Space As 2016 Election Issue
‘Space Guy’ Jeb Bush Would Increase Funding To NASA, Huff Post
“If elected president in 2016, Jeb Bush would propose an increase in funding to NASA. “I’m a space guy,” Bush said in a Wednesday sit-down with the New Hampshire Union Leader’s editorial board. The former of governor of Florida, where a large portion of the country’s aerospace industry resides, said he would also support increasing federal spending on research and development. The Obama administration proposed a half-billion dollar increase to NASA’s budget earlier this year, totaling $18.5 billion for fiscal year 2016. That request could run aground in the Republican-controlled Congress, where Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a presidential candidate and the chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Competitiveness, feels that a reordering of the space agency is in order.”
So where will this money come from? Will Mr. Bush raise taxes? If not, what will he cut?
Same place all congressional funding comes from. Thin air. Increasing or decreasing funding to any X agency or department doesn’t mean there’s a corresponding decrease or increase elsewhere.
I agree there is no specific linkage between one program and another. Cutting defense or Medicaid won’t increase spending on space. But each program competes against the tax cuts that could be made if it is cut, or must finght for a tax increase (or an increase in the deficit) if it is increased. That’s why we have to persuade taxpayers that they should be willing to pay more for space, while also doing more with the tax dollars we have.
CHINA
We always seem to find the money when we want to blow someone up; revamp the entire healthcare system; or other “priorities”. We spent a trillion dollars in stimulus and didn’t get a nickel of infrastructure out of it. BTW, they can raise my taxes if they direct all the money to NASA increases. I pay a ton of taxes already, and at least that would’nt be money wasted.
As long as the money’s not going to those pesky climate researchers, though, right?
Frankly, I don’t care where the money is spent in NASA, even
on climate change research, though I do think it should be spread around. One thing I can guarantee is that the current funding is insufficient to our aspirations.The deep space network will need to be expanded if we are going to do serious
exploration of solar system. More research money needs to be spent on advance propulsion and materials; on closed loop life support; on mitigation of the adverse effects of microgravity and cosmic radiation. We need to continue to fund appropriately commercial crew and cargo, while we must continue the development of a heavy lift vehicle. Does anyone here really think that we’re going to go to Mars successfully without first going back to the Moon; and learn to live and work long-term outside of the Earth’s magnetosphere? So, you guessed it, that means more money for development of lunar surface technology, a lunar landing vehicle, a transit vehicle, and possibly an in-space refueling capability, etc., etc., etc…. Does any of this sound like it’s going to be cheap? That’s not just pushing the envelope that’s operating outside the envelope. It’s going to require ongoing and sustained increases in funding carried out through multiple administrations, and needs to be a long-term goal of the American people. But if we want to continue to be America, it needs to be made a priority, otherwise we’ll be left behind like Portugal was. I’m not saying it needs to be the #1 priority, but it certainly can’t be in the caboose either. NASA’s priority in the current President’s mind was metaphorically illustrated in his first inaugural parade… It was at the end of the line.
I agree, but how to we persuade the country? I think a focus on reducing the cost of both human and robotic space launch services is still a reasonable starting point.
Does anyone still believe in campaign promises?
Little known fact: Congress is responsible for funding the government, not the President. Presidents can only beg for money.
Glad to hear this from Gov. Bush.
I was able to ask Gov. Huckabee the other day about his space policy and he told me he was very much in favor of the space program.
He said that he would rapidly accelerate SLS/Orion and commercial crew.
He talked about how he remembered watching Kennedy’s speech and the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo flights. He also said he was inspired by the shuttles.
Additionally he spoke at length about how much the space program has benefited the nation with new technology. He said that the space program gave an 1000 fold return for the money we put into it and that it is unfortunate that many people don’t understand how much the space program has given us.
Nice words, but I’ll go with the only presidential candidate who actually applied to be an astronaut.
Who was that?
if we politicize NASA we will lose, because half the electorate will have no reason to support it. Surprisingly, both Clinton and Bush have indicated that global warming is real and substantially anthropogenic, and that we should investigate approaches to mitigate it. They may differ on actual policies, but that’s better than trashing the science. Either will be likely to support a larger role for NASA in Earth observation and climate science.
NASA is tasked by its charter to oversee US observations of Earth from space, and has been more successful at managing satellite programs than NOAA. Shifting the task to NOAA without shifting the funds and personnel as well would simply end climate research. Shifting the funds to NOAA would leave NASA with no more resources than it has now to pursue human spaceflight. Showing the public the essential nature of climate research might actually increase support for NASA. BTW NSF also has a major program in atmospheric research. It’s a big field.
But I can guarantee that the next people on the moon will not be communists from China. I work with and know many people from China, They are no more communist than any of us.