The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

[joecct]

A New Era of Responsibility

Call me cynical, but what was submitted to Congress yesterday will bear very little resemblance to what comes out of Congress sometime after October 1, 2010 -- if anything comes out at all.

And don't think for a moment that I have a thing against the Democrats - the GOP did it too. A pox on both their parties.

However, do you think NASA's Constellation program will get resurrected? And are there any other pet projects that will be spared the butcher's knife??

This ought to be fun with an election coming with what may be a very hostile electorate. How will our Congress position themselves for the election using the budget as part of the reelection process.

Discuss.

 

[unh_hockey]

Re: The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

Is it really necessary to be spending nearly 10 times the amount on defense as any other department? There are some great initiatives by the Department of Energy, but they receive approx 40 billion whereas defense ( which actually saw a cut I believe) still gets 550 B annually. Guess it makes sense that we can't just change the status quo over night, but Obama was preaching energy independence, yet we are still going to be spending a lot of our tax dollars trying to figure how to blow **** up?

..at least they terminated the EP-X program.

(yes I am biased since DOE fundings = more business opportunity for yours truly)

 

[unofan]

Re: The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

Frankly, I blame it on the Selfish Generation(tm), otherwise known as the boomers. They hit their peak earning power in the 80's, and guess what, taxes dropped to their lowest levels in generations. Now that they're nearing/hitting retirement, they want all the entitlements they can have while making their kids pay for it.

Thanks alot, guys. Really.

(as to the actual budget, it'll never balance until taxes get raised, a sad but necessary reality - at 1.3 trillion in the hole, you could cut the entire national defense budget and all 'waste' from the social side, and still be 300-400 billion in the red).

 

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

Frankly, I blame it on the Selfish Generation(tm), otherwise known as the boomers. They hit their peak earning power in the 80's, and guess what, taxes dropped to their lowest levels in generations. Now that they're nearing/hitting retirement, they want all the entitlements they can have while making their kids pay for it.

Thanks alot, guys. Really.

(as to the actual budget, it'll never balance until taxes get raised, a sad but necessary reality - at 1.3 trillion in the hole, you could cut the entire national defense budget and all 'waste' from the social side, and still be 300-400 billion in the red).

Someone should sponsor a "voluntary transitioning" bill to encourage the boomers to off themselves and ease the financial burden they are now creating.

Read "Boomsday." good stuff.

 

[joecct]

Re: The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

OK

Raise revenue and cut expenses? But those arrows point in the wrong direction don't they?

Somebody is going to commit politcal suicide (or maybe not, given the mood of today's electorate) by telling the truth.

The budget is full of a bunch of wants, not needs. If we fund the needs (and good luck defining THAT one), and prioritize the wants then, to the extent that revenue exceeds the needs, fund the wants, we may actually be on the road to fiscal sanity.

We're not too far off from the electorate coming to DC and the state capitals with torches and pitchforks demanding change that doesn't involve the incumbent.

 

[Bill]

Re: The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

In accordance with typical government (both parties) shell game bookkeeping, the budget also conveniently leaves out $6.3 trillion in liabilities to Fannie and Freddie:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/obamas-budget-has-one-small-missing-piece-63-trillion-dollars

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

(as to the actual budget, it'll never balance until taxes get raised, a sad but necessary reality - at 1.3 trillion in the hole, you could cut the entire national defense budget and all 'waste' from the social side, and still be 300-400 billion in the red).

Historically, the gov't brings in 19% of GDP regardless of tax rates. Raising the cap gains tax has been proven to bring in less revenue. Raising income taxes will only be a temporary bump in revenue. In future years there will be less money for investment in the economy, leading to slower growth, leading to less revenue.

We were only in a $400B hole 2 years ago. The increase in the defecit is primarily due to spending. Simply cut what has been increased. There are plenty of places to cut after that.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

However, do you think NASA's Constellation program will get resurrected? And are there any other pet projects that will be spared the butcher's knife??

Wanted to chime in on this one. I break with a lot of fiscal conservatives by advocating an advanced and better funded NASA (and NOAA, for that matter). Throughout human history exploration has focused on the potential for exploitation of new resources. But today, with modern advances in technology, we can use exploration of outer space and the oceans to gain better knowledge of ourselves and our planet - while continuing to develop new and better technologies that will benefit all.

Human wanderlust and curiosity can never be fully satiated. We will always seek to go farther, to learn more. I had (and still have) high hopes in the Constellation project as the next step in both realms. A return to the moon, this time in a more permanent fashion, as a bold step moving humanity toward a more thorough exploration of our solar system.

National pride and prestige, as it always has in human exploration, plays a role as well. The Spanish and Portuguese rushed to explore what is today Latin America. The English and French rushed to explore North America. Americans and Russians raced each other into space and to the moon. Today, Red China has its sights set on its own moon landing and, eventually, moon base. While all of humanity should be welcome to explore outer space, the moon and beyond, it should be a matter of national pride that we were the first ones on the moon, and dangit, we should be the first ones back.

I have grown extremely cynical toward government in the last year. Exploration and a devotion to the physical sciences is something one would expect from a government such as this one, and yet, an exploration initiative laid out by the previous government, one from which scientific spending was NOT seen as something that was expected, is being cut amidst an environment where all of the nation's ills are being blamed on the previous government. The cynic in me can't help but feel like this has been done out of spite.

There may not be an environment where NASA funding is seen as a necessity rather than a luxury. But as the world's wealthiest nation - just as it has for other nations to hold that title throughout the ages - it is incumbent upon us to lead the next generation of exploration.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

Wanted to chime in on this one. I break with a lot of fiscal conservatives by advocating an advanced and better funded NASA (and NOAA, for that matter). Throughout human history exploration has focused on the potential for exploitation of new resources. But today, with modern advances in technology, we can use exploration of outer space and the oceans to gain better knowledge of ourselves and our planet - while continuing to develop new and better technologies that will benefit all.

Human wanderlust and curiosity can never be fully satiated. We will always seek to go farther, to learn more. I had (and still have) high hopes in the Constellation project as the next step in both realms. A return to the moon, this time in a more permanent fashion, as a bold step moving humanity toward a more thorough exploration of our solar system.

National pride and prestige, as it always has in human exploration, plays a role as well. The Spanish and Portuguese rushed to explore what is today Latin America. The English and French rushed to explore North America. Americans and Russians raced each other into space and to the moon. Today, Red China has its sights set on its own moon landing and, eventually, moon base. While all of humanity should be welcome to explore outer space, the moon and beyond, it should be a matter of national pride that we were the first ones on the moon, and dangit, we should be the first ones back.

...

There may not be an environment where NASA funding is seen as a necessity rather than a luxury. But as the world's wealthiest nation - just as it has for other nations to hold that title throughout the ages - it is incumbent upon us to lead the next generation of exploration.

Great post.

I view NASA and space exploration as categorically above politics. I could not care less what country leads the charge, but we're in a position right now to get it done. In 50 years it might be a resurgent EU or Japan or maybe Always the Bridesmaid China will finally get their act together, but I won't be here to enjoy it. Push the frontier forward and get a few colonies off this rock before we destroy it -- it's a species imperative well beyond anything else.

 

[blockski]

Re: The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

Great post.

I view NASA and space exploration as categorically above politics. I could not care less what country leads the charge, but we're in a position right now to get it done. In 50 years it might be a resurgent EU or Japan or maybe Always the Bridesmaid China will finally get their act together, but I won't be here to enjoy it. Push the frontier forward and get a few colonies off this rock before we destroy it -- it's a species imperative well beyond anything else.

Thirded.

I'd also add that funding for NASA may seem like a lot of money when looking at the raw number, but when you put it in the pie chart of the overall budget, it's not all that much.

Furthermore, it's not like we're just spending that money for the sake of spending it and going places - the spinoff technologies from the Moon missions alone have had a tremendous impact on our economy, and I'm not just talking about Tang or Velcro here.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

Thirded.

I'd also add that funding for NASA may seem like a lot of money when looking at the raw number, but when you put it in the pie chart of the overall budget, it's not all that much.

Furthermore, it's not like we're just spending that money for the sake of spending it and going places - the spinoff technologies from the Moon missions alone have had a tremendous impact on our economy, and I'm not just talking about Tang or Velcro here.

As someone who works in aerospace/defense and a huge proponent of scientific research, I actually disagree on this. There was a time when space and defense drove technology, but that time has long passed. The design cycle of an airplane or rocket is 5-10 years. In that time, 5 generations of computer chips will have come and gone due to consumer demand. The question that thousands of NASA engineers would have spent killing themselves over for Constellation wouldn't have been, "what new technologies can I develop that will enable us to get to the moon?" It would have been, "how can we get to the moon using a bunch of commercially available stuff so we can avoid developing anything new if at all possible?" After the Space Shuttle accidents, NASA is so risk averse that I wouldn't expect to see much/anything new out of them for years to come.

There are hundreds of places where research dollars are better spent than building upgraded life support systems for humans in space. What money we devote to space should go toward unmanned projects, which provide 80% of the benefit for 20% of the cost - classic Pareto. That's where the money SHOULD be going in this kind of budget environment.

And forget colonization. No matter how badly we screw up the Earth, that will always be a better starting point for supporting human civilization than any other desolate rock in our solar system (with good reason - we evolved HERE). The future of the human race will not be secured through space exploration - it will be secured by preserving the one working planet we already have.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

Furthermore, it's not like we're just spending that money for the sake of spending it and going places - the spinoff technologies from the Moon missions alone have had a tremendous impact on our economy, and I'm not just talking about Tang or Velcro here.

I'm torn about funding NASA going forward. It is a false assumption that it was worth it because of the spinoffs. Most of that technology would have found it way to market with or without NASA. Give the free market the money that was spent on NASA at that time and they likely would have come up with even more. Also, Tang and Velcro were already on the market prior to NASA.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

No matter how badly we screw up the Earth, that will always be a better starting point for supporting human civilization than any other desolate rock in our solar system (with good reason - we evolved HERE). The future of the human race will not be secured through space exploration - it will be secured by preserving the one working planet we already have.

Can't we have both?

For that matter, aren't they mutually reinforcing values? Cooperation here on earth leads to more effective international efforts in all science. A race for resources off-planet eliminates the zero sum game of having to steal your neighbor's stuff when you run out. Not to mention that travel broadens the mind, and the further we push our borders out the more all the barriers there are between peoples will seem archaic and parochial.

It is not an either/or.

Interesting graph on where outlays are trending. It's a lot less "oo-rah" than "say aaah."

 

[joecct]

Re: The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

Great post.

I view NASA and space exploration as categorically above politics. I could not care less what country leads the charge, but we're in a position right now to get it done. In 50 years it might be a resurgent EU or Japan or maybe Always the Bridesmaid China will finally get their act together, but I won't be here to enjoy it. Push the frontier forward and get a few colonies off this rock before we destroy it -- it's a species imperative well beyond anything else.

So will we be Spain to China's England when it comes to space exploration??? That scares me.

 

[unofan]

Re: The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

Historically, the gov't brings in 19% of GDP regardless of tax rates. Raising the cap gains tax has been proven to bring in less revenue. Raising income taxes will only be a temporary bump in revenue. In future years there will be less money for investment in the economy, leading to slower growth, leading to less revenue.

We were only in a $400B hole 2 years ago. The increase in the defecit is primarily due to spending. Simply cut what has been increased. There are plenty of places to cut after that.

Ok, show me where to cut 1.3 trillion from the federal budget. The discretioanry budget itself is only something like 900 billion, so by all means, show me how we can get out of this without raising taxes.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

Ok, show me where to cut 1.3 trillion from the federal budget. The discretioanry budget itself is only something like 900 billion, so by all means, show me how we can get out of this without raising taxes.

Alright, here is a start:

Roll back all spending increases from the past two years. Put the $500B that is left to spend on the stimulus towards paying down the debt. Get rid of the Dept of Education, Dept of Health and Human Services and the Dept of Energy. Start raising the age to receive Social Security to bring it back in line with life expectancy increases since the program was instituted. Let young people (under 35) opt out of SS. Let people between 35 and 50 start putting a portion of their SS into a private account. Institute the Fair Tax allowing the IRS to be gutted. Cut the pay of everyone in congress in half and tie future increases to private sector GDP growth.

and there are plenty more ways.

Now, tell me how you are going to increase taxes $1.3T/yr without wrecking the economy.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

So will we be Spain to China's England when it comes to space exploration??? That scares me.

From a species perspective, what matters is getting to the New World and discovering chocolate.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

Can't we have both?

For that matter, aren't they mutually reinforcing values? Cooperation here on earth leads to more effective international efforts in all science. A race for resources off-planet eliminates the zero sum game of having to steal your neighbor's stuff when you run out. Not to mention that travel broadens the mind, and the further we push our borders out the more all the barriers there are between peoples will seem archaic and parochial.

It is not an either/or.

Perhaps not. My mind boggles that there might be some resource out there that is so valuable it's worth going to get it and bring it back to earth. It costs upwards of $10k per pound just to get something into orbit, so unless we're going to be bringing back solid gold, forget it.

If the end game is to foster understanding, I think we could cut out the middle man of space exploration and just buy some plane tickets to go visit the people we want to understand better. Relying on space exploration to accomplish that seems a little like a bit of DNA saying, "I think I'll copy myself by first building an elephant."

 

[NMU8405]

Re: The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

As someone who works in aerospace/defense and a huge proponent of scientific research, I actually disagree on this. There was a time when space and defense drove technology, but that time has long passed. The design cycle of an airplane or rocket is 5-10 years. In that time, 5 generations of computer chips will have come and gone due to consumer demand. The question that thousands of NASA engineers would have spent killing themselves over for Constellation wouldn't have been, "what new technologies can I develop that will enable us to get to the moon?" It would have been, "how can we get to the moon using a bunch of commercially available stuff so we can avoid developing anything new if at all possible?" After the Space Shuttle accidents, NASA is so risk averse that I wouldn't expect to see much/anything new out of them for years to come.

There are hundreds of places where research dollars are better spent than building upgraded life support systems for humans in space. What money we devote to space should go toward unmanned projects, which provide 80% of the benefit for 20% of the cost - classic Pareto. That's where the money SHOULD be going in this kind of budget environment.

And forget colonization. No matter how badly we screw up the Earth, that will always be a better starting point for supporting human civilization than any other desolate rock in our solar system (with good reason - we evolved HERE). The future of the human race will not be secured through space exploration - it will be secured by preserving the one working planet we already have.

The idea of expanding our species through space is a little far fetched, at the moment. Even if we wanted to live elsewhere, besides Earth, it would take thousands of years. Yes, debatable, but its my opnion. Exploration has always been the fuel for driving humanity forward. And with that has come research, and the creation of countless new inventions that have furthered our society and the human race for the better. One thing that sets America apart from other nations is our advance knowledge of science. Sadly, that is falling fast. I dont want to go on a mini rant so I'll cut this off now by saying that if we were to land on Mars, we could be the first race in the entire Universe, in all ~14 billion years to leave one planet and step foot on another. That just blows my mind, and is something I think we should be going for.

 

[RITProf]

Re: The 2011 Budget of the United State - Alice, you're not going to the moon!

Perhaps not. My mind boggles that there might be some resource out there that is so valuable it's worth going to get it and bring it back to earth. It costs upwards of $10k per pound just to get something into orbit, so unless we're going to be bringing back solid gold, forget it.

If the end game is to foster understanding, I think we could cut out the middle man of space exploration and just buy some plane tickets to go visit the people we want to understand better. Relying on space exploration to accomplish that seems a little like a bit of DNA saying, "I think I'll copy myself by first building an elephant."

Even solid gold wouldn't be close to worth it. Think of the costs of mining and refining it in space. It wouldn't just be sitting there as bullion.

I have to agree with LynahFan on this one, and earlier posts. While the NASA budget isn't huge overall and there are plenty of other places to also cut, that money could be put to far more efficient research uses here on earth. The scientific value of space exploration can be achieved without the costs of taking humans along for the ride.