This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Budget

Only In Washington

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
March 16, 2017

Keith’s note: @ChelseaClinton retweeted @NASAWatch. Oops.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

10 responses to “Only In Washington”

  1. Terry Stetler says:
    0
    0

    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.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      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.

      • Terry Stetler says:
        0
        0

        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.

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          Of course I agree, but Trump likes things that are, I believe the term is, YUUUUUGGGHHH. Like SLS.

  2. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    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.

  3. Tally-ho says:
    0
    0

    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.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      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.

    • Bill Housley says:
      0
      0

      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.

  4. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    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.