backtop


Print 35 comment(s) - last by JKflipflop98.. on Aug 17 at 5:01 AM


Rep. John Culberson (R-TX)  (Source: spacenews.com)
The new bill would help NASA budget its funding over the long term

Two House Representatives are creating a NASA reform bill in an effort to help the agency with funding and long-term projects.
 
Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) have joined forces to propose the new NASA reform bill. The bill aims to help NASA budget its funding over longer periods of time and also eliminate the politics that affect long-term projects.
 
Money is a huge factor in determining what NASA can and cannot do. Last October, the space agency urged Congress to provide $850 million in full for commercial crew vehicle development after NASA's space shuttle fleet was retired. This was necessary so that the U.S. wouldn't have to depend on Russia for a flight to the International Space Station (ISS), which is expected to increase to about $63 million per set by 2015. 
 
The new bill wants to place funding on a multi-year cycle rather than just an annual cycle. This will allow NASA to budget its funding over a longer period of time, rather than have to beg for more money each year in order to finish a project. NASA will know exactly how much it has ahead of time, and will be able to allot the total amount more efficiently. 
 
Aside from money, politics has become an issue for NASA. The Obama administration ended the Constellation Program rather quickly after $10 billion had already been spent on what was meant to put the U.S. back into space after the retirement of the space shuttle fleet. 
 
The reform bill's attempt to not only create a fixed, long-term budget, but also appoint a NASA administrator to a 10-year term, will make NASA a well-oiled machine for a longer period of time and help progress the U.S.' space program without any intrusion from politics or begging to Congress. 
 

Source: Examiner



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Real sad state of affairs
By tayb on 8/14/2012 8:13:40 PM , Rating: 5
We somehow find $700,000,000,000 annually for "defense spending" but NASA has to beg for $850 million. That is just sad. These guys just landed a rover the size of a Mini Cooper on Mars and we can't agree to give them more funding? But we CAN agree to spend such astronomical numbers on "defense?"

Within reason these guys should get whatever they want and if there isn't room in the budget I see a big fat piece of pork that could shed a few pounds.




RE: Real sad state of affairs
By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/2012 8:28:02 PM , Rating: 1
Nice rhetoric, points for passion. Deductions for premise.

If we cut the entire Department of Defense, every red cent spent on the military, we would be running over trillion dollar deficits still. When Obamacare kicks in fully? Two trillion deficit.

Why do I get the feeling you people don't really care about balancing a budget or us having a more responsible fiscal Government, you just seem to hate military spending exclusively and claim it as the root of all our problems. Given the current spending rates, it can hardly even be called astronomical anymore.

I would totally compromise and agree to across the board cuts in Government spending, regardless of where they come from. But I get the feeling your side wouldn't agree to that.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By room200 on 8/14/2012 8:57:04 PM , Rating: 1
Reclaimer77
Republicans good.
Democrats bad.
Defense and unlimited money to war and defense good.
Money to the poor bad.
Welfare bad.
Oil subsides good.

I swear you're a fucking broken record.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By Ringold on 8/14/2012 10:51:09 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks for aiding the stereotype of liberals being unthinking, emotional bleeding-heart fools. You didn't at all respond to his point that defense spending could be set at zero and the nation would still be on the path to bankruptcy, you just immediately descended to personal attacks.

Just like Obama on the campaign trail, why? 'Cause intellectually you both can't come up with anything. You've brought a knife to a gun fight, and Reclaimer cheated and brought a Howitzer.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By SoCalBoomer on 8/15/2012 11:53:41 AM , Rating: 2
Ummmmm - it's a couple of Republicans who are trying to get this longer-term funding bill passed, which would HELP NASA.

I hate year-to-year budgeting - causes me headaches every year. This would be a very good thing. . .


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By inperfectdarkness on 8/15/2012 12:19:43 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. When you look at defense spending as a function of GDP, defense spending is not out of line. Worse, each time the defense budget has been cut in the last 20 years, all the gains in savings have been almost immediately consumed by increases in entitlement spending (welfare, medicaid, etc).

If there is any "pork" in our budget, I'd suggest pointing fingers at the funding which is allocated towards the 100 million people in the US that collect some form of social-service money (food-stamps & medicaid top the list). Yes that's right kiddies, our budget problems are because 1/3rd of the population is getting handouts from the government--not because we have a department of defense.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By Reclaimer77 on 8/15/2012 1:47:36 AM , Rating: 1
Exactly. There's only two reasons a Democrat would EVER discuss cutting federal spending:

1. He has a brain aneurism and isn't himself
2. He just wants to redistribute the "cut" money somewhere else more politically expedient.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By OdinOrion on 8/15/2012 3:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
What happened during the GOP years under Bush II? What about Regan? Bush I?

Regan '82-'85 8.7% increase
Regan '86-'89 4.9% increase
Bush I '90-'93 5.4 % increase
Clinton '94-'97 3.2% increase
Clinton '98-01 3.9% increase
Bush II '02-'05 7.3% increase
Bush II '06-'09 8.1% increase
Obama '10-'13 1.4% increase.

Facts!!!! real important for an objective view. Who has spending issues??? Which party is that??? Stop spreading your slanted, ignorant, and absolutely incorrect bs.

Fact is the GOP spends far more and has had a long history of doing so. The GOP has no problem spending money we don't have, they just get mad when the Dems spend it in areas they don't approve.

Why don't you look to see how many increased spending measures Paul Ryan voted for? Conservatives, my rear end, they are a disgrace to their own platform.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By RufusM on 8/15/2012 9:29:37 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you on the handouts, but the DoD budget has plenty of pork in it as well. The DoD could go on a spending die and still maintain it's effectiveness. The US doesn't need to have the (very expensive) global presence we've had for the past 40 years.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By RufusM on 8/15/2012 9:30:08 AM , Rating: 2
... spending diet...


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By MrBungle123 on 8/15/2012 11:16:31 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you to an extent, I would let Europe at this point fend for itself. But with considerations like global trade, piracy, rogue states, etc. Having a global presence and military large enough to keep the peace is in our best interests even if it is expensive.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By geddarkstorm on 8/15/2012 1:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
If we look at isolationism throughout history, it has always lead to disaster. Like it or not, we are the peace force of the world; the other nations have become used to that, they wouldn't know what to do.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By Ammohunt on 8/15/2012 2:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
Defense spending is not just for the United States but countries like Canada, Iceland and others that are under our umbrella of protection.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By OdinOrion on 8/15/2012 2:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
Current VP candidate got a "hand out". I wonder where he would be without it.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By tayb on 8/15/2012 11:52:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we cut the entire Department of Defense, every red cent spent on the military, we would be running over trillion dollar deficits still. When Obamacare kicks in fully? Two trillion deficit.


No, we wouldn't. There was a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion in 2011.

quote:
I would totally compromise and agree to across the board cuts in Government spending, regardless of where they come from. But I get the feeling your side wouldn't agree to that.


This makes me laugh. The idea that Republicans would agree to cut military spending if Democrats agreed to cut entitlements is hilarious. Paul Ryan, before he was suddenly fiscally responsibly, voted for TARP, auto bailouts, extension of unemployment benefits, and expansions of medicare. His latest budget proposal doesn't balance the budget for 15 years and actually increases military spending. Whoops.

I would be more than happy to cut spending across the board but any proposal that doesn't include decreasing defense spending isn't even worth debating.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By Reclaimer77 on 8/15/2012 12:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
lol try again.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012...

Actually I was being generous. The real deficit is closer to 5 trillion. Five goddamn trillion!

Even using your bogus $1.3 trillion number, do you understand the point? Eliminating the entire military STILL would not get us out of this hole. Hello?

So please, your opening remarks failed, don't compound that with more failure. In case you haven't noticed, these rules proposed by Republicans would HELP NASA!!

quote:
His latest budget proposal doesn't balance the budget for 15 years and actually increases military spending. Whoops.


Okay so when does the "budget" (quotes because Obama doesn't HAVE a budget) balance itself if we continue down the current spending plan of Obama and the Liberals? I'll give you a hint, it's some time between infinity and never.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By geddarkstorm on 8/15/2012 1:42:08 PM , Rating: 2
1.3 trillion minus 700 billions is still 600 billion in the hole.

Add to that, taking away our military means we can't protect shipping from Somalia pirates. Can't put pressure on Russia to keep it from stomping Georgia and Ukraine. Can't keep crazies like North Korea or Iran from truly diving over the edge and dragging their entire regions with them.

Oh, and without our military, we can no longer be an effective humanitarian force throughout the world; coming in after disasters to rescue survivors and rebuild infrastructures; securing aid lines into dangerous, unstable regions like Africa to assist the hapless people caught in the midst of warlords.

Sure, we could abandon the entire world. Sure, we could leave the UN impotent (since we are the only true force of power for it). Sure we could undo all we've worked for to keep the world stable after WWII and prevent another disastrous time. Sure we could allow millions to suffer and starve. And what would that make us? Hiding away behind our twin moats of the Atlantic and the Pacific. Do we really think we'd be safe in the end?

Isolationists have always lead to the downfall of nations. Heck, right now, our military keeps the drug cartels of Mexico from swarming our boarders and dragging those lower states into their wars. Do we really want that seeping in?

Sure, we can curtail some of our activies and lower some spending; but again, look at the numbers and you'll see that even if we got rid of the entire military we're still 600 BILLION in the red. So, what are you going to do about that, pray tell?


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By bh192012 on 8/15/2012 1:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
She didn't propose cutting the entire DOD budget , that's strawman-like.

Defense spending doubled in the last 10 years while NASA's budget is only 35% (~inflation) higher over the same period of time. So that is probably part of the reason people are especially annoyed by defense spending.

Brainstorming, I think we should cut programs proportional to their growth since 2000 and undue the Bush tax cuts to start with. It would put our budget more in line with our last surplus. Then cut welfare programs some more, like Medicare (doctors) Defense (warriors) and most discretionary programs until we get the interest payments down to reasonable.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By geddarkstorm on 8/15/2012 1:45:54 PM , Rating: 2
Everything needs to be cut to control such absurd spiraling down the drain deficits. The question is by how much per each area.

But NASA, already so small, and yet is the driver of so much of our innovation and wealth. They deserve a much bigger piece of the pie, even if the overall pie needs to shrink considerably (as NASA drives our GDP up through technology development, it's a worthy investment for the future). I so agree with you there.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By JKflipflop98 on 8/15/2012 1:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
We spend way too fucking much on the military. We are currently paying nearly a trillion dollars a year for our military to stomp around in two countries where the enemy isn't.

Saying that cutting military spending somehow compromises our safety is beyond stupid when the amount we're spending is astronomical. We could be BUYING the fucking countries we're invading for what we're spending to blow them up.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By geddarkstorm on 8/15/2012 1:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
Something tells me you don't actually understand all that our military does throughout the world. But nice going at trying to reduce things down to two cases that were incorrectly defined; that was a fine looking strawman.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By JKflipflop98 on 8/17/2012 5:01:33 AM , Rating: 2
Please then, provide some examples of what our $1T a year is getting us from the military. "Keeping us safe" is not an allowable answer as we could do that on 1/100th of our current defense spending.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By Jeffk464 on 8/15/2012 4:53:03 PM , Rating: 2
What benefit do I get from having a massively over budgeted military fighting pointless wars.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By Schadenfroh on 8/14/12, Rating: 0
RE: Real sad state of affairs
By Stiggalicious on 8/15/2012 9:15:42 AM , Rating: 1
This times a million.

Companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Rockwell Collins, etc. all trickle their technologies down to the civilian space from military/government funding. See those nice 787 planes with their carbon-fiber bodies, fancy electronics, efficient engines, and complex radio equipment? Most of that technology is a result of the DoD budget.

Most of these companies are obligated to hire US citizens for any defense contract job (i.e. almost all jobs). You want limited outsourcing? The best way is to hire US citizens, and that's exactly what these companies do.

Technologies like nuclear power, the Internet, wireless communications like UWB and satellite TV, have all been started and funded by the DoD.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By Reclaimer77 on 8/15/2012 11:53:09 AM , Rating: 2
"Trickle down" is a 4 letter word to Marxists like the OP though.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By Jeffk464 on 8/15/2012 4:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
Trickle down theory is the theory behind Mexico's economy. The rich have everything. There is no money to educate the population or provide basic services. It works fantastic.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By Insurgence on 8/15/2012 1:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
To me it is not the amounts spent on any one things, it is the abundance of cancelled projects that have massive amounts of money spent on them. That is part of the point of this bill with NASA. Should we do something for the military's spending too? I believe so, probably not the same thing, but something to help prevent so many canceled projects. For NASA that was a big problem. Recent Presidential Administrations were coming in and canceling their predecessor's projects and enacting their own. That is just bad spending. Unfortunately our whole government is that way.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By Jeffk464 on 8/15/2012 4:39:07 PM , Rating: 2
That tells you defense contractors have better lobbyists then companies contracted by NASA.


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By Schadenfroh on 8/15/2012 7:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
NASA contractors ARE defense contractors

Space Shuttle: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Rockwell Collins and ATK

Recent Mars Rover: Lockheed Martin and Boeing

Saturn V: McDonald-Douglas and Boeing


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By Schadenfroh on 8/15/2012 7:21:15 PM , Rating: 2
Note: That would be McDonnell, not McDonald, ha


RE: Real sad state of affairs
By nocturne_81 on 8/16/2012 8:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
True, but like any gov't agency, a modicum of restraint is needed.. After all, who pays nearly $20 per duracell coppertop, which is the same product any of us can get a 16 pack of for less than $10.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki