Only In Washington
Keith’s note: @ChelseaClinton retweeted @NASAWatch. Oops.
If you have less money one year versus the previous year, that is called a ____ ("cut"), otherwise know as ____ ("less money") #wordproblems https://t.co/LENhFlSN4k
— Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) March 17, 2017
White House Spokesman @seanspicer "There is a perception in Washington that if you get less money its a cut" pic.twitter.com/KBMbrR4Gi7
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) March 16, 2017
Sometimes a claimed cut really isn’t a cut. Sometimes interest groups will lobby not necessarily for a numeric increase, too blatant, but for a change in budgetary assumptions for their favorite program(s).
So, in an economy which has an inflation rate of about 5% they may want a scoring formula which would result in a 15% year to year increase. Budget hawks would call BS and say fine – we’ll go beyond inflation but let’s just give it a 10% increase, still an increase beyond inflation but less inflationary.
The next loud noise you hear is the interest group involved screaming bloody murder that the budget hawks were “cutting” Program X by 5%, even though it’s getting an increase of 2x inflation.
Even if the “inflationists” lose they have a propoganda tool.
I’m sorry, but what are the inflation factors for the NASA budget under the Trump plan?
In the case of climate science the inflation factor is irrelevant. 10% of zero is still zero. And the point of the post, that we should all eschew obfuscatory language on either side of the issue, remains valid.
One program within NASA vs others; especially SLS/Orion vs any 10 somethings which are more affordable and efficient. That’s the 500 pound hog in the closet.
Of course I agree, but Trump likes things that are, I believe the term is, YUUUUUGGGHHH. Like SLS.
I think that the Corporate origins of a lot of the people in the Trump administration are showing. In big corporations, a cut is usually couched in doubletalk terms like ‘efficiency improvement’, ‘opportunity to re-focus on core priorities’ or something similar.
Right-sizing.
Politicians refer to a reduction in the increase of the following year’s budget as a “budget cut”. Is that really a budget cut? It’s a perspective I cannot relate to. I am curious if Trump’s budget cuts are a percentage cut in the previous year’s budget or include the percentage that would have been raised for the next FY.
I’m not sure if everyone is using the same numbers. But the budget document the White House released (page 50, table 2) gives changes relative to “2017 CR [Continuing Resolution]/Enacted”. Some press reports I’ve seen gave changes relative to the President’s FY2017 requests, not what Congress actually approved. That’s a big difference in some cases.
Sometimes I think that law makers set that up that way on purpose…pad future years with funding increases so that a future Congress can be afraid of insensitivity for reducing that increase.
Having had a few days to think about this, looks like NASA came out doing quite well, at least as far as 45’s proposals.
Yes, there is ugliness. But isn’t it the case that a new WH occupant will express preferences throughout the Administration? It’s true that the DSCVR (spelling wrong I think?) hobbling is egregious because it is motivated by preconception and, well, by mendacity. Take away the motivation, though, and what do you have? Some winners, some losers, and the bottom line for the Agency looking better than many expected, including me.
There are folks over at EPA and NEA and other places that will ask why anyone is whining about the NASA proposals.