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

Rep. John Culberson (R-TX)  (Source:
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 tayb on 8/15/2012 11:52:39 AM , Rating: 2
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.

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.

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!!

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?

"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki