and on street-corners. Citizen-criminals in this land of the free-to-shop are encouraged to simply pay attention to the news that's been made for them and to play with their toys, watch their tv-shows, and don't talk back to authority. In our government, the gloves are always on, unless a certain acerbic Vice President gets snippy.
Apparently a moderator was offended that someone would drop so blatant a comment which succinctly approximated the situation.
"Getting those who tell it like it is won't make the problem go away."
-Jello Biafra
What makes the idea that the President (regardless of political affiliation) would do this seem so repellent? This is business-as-usual. It's very insightful for someone to see through the "BS" and say something all the adults in the room know to be true. The parent of this thread isn't a troll or flamebait. It's a pithy statement that is self-evident truth.
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
Yes, NASA cancelled the remaining Apollo missions, but I think it's only fair to point out that the cancellation was mainly the result of Congress reducing the FY1971 NASA appropriation. Without the budgetary issue, Apollo 18,19, and 20 would almost certainly have flown.
NASA's main problem now is the same as it's been for many, many years. Support for the space program is "a mile wide and an inch deep". Most people are in favor of having a space program, but few ever let their representatives in Congress know.
Look at what we did with the technology of the 1960's. Can you imagine what we could do our current level of technology??? It would be astounding, if only the funding was available.
Mods: I shoulda used Preview. My bad, mod my other post down if you want. Here's an eaiser-to-read version of my comment:
Wow, your post was loaded with all kinds of flamebait and trolling, but I actually hope you don't get modded down, because I sincerely believe that you believe what you're saying. As scary as that is, I'll respond to it anyway, just to see if I can open your eyes even just a little.
Yes if you as a person did not save enough during your lifetime to take care of yourself, then the rest of America should not have to flip the bill for you.
How about if someone develops Alzheimers at age 60? That's not really their fault, but should they have been saving like crazy in their younger years, just in case they developed a disease which would eventually require round-the-clock personal homecare?
What about someone who develops diabetes at age 50 because of their genes? What if someone develops it at age 45 because of their poor diet? What if someone gets hit by a bus at age 40, and needs prescription painkillers for the rest of their life?
What about people who develop mental illnesses such as manic depression or anxiety? What about erectile dysfunction? Birth control? Where do we draw the line? To me, clearly the people near the beginning of this rant deserve help through public funding, particularly when they suffer a catastrophic illness or accident that is not their fault. However, it is equally clear to me that I as a taxpayer should not be paying for Grampy's Viagra. You, moreover, appear to believe that no tax dollars should go towards any of these examples, and in that case, all I have to say about that is "Thank the Good Lord that you're not in charge." That's not a country I'd want to live in.
So when the people that are say in their 30's now get to be 65, (me) they will have to be RESPONSIBLE enough to put money away.
No matter how "responsible" a person is, they can't possibly save up enough to live out 25-or-so "twilight" years while paying $1200/day for personal homecare due to a catastrophic illness. The number one cause of bankruptcies in the United States is unexpected catastrophic illness.
Let me ask you this. If you are under the age of 40 and the government offered to lower your taxes by say 15-20%, but you would not be eligable for any social programs later in life, would you take it?
Now that is an extremely dangerous option to give people. The vast majority of people would say "yes," and they'd take it, then they'd not change a damn thing about their lives. They'd take that extra money and spend it. And when the time came that they needed social assistances and medical care, and they didn't have the money, they'd hold their dying hands out, and coldblooded beancounters like you would slap them away and say "tough cookies!" You'd probably smugly pat yourself on the back while you were at it, for being such a good planner and putting away a few thousand bucks yourself, when in reality, all you've done is simply been fortunate enough not (yet) to suffer the same expensive illnesses as those who you snub your noses at.
Given the choice, those people would take the extra cash, and they'd still need help when they got old. If people like you were in charge, and turned them away, or told them, "well, Sicky, I guess you should've saved that money instead of blowing it on rent and groceries, Hmmmmmmmm????" While your smug dismissal may in fact have a grain of truth to it, it doesn't change the fact that at that moment, it would be too late for that person to go back in time and make different decisions, and they still need help now. What do you propose be done? Let them die on the streets because they didn't plan as well as you?
Again, I repeat: That's not a country I want to live in.
Thankfully, I'm in Canada. Most people up here are far, far too civilized to even consider such a barbaric
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
The reality of the situation is that you need to use all your funding / even run over a little bit to justify "getting more" in the next round of appropriations.
And that is why there will never be a balanced budget until govenment departments are rewarded for saving money. It was actually proposed somewhere that promising to give just a bit of the saved money as a bonus to employees in a federal department that went under budget could help quickly eliminate deficits.
LAF. Ok, so let me get this straight. We need nuclear missiles, nuclear submarines, a missile shield, and 7 carrier groups to fight people who live among us, hiding in our cities, plotting to destroy things with box cutters; and their colleages who live in caves in the hundreds, and train with hand-held poorly maintained 1970s Soviet equipment; and their financiers who invest in the Carlyle group? Wait, we're supposed to ignore that last group...
Seriously, though: please tell me you're kidding. And if you're not, what has happened to global terrorism since we launched our "war on terror"? And, furthermore, what percent of our troops and eq. did we send to Afghanistan?
Iraq was a real military operation. Afghanistan, even with as broad of a scope as we gave it, could have been accomplished by a military 1/5th our size.
Windmills do not work that way!
But we should spend the most on today, some on tomorrow, and a bit on years from now.
If this is the way humans habitually thought we would still be hunter gatherers. The great thing about space exploration is that the technology we create to get us there sticks around forever once it's invented. Just think about it this way. If you can spend $100 today to invent a technology that will generate you $100,000,000 tomorrow, are you going to really bitch about losing a C note?
The riches that space has to offer are vast beyond all belief. A single iron asteroid could contain more raw material than we can dig up in decades. The output of the sun in any given hour dumps out more energy than the entire human race has ever used up in it's 3 million year history; in a given month more energy than can EVER exist on the planet without the help of anti-matter.
The day that we harness space completely for our own benifit is the day that the entire planet will come as close to utopia as can possibly be realisticlly imagined.
With a nearly infinite amout of energy and raw material available, the entire concept of starvation and poverty will have to be redefined globally. Scarcity will have a new meaning, turning our economy from an exploitive neccessary evil into a wonderland.
We can sit here and focus on the poor, the opressed and teh downtrodden today, and tomorrow, and every day for the next 4000 years... Or we could spend thirty years redefining our destiny and ending up in a candyland world where starving means waiting an extra ten minutes for the all you can eat buffet.