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

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.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997














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