Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I couldn’t agree more, Beau. We are looking at something like a 250 to 750 billion by 2020 if we go ahead with this. A few billion for planning and designing and design testing via computer emulation, OK. International effort with our share down around 100 billion by 2020, perhaps.

But this vote pandering spending addict we have for a President just has to go it alone so he can put his name on it, all by itself. I’m sorry, ain’t gonna buy it. The man has absolutely no sense of what it is American people need. He sure knows what they want though to rake them votes in. His legacy when the bill comes due is going to be one of the worst since Nixon. And at least Nixon had China to his credit.

Maybe the Dems can retaliate by offering some other attractive proposals with a ridiculously low cost estimate. “The President says he’ll take you to Mars for a billion dollars. Gimme another billion and I’ll provide universal healthcare!”

The statistics:
The Budget Shortfall for 2004: 480 billion
The Current NASA Budget: 14.5 Billion
The Current NASA Budget increase: 1 billion
Pork Barrel Outlays in last Omnibus Spending bill: 23 billion.
Cost of latest budget Supplemental to cover Iraq: 87.5 billion.

NASA spending is the least of your problems, and one of the least effective ways to curb spending overall. People aren’t overspending on science, they’re overspending on the military, they’re overspending on pork-barrel projects, and they are giving people tax cuts that are going to rebound on the tax payer by increasing the amount of money (already around 300 billion) that we have to shell out in order to pay down our debts.

If I were to be cynical about this, this is Bush trying to steal our lead on Science and Technology issues. Look, he’s making no goals that he’ll really be around to have to see through. He’ll be out of office before we get to the Moon much less Mars.

What he wants, with that theory in mind, is Democrats opposing the fulfillment of a cultural dream. He wants Democrats standing over the cradle, trying to smother another piece of the American Dream.

What we liberals should do is take this issue from him, and run with it. It should be a Democratic president who lands America on the moon again. It should be the heirs of JFK, not those of Nixon, who go back. Let this be Dubya’s one good idea.

Why? Because we have much les of a base of support if education is not a culturally encouraged enterprise. If the American dream is just the consumer fantasy of the last fifty years, well then, of course Republicans will have the lead. But if the that dream is one that ties into the greater dream of the last 200 years, the dream of ever-expanding frontiers, then our investment in NASA as a program will be an investment in our own political destinies.

We can’t be a party of wet blankets all the time. Let America have a new adventure.

Stephen
Obviously the Dreamer in Chief is not intending to carry out this program but he does intend to get the votes of people who want a dream. The one billion down payment is minor, I want the Moon and Mars as badly as anyone but first we need to solve our problems here on earth. This is a phantom program and deserves to be ignored to death until after the election. Then it will be tabled along with his fifteen billion for Aids if he is reelected. If he is not it will be moot.

Between Social Security, Medicare and the Defense Department, whose name should be changed back to the War Department, we need to take care of our spending problem. We also need to rebuild our tax revenues to match our expenditures. Using a vision abandoned by Nixon in the seventies to garner votes is typical of this Administration. When the tax reductions and misuse of the Social Security Funds started in Nixon’s Administration, in order to pay for Vietnam, the whole issue of funding a real space program began to be a problem.

It would take around a trillion in current dollars to accomplish the goals set by this fellow. Unfortunately the dollar will keep shrinking as long as we are running both trade deficits and Federal Budget deficits of half a trillion each. By the time we actually are spending the real money, after Shrub is long out of office, the old buck might be worth one forth of what it is worth today. With the Social Security Deficits getting ever closer, funding the real project is unlikely to happen.
Henri

First, we’ll never get our affairs in that straight of an order. We’re human, and that means there will always be something nagging at us. The Apollo program was announced, planned, and executed during the heart of the cold war. The missions themselves parallel the most intense years of the war in Vietnam- 1968-1972.

I think to say we have to wait until things are perfect to do this, is to be unrealistic. We said “no more moon until we can afford it” over thirty years ago, and so far, perfect circumstances have evaded us. I fear they would still evade us if even if we waited another three decades, praying and hoping for the best.

When Kennedy announced the program, he did not mince words. He said it would be expensive, and it would be difficult. And it was. But for that expense, America did something no other nation has ever done before, or done since.

We don’t need to be doing this because new missions to the Moon or the first missions to Mars will we be easy. We need to do them now, because they will be difficult, and they won’t get any easier while we’re putting it off.

Space exploration will never be a risk-free enterprise. But it could be glorious. Everywhere we have looked in this solar system, we have been surprised at what we’ve seen. Voyager should be proof enough of that. What the Mars Orbiters and the venus probe Magellan have shown of those planets also beggars the imagination. What we will learn on those expeditions may very well revolutionize our understanding of the Solar System and Universe around us.

I posted the numbers on my last post because they indicated two things: NASA’s budget increases are moderate in comparison with the current budget abuses, and there are more worthy targets of fiscal disciplinary action.

I also wanted to make a point about the psycho-social impact that a return to the moon might gain. I mean, I think a major problem with relating to the Republican’s nowadays is that they live with a pre-space age appreciation of the world, one in which there’s always another place to dump, more atmosphere to absorb the pollution. It will become much harder to convince people of that, when they see crystal clear pictures of our small, lonely world, broadcast on HDTVs, for all to see, the Pale Blue gem of a world, gleaming in the dark night.

As for the almighty Shrub’s level of interest or disinterest, let’s see how long he can bluff the public about this program if the Democrats embrace it whole heartedly. If his enthusiasm has to match theirs, I’m sure he’ll not dare to promise such a thing like this in vain. And consequently, we’ll get something useful, out of an otherwise useless president.

Stephen:

Your comments are interesting. I’m not sure what benefit the entire NASA space program really gives us. To be sure, there have been a number of discoveries and innovations that have resulted from space exploration, but could they have been uncovered in a different and less costly fashion—-perhaps.

I do like that Bush has essentially tasked NASA with the need to revamp and restructure themselves. IFFF they can do this, then this effort can move forward. If not, then it dies a long slow death without any great expense.

Also, I think it is a brilliant political stroke by the Republicans to toss this into the mix. It brings the potential of excitement, just as it did with Kennedy, but it also appeases the fiscal conservatives. Should we move forward on it??? I dont know, but from a political standpoint, the Republicans will benefit from this.