backtop

Blog: Science Senators Obama, McCain Battle Over NASA Funding
Michael Barkoviak - August 20, 2008 7:42 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 41 comment(s) - last by GlassHouse69.. on Aug 28 at 12:21 PM
Obama and McCain both have a strong focus on Florida and the thousands of employees who are about to lose their jobs there

As Republican presidential hopeful John McCain (R, AZ) and Democrat Barack Obama (D, IL) trump across the nation trying to persuade Americans why they should get votes, Florida is again a battle state where both hopefuls are spending a lot of time and money.

During a stop at Florida's Space Coast on Monday, Sen. McCain said he will be the one able to make sure the United States is able to keep up in a growing space race with Russia, China and others.  

Furthermore, McCain also chastised Sen. Obama for changing positions on the funding difficulties facing NASA.  The NASA Constellation program, the U.S. space agency's plan for space travel after the shuttle is retired in 2010, would be temporarily delayed to pave the way for educational programs, Obama previously said.  But that idea was later dropped in favor of trying to find money for both programs by making cuts to other projects.

"I told my staff we're going to find an entirely different offset, because we've got to make sure that the money going into NASA for basic research and development continues to go there," Obama told a group of listeners at Brevard Community College.  "That has been a top priority for us."

Obama hopes to be able to get U.S. astronauts back to the lunar surface, along with expediting the development of the Orion space vehicle and finishing construction on the International Space Station (ISS).

McCain plans to make sure space exploration remains a top priority for the United States, ensure the Constellation program has proper funding, finish construction on the ISS, offer more money for aeronautics research, and to help invest in more Earth-monitoring satellites and support systems.

The Space Coast will likely lose thousands of jobs both within NASA and third party contractors once the current generation space shuttle is retired in 2010.   

Russia, China, India, Japan, Europe and others are currently involved in space exploration, with each program having varying levels of success.  China and Japan successfully launched competing lunar orbiters during 2007.  The growing Indian space program plans to launch a lunar orbiter before the end of 2008.  Russia, China, JAXA and the United States all have plans to go back to the moon, though each space nation has their sights set on visiting the Red Planet of Mars.

Both NASA and China plan to launch manned lunar missions with the possibility of a lunar base -- but NASA officials admit Chinese astronauts are more likely to return to the moon before anyone else.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Don't be naive
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2008 9:26:01 AM , Rating: 5
Anyone who thinks Obama will wholeheartedly back NASA is a fool. His "new opinion" is fueled by nothing more than a desire to get votes.




RE: Don't be naive
By ThatNewGuy on 8/20/2008 9:33:46 AM , Rating: 5
You've got to be kidding. I mean, NO politician would just say things that we want to hear in order to get votes!


RE: Don't be naive
By mdogs444 on 8/20/2008 9:34:36 AM , Rating: 4
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner.

Obama's new campaign strategy is pandering for votes. From NASA, to oil drilling, to abortion being above his pay grade...


RE: Don't be naive
By tallcool1 on 8/20/2008 11:53:49 AM , Rating: 5
Saw this article today: MCCAIN PULLS AHEAD 'BY 5 POINTS' http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUKN1...
Your post reminded me of this funny reader comment on that page:
quote:
MICHELLE: Barack, you take out the trash.

BARACK: That's above my paygrade Sweetie.

LOL


RE: Don't be naive
By therealnickdanger on 8/20/2008 3:25:23 PM , Rating: 5
How dare you repost that trash here. That comment is so irresponsible. Obama doesn't create trash or waste anything. He recycles everything he touches by casting an Infinite Carbon Negativity spell. I hear he even farts ozone to overcome the effects of CFCs.


RE: Don't be naive
By lifeblood on 8/20/2008 9:42:23 AM , Rating: 3
And McCain is in total denial that America is running an unsustainable deficit. They are both politicians, both will say anything to get votes. One panders to the left, the other to the right.

No matter who gets elected, spending is going to have to be reduced and NASA is going to get cut like everyone else. The problem with these big projects like going back to the moon is that many smaller, arguably more worthwhile projects get cut in order to pay for the big "high visibility" mission.


RE: Don't be naive
By mdogs444 on 8/20/2008 9:45:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And McCain is in total denial that America is running an unsustainable deficit.

Isn't McCain calling for spending cuts and eliminating pork barrel spending? All while not taking more tax money to allow individuals more of their own expendable income?


RE: Don't be naive
By lifeblood on 8/20/2008 9:50:46 AM , Rating: 4
I don't know of too many presidential candidates who don't call for this. George W called for the same thing and look at the deficit he's racked up. And John McCain has brought home the bacon to his home state on a few occasions. Lies, damn lies, and political promise. They all say the same thing, few of them do it.


RE: Don't be naive
By mdogs444 on 8/20/2008 10:10:12 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't know of too many presidential candidates who don't call for this.

Obama has NOT called for decrease in spending, eliminating pork barrel spending, or keeping/decreasing current taxation. In fact, he's proposed billions in additional spending as well as tax increases.


RE: Don't be naive
By jabber on 8/20/2008 11:38:33 AM , Rating: 2
Listen whoever gets in...NASA will get screwed.

It happens everytime.

When it boils down to hard choices..new school books or a new launch rocket project....its not hard to know which one will get funded and which one gets its budget slashed.

Shame but there you go. Life is not fair, thats how it is.


RE: Don't be naive
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2008 11:49:11 AM , Rating: 2
And that needs to change.


RE: Don't be naive
By mdogs444 on 8/20/2008 11:57:44 AM , Rating: 2
Wont catch me arguing with that :)


RE: Don't be naive
By Murst on 8/20/2008 4:30:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Obama has NOT called for decrease in spending, eliminating pork barrel spending, or keeping/decreasing current taxation. In fact, he's proposed billions in additional spending as well as tax increases.


That's partially correct. Obama has called for eliminating Bush's tax cuts for those individuals who makes over $250k per year, while keeping the tax cuts for everyone else.

McCain has called for eliminating tax cuts for everyone. He has also said that he wants to limit wasteful spending, but hasn't exactly pointed out what he is going to eliminate (in fact, he only points out things like this where he wants to increase spending, go figure).

CNN Money actually had a pretty interesting article comparing the fiscal policy of both Obama and McCain. The end result: Both policies lead to a huge deficit, although Obama's deficit is much smaller than McCains. Also, on average, people making less than $250k per year will not be affected under either McCain or Obama. However, people making over $250k per year will have to pay significantly more taxes under Obama's plan.


RE: Don't be naive
By Ringold on 8/20/2008 7:50:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
McCain has called for eliminating tax cuts for everyone.


You mean extending, not eliminate.

quote:
He has also said that he wants to limit wasteful spending, but hasn't exactly pointed out what he is going to eliminate (in fact, he only points out things like this where he wants to increase spending, go figure).


All ear marks, for one thing. He was against the Farm Bill this year, a massive pork-fest for farmers that tarnishes our credibility on global trade issues, which Obama voted for. He's also got a history of scrutinizing military deals, and says he wants to cut wasteful military spending. On his website, he also identifies Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare as huge liabilities that must be paired down. More broadly, he wants a one year budget freeze while every program is analyzed, and either rationalized or terminated. Don't say that's too vague, as here in Orlando it's just what our mayor (a Dixiecrat) did, to great effect. Many government programs are born, serve their purpose, and then become immortal. It's amazing the number of times he found two or three supervisors over a single individual; government equivalent of a construction site with 3 guys watching and one guy digging. He also wants to limit annual spending growth to 2.4%, which presently would mean a real annual decline in spending (due to inflation).

So don't say he hasn't identified anything, and then say "go figure," unless you're up to date.

quote:
Both policies lead to a huge deficit, although Obama's deficit is much smaller than McCains.


Such projections require belief in estimates of what new taxes will raise in revenue. Recent tax hikes in states like Michigan (business taxes), Maryland (cigs) and Chicago (bottled water) prove that, amazingly enough, if you tax something you get less of it than initially expected.

quote:
Also, on average, people making less than $250k per year will not be affected under either McCain or Obama. However, people making over $250k per year will have to pay significantly more taxes under Obama's plan.


France is already way ahead of us here, or at least Sarkozy is, and we'd do well to learn from others mistakes. Sarkozy (and many French) have realized that those two groups do not live in isolation of each other, and punishing those who create jobs and build wealth has an adverse impact on those who are less motivated. Sarkozy said, I believe, "that the chief consequence of keeping a few from becoming rich has been to make everybody poor." (I don't have his book handy, so thats paraphrased but close to the original.)

Besides, if you look at income distribution studies over peoples lifetimes, you'll discover that virtually all people with a business or engineering 4 year degree make over 100k by the mid point of their careers, meaning that 250k/yr, depending on where you draw the "middle class" line, may actually snag a lot of common families.


RE: Don't be naive
By Murst on 8/21/2008 3:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You mean extending, not eliminate.

Yeah, sorry, silly mistake. (wish we could edit for stuff like that).

"All ear marks" is a very vague term. In fact, McCain himself is very contradictory on what he considers earmarks. I do like his plan to freeeze spending, however, we both know that the president has absolutely no power here. There's just no way to get congress to agree to this (unfortunately). Good idea though.

quote:
Such projections require belief in estimates of what new taxes will raise in revenue

That's just silly. We already know the effect of these tax cuts. Just look at today's economy: massive deficit, inflation, huge devaluation of the dollar, etc. You need to keep in mind that Obama doesn't want to raise taxes by a lot. In fact, his proposals are still below the level at which Clinton had taxes. However, he's just not willing to go as low as Bush has (and McCan wants to keep). These cuts haven't provided the boost that people were expecting.

quote:
France is already way ahead of us here, or at least Sarkozy

Umm.. no. Do you realize how much taxes they pay in France? No politician here would go that far.

Look, I'm a huge fan of lower taxes. However, I'm a bigger fan of a balanced budget. Both of these candidates fail on the balanced budget question. However, what McCain is proposing is worse than the current situation w/ Bush. At least Obama is attempting to lower the deficit.


RE: Don't be naive
By Ringold on 8/22/2008 5:37:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
hat's just silly. We already know the effect of these tax cuts.


Woops, you're changing subjects, talking about economic effects. I pointed out the well known fact that raising taxes reduces the volume/value of the thing being taxed. Governments, including local, state, and national planners, have routinely failed to account for this in their estimates, and thus routinely over-estimate the revenue gain from any given tax increase. Not to say politicians are ignorant of this, they just want to make their plans sound better than they really are.

quote:
massive deficit, inflation, huge devaluation of the dollar, etc.


The deficit is a good point. The other two have no relation. Inflation is due to a global surge in oil prices and lax monetary policy, and so is the devaluation of the dollar. Indeed, the housing bubble is probably the result of lax policy at the tail end of the Greenspan years, plus a little tulip bulb syndrome among the masses. Obama can not wish away commodity prices, and I actually question his inflation credentials; Chris Dodd isn't holding two Fed governors chairs hostage just so an Obama White House can put in place an inflation hawk. He was holding 3 hostage, but the assault on the Fed's monetary independence became a little to blatant.

quote:
These cuts haven't provided the boost that people were expecting.


Several great years of growth without any of the benefit of productivity gains from IT that the 90s enjoyed, and great relative performance over the last 12 months during a global economic slowdown. I guess you didn't hear it on CNN, but several European countries would be envious of our economic strength at the moment. And if you want to play the "I don't believe in business cycles" card, I'd warn you to be careful as the last recession started propagating across the country under the Patron Saint of Democrats, Clinton's watch. By your logic.. Clinton tax levels don't work, and neither do Bush's.

quote:
Umm.. no. Do you realize how much taxes they pay in France? No politician here would go that far.


If he removes the cap on payroll taxes, as he has proposed, the top marginal bracket ends up effectively around 50%, which AFAIK is right around that of France (53%). Throw in state income taxes where applicable, and it looks even worse. Our only saving grace is lighter regulation at that point.

quote:
However, I'm a bigger fan of a balanced budget.


I like them too, but Obama has shown no inclination to tackle the multi-trillion dollar timebomb that dwarfs Iraq, tax cuts for the "rich," and everything else. That's Social Security and Medicare. He's got an idea for health care, but Social Security alone has the ability to wreck the budget within a couple decades if it's not brought under control. Pardon if I don't believe that the party whose primary constituency is the poor (Medicaid), retired (Social Security and Medicare), and socialists (all the above) will have the willpower to toss the will of its voters under the bus to do the right thing and trim benefits. Without trimming benefits or SS privatization, there is only one option: making France's tax rates look low by 2030 or 2040.

Europe's already ahead of us on that one too, by the way. They know they have to cut benefits, and have (very, very) slowly started setting about doing it.


RE: Don't be naive
By Ringold on 8/22/2008 5:44:43 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, inflation was also due to the food-for-fuel corn ethanol blood trade. A little hard not to have that happen when 1/3 of a corp gets diverted from mouths to gas tanks. As recently as June, Obama still fully supported corn ethanol and its subsidies. In contrast...

“Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce” (Rohter, 6/23/08).

But hey, what's several billion dollars in pandering to lobbyists if it helps swing a farm state for Obama, right?


RE: Don't be naive
By Murst on 8/22/2008 6:29:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Woops, you're changing subjects, talking about economic effects

Its rather silly to talk about economic policy without considering the effects...
quote:
The deficit is a good point. The other two have no relation

A huge deficit most certainly has an effect on the value of currency. Sure, there's a ton of things that also factor in, but creating money out of thin air always has an impact on already existing currency.
quote:
and great relative performance over the last 12 months during a global economic slowdown. I guess you didn't hear it on CNN, but several European countries would be envious of our economic strength at the moment.

Exactly what countries are you comparing us to? The majority of European countries had a very healthy growth rate in the past 12 months. I'm assuming you're talking about Germany, Italy, and possibly England - and those countries are in the same situation we're in. Actually, if you don't go by the insane inflation metrics that are being used by the government (.8% last year? yeah right...), we've been in a recession for a while now.
quote:
He's got an idea for health care, but Social Securi