Nasa Funding Ptx 9p

Malson/Gaskell

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 1 of 9

LINK: SPENDING IS PAYGO; MADE IN TRADEOFFS............................................................2 The plan is supplementary spending, or spending added in the middle of a fiscal year ...........2 PAYGO rules require that any new programs be funded by cutting other programs ...............2 LINK: NASA WILL GET CUT......................................................................................................2 The absence of political interest makes NASA always an easy target and the first thing to get cut.....2 NASA funding is volatile and under extensive review in the status quo...................................3 Example: NASA typically cut to close deficit...........................................................................3 Even funding NASA for other reasons takes money out of space exploration ........................3 BRINK: A STABLE BUDGET IS KEY.........................................................................................3 A stable budget is key to NASA in the long term......................................................................3 Funding is key to American space program overall..................................................................4 UNIQUENESS: NASA IS PROPERLY FUNDED NOW..............................................................4 2010 budget request is still strong for NASA............................................................................4 AT: ONLY SMALL CUTS.............................................................................................................4 Cutting NASA dooms it to irrelevancy – even if it exists, it won’t be effective.......................4 AT: NO TRADEOFF.......................................................................................................................4 A. If the plan DOESN’T trade off, it tubes PayGo, destroying fiscal responsibility.................4 B. Fiscal irresponsibility is likely to trigger economic collapse ...............................................5 AT: OBAMA WON’T FOLLOW PAYGO....................................................................................5 Pelosi will strictly follow PayGo no matter what Obama does ................................................5 Pressure for complete compliance with PayGo is high ............................................................6 IMPACT: SOFT POWER...............................................................................................................6 NASA is the lynchpin of U.S. soft power – budget support is key...........................................6 IMPACT: SAFETY.........................................................................................................................6 The more budget-pressed NASA becomes, the more likely accidents become........................6 IMPACT: HEGEMONY.................................................................................................................7 A. Another accident would destroy competitiveness and space exploration, shutting down NASA and forcing us to turn to the Russians for space access.............................................................7 B. Improved space technology is key to U.S. leadership...........................................................7 C. Hegemony is key to maintaining democracy, free markets and rule of law, preventing proliferation, regional threats by renegade states, global rivals, and a global “cold or hot war” (including nuclear exchange).....................................................................................................7 Space superiority is key.............................................................................................................8 IMPACT: GLOBAL WARMING ..................................................................................................8 A. NASA funding key to weather research in the atmosphere..................................................8 B. That places the climate program in jeopardy – means we can’t deal with warming............8 IMPACT: ECONOMY ...................................................................................................................9 A. NASA funding aids economy...............................................................................................9 AT: CHINA GETS MAD................................................................................................................9 China supports space exploration – they won’t oppose the results of it....................................9 AT: FREE MARKET WOULD SOLVE.........................................................................................9 Privatization causes more accidents and deaths from space travel ...........................................9

Link: Spending is PAYGO; made in tradeoffs The plan is supplementary spending, or spending added in the middle of a fiscal year The OMB Watcher Online [a nonprofit research and advocacy organization], Vol. 1 No. 3, "Biennial Budgeting", February 29, 2000 (HEG) economic changes could require an adjustment of fiscal policy; normal oversight findings on various government programs could indicate the need for more or less resources; or epidemics, social issues, or international crises could arise that weren't contemplated when the budget was prepared. The budget would then have to be adjusted mid-stream, leading to more, rather than less, careful deliberation, and more, rather than less, emergency and supplemental appropriations, making for a messier budget decided in an ad hoc fashion. For instance,

PAYGO rules require that any new programs be funded by cutting other programs RTTNEWS, “Orszag Says Statutory PAYGO Strengthens Fiscal Responsibility”, June 25, 2009, http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/TOP%20STORY/2390190/ (HEG) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget said Thursday that the new Statutory Pay-AsYou-Go Act of 2009 would strengthen the country's enforcement of and reemphasize its commitment to fiscal discipline. At a hearing before the full House Budget Committee, OMB Director Peter Orszag emphasized the need to enact the PAYGO Act proposed by the Obama Administration into law. "We should follow that Hippocratic Oath that first directs doctors to do no harm," Orszag said. PAYGO rules, enacted as part of the Budget Enforcement Act

of 1990, require that increases in direct spending and decreases in revenue be offset by other spending cuts or revenue increases. Starting in the late 1990s, when the federal budget was in surplus, Congress began loosening PAYGO rules before fully abandoning them in 2002. However, facing a fiscal year 2009 deficit of $1.7 trillion, the Obama administration has endorsed making PAYGO a statutory part of the budget process in order to reign in new entitlement spending and new tax cuts.

Link: NASA will get cut The absence of political interest makes NASA always an easy target and the first thing to get cut Jeff Brooks [founder and director of the Committee for the Advocacy of Space Exploration], “Introducing the Committee for the Advocacy of Space Exploration”, April 14 2008, http://thespacereview.com/article/1102/1 (HEG) Not surprisingly, candidates tend to avoid the subject of space exploration on the campaign trail, either through simple disinterest or to avoid giving their opponents an opportunity to accuse them of fiscal extravagance. Since space exploration is not an important subject on the campaign trail, there is not much incentive to make it a major issue in Congress. This disastrous political cycle is the main reason why we were not on Mars two decades ago and why ships with human crews are not voyaging into the outer solar system today. The lack of a fully-empowered political action committee has been a major contributing factor in the lack of strong political leadership on space exploration. Politicians must be made to know that they will gain by supporting space exploration and will suffer if they don’t. Until the space advocacy movement learns to play political hardball, its efforts will continue to be largely ineffectual. After all, if there were no such thing as the National Rifle Association, how many politicians would care about gun control?

NASA funding is volatile and under extensive review in the status quo Stewart M. Powell [reporter], “NASA worried about program’s future”, Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle, June 11, 2009, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6473816.html (HEG) WASHINGTON — For the first time since man set foot on the moon four decades ago, a president has ordered a wholesale review of the space program’s future and whether the U.S. can afford to — or even wants to — return to the moon or send humans hurtling toward Mars. With new leadership poised to take command of NASA, the next few months could be pivotal to the jobs of thousands of space program employees and contractors who depend on NASA for their livelihoods. As the shuttle prepares for its future as a museum exhibit and cost projections for a new moon mission rise while the timetable slips, the space agency’s political future is very much in doubt. Despite President Barack Obama’s repeated expressions of excitement about space exploration, his administration’s ongoing scrutiny of the manned program is stirring concern among NASA employees and aerospace contractors that jobs will be lost, multibillion-dollar contracts will be jeopardized and the planned return to the moon will be delayed or even scrapped.

Example: NASA typically cut to close deficit The Associated Press, "Budget cuts hurt NASA", Published, July 10, 2003, Re-Published in The Topeka Capital-Journal Online, http://cjonline.com/stories/071003/pag_nasa.shtml (HEG) "When you start adding up the overall NASA budget picture and the shuttle budget picture over the past decade, it's rather clear the shuttle had disproportionately taken budget cuts to fund the space station, to fund Russian participation in the station," Logsdon said. "The shuttle program has served as sort of a cash cow." Between 1993 and 2000, the space shuttle's operating budget was slashed by more than $1 billion a year as a result of policy decisions by NASA, the White House and Congress to cancel two major shuttle upgrades and to shift money to help finance construction of the space station and to reduce a government-wide budget deficit.

Even funding NASA for other reasons takes money out of space exploration Amy Klamper [reporter], “Lawmakers slash NASA budget request”, MSNBC, © 2009 Space.com, June 8, 2009, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31171173/ (HEG) Oberman said increases in other parts of NASA's budget, including aeronautics and Earth science, came at the expense of out-year funding for space exploration. Obermann said he sees NASA's current funding projections for 2010-2014 as a placeholder, and that he expects the Augustine panel's review to influence funding for the space agency's exploration programs in the out-year timeframe.

Brink: A stable budget is key A stable budget is key to NASA in the long term Amy Klamper [reporter], “Lawmakers slash NASA budget request”, MSNBC, © 2009 Space.com, June 8, 2009, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31171173/ (HEG) Concerns raised NASA's current human spaceflight plan calls for retiring the space shuttle in 2010 and replacing it with a crew capsule dubbed Orion that would be launched atop a shuttle-derived rocket, the Ares-1, starting in 2015. At the president's request, Augustine's panel is taking a second look at this plan, along with NASA's strategy for returning astronauts to the Moon by 2020, given the likely available budgets over the next several years.

Funding is key to American space program overall Tory Dunnan [reporter], “Senator Shelby talks about NASA budget”, WAFF48News, ©2009 WAFF, July 8, 2009, http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=10496056&nav=0hBEZy2y While it may be a celebration, many who work in the space industry fear the future. The NASA budget is still in the works. "I will do everything I can to make sure Marshall is properly funded in the scheme of the whole NASA situation. But we have not marked up yet," said Senator Shelby. It's funding that will determine America's role in space, and a mission with roots right here in North Alabama.

Uniqueness: NASA is properly funded now 2010 budget request is still strong for NASA Amy Klamper [reporter], “Lawmakers slash NASA budget request”, MSNBC, © 2009 Space.com, June 8, 2009, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31171173/ (HEG) Paul Shawcross, chief of the science and space branch in the White House Office of Management and Budget, said the administration's commitment to NASA was evident in the 2009 stimulus package — which included $1 billion for NASA programs — as well as in its 2010 budget request.

AT: Only small cuts Cutting NASA dooms it to irrelevancy – even if it exists, it won’t be effective. Taylor Dinerman [Author and Journalist for Forbes.com Inc, Editor, President and Publisher of SpaceEquity.com, a Part-time Consultant for the US Dept. of Defense, Writer, Columnist, and Space Analyst for The Space Review], “NASA and soft power, again”, The Space Review, June 15, 2009, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1396/1 (HEG) If, however, it is excessively restrictive or, alternatively, if its abandons its leadership role, then NASA will gradually cease to be a significant national asset and become just another special interest pleading for a handout. The new leadership at the space agency has a set of tough decisions ahead of it. Whatever choices they make, the role of NASA as a creative part of America’s worldwide influence is a powerful argument for the agency.

AT: No tradeoff A. If the plan DOESN’T trade off, it tubes PayGo, destroying fiscal responsibility. Jonathan DeWald, The Concord Coalition [a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to balanced federal budgets and generationally responsible fiscal policy. Former U.S. Senators Warren Rudman (R-NH) and Bob Kerrey (D-NE) serve as Concord's co-chairs and former Secretary of Commerce Peter Peterson serves as president], “Concord Coalition Supports Statutory Paygo But Cautions Against Large Exemptions”, June 9, 2009, http://www.concordcoalition.org/pressreleases/2009/0609/concord-coalition-supports-statutory-paygo-cautions-against-large-exemption (HEG) "Finding a cure for the nation's dire fiscal outlook will obviously require a lot more than a new budget rule, but enactment of statutory paygo would send a very positive signal that the federal government is beginning to take the problem seriously. We have to begin forcing the kind of trade-offs that were not

made when large deficit financed tax cuts and entitlement expansions were enacted after the old paygo law expired," said Robert Bixby, executive director of The Concord Coalition. The administration's proposal builds off the paygo rules put in place during the 1990s. Similar in design, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would keep a running scorecard for the costs associated with enacted legislation through 2013 and compare those costs to the established baseline. At the conclusion of each session of Congress, OMB would be required to subject any resulting difference between the baseline and enacted legislation to sequestration -- an automatic trigger, which would reduce non-exempt mandatory programs. "While statutory paygo would be a positive development, its effects should not be overestimated. At best, paygo is intended to stop the fiscal bleeding and, in this case, the exempted policies allow a lot of blood loss before the tourniquet is applied. The most immediate benefit of the new law would be to reinforce the President's commitment to pay for health care reform. This is extremely important and a minimum requirement for fiscal responsibility. However, given that health care spending is already on an unsustainable path, deficit-neutrality is not a sufficient long-term fiscal goal," Bixby said. B. Fiscal irresponsibility is likely to trigger economic collapse Fred Bergsten [Director of the Peterson Institute of International Economics], “The Risks Ahead for the World Economy”, Published at the PIIE [a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research institution devoted to the study of international economic policy], © Institute for International Economics, September 9, 2004, http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=222 (HEG) Robert Rubin, former secretary of the Treasury, also stresses the psychological importance for financial markets of expectations concerning the American budget position. If that deficit is viewed as likely to rise substantially, without any correction in sight, confidence in America's financial instruments and currency could crack. The dollar could fall sharply as it did in 1971-73, 1978-79, 1985-87, and 1994-95. Market interest rates would rise substantially, and the Federal Reserve would probably have to push them still higher to limit the acceleration of inflation. These risks could be intensified by the change in leadership that will presumably take place at the Federal Reserve Board in less than two years, inevitably creating new uncertainties after 25 years of superb stewardship by Mr. Volcker and Alan Greenspan. A very hard landing is not inevitable but neither is it unlikely.

AT: Obama won’t follow PayGo Pelosi will strictly follow PayGo no matter what Obama does Sentinel & Enterprise [news service], September 13, 2009, “Holding Obama Accountable”, http://m.sentinelandenterprise.com/Sentinel/db_11582/contentdetail.htm;jsessionid=AA21202399FE38 B92C40D152E146DEDF?contentguid=PauhCZmP&pn=0&full=true (HEG) PAYGO is a simple term. It means that Congress can't spend a new dollar without cutting a dollar out of the budget somewhere else. On Monday in the White House Obama tried to adopt the mantra as his own, but actually House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had required the House to budget along PAYGO lines before Obama's presidential candidacy was being taken seriously.

Pressure for complete compliance with PayGo is high Sheryl Gay Stolberg [reporter], The NY Times, June 9, 2009, “Obama Aims to Revive Pay as you Go”, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/us/politics/10obama.html (HEG) Mr. Obama has been under intense pressure from moderate and conservative House Democrats to show more fiscal restraint, and an administration official said Tuesday that the lawmakers had been urging him to throw his weight behind reviving the law. Mr. Obama said Tuesday that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, supported the measure; Ms. Pelosi was at the lectern with him in the East Room.

Impact: Soft Power NASA is the lynchpin of U.S. soft power – budget support is key. Taylor Dinerman [Author and Journalist for Forbes.com Inc, Editor, President and Publisher of SpaceEquity.com, a Part-time Consultant for the US Dept. of Defense, Writer, Columnist, and Space Analyst for The Space Review], “NASA and soft power, again”, The Space Review, June 15, 2009, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1396/1 (HEG) As we embark on yet another NASA budgetary roller coaster ride, courtesy of our political masters in Washington, it may be time to step back and examine why NASA is such an important part of America’s image at home and abroad. It is not simply the memories of what the space agency accomplished 40 years ago, and the still-haunting black and white film of John F. Kennedy telling us that “We choose to go to the Moon.” It is more than that. The human spaceflight program is a symbol of the idea that America represents a technologically advanced and optimistic future. It’s easy to belittle this as just PR fluff. What is often misunderstood is the source of soft power. It is more than just prestige —though that is a part of it—but it flows naturally from real achievements. It is built on a foundation of hard power, the ability of a nation to set ambitious goals and then to realize them.

Impact: Safety The more budget-pressed NASA becomes, the more likely accidents become Amy Klamper [reporter], “Lawmakers slash NASA budget request”, MSNBC, © 2009 Space.com, June 8, 2009, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31171173/ (HEG) At that time Augustine said manned space exploration offered many benefits, but that "it would be a grave mistake to try to pursue a space program on the cheap. To do so is in my opinion an invitation to disaster. There is a tendency in any can-do organization to believe that it can operate with almost any budget that is made available. The fact is that trying to do so is a mistake — particularly when safety is a major consideration."

Impact: Hegemony (same link as last) A. Another accident would destroy competitiveness and space exploration, shutting down NASA and forcing us to turn to the Russians for space access John Snider [Editor at Sci Fi Dimensions], John C. Snider © 2003, “NASA and the Future of Manned Spaceflight”, September 2003, http://www.scifidimensions.com/Sep03/shuttle.htm (HEG) In the aftermath of the recent Columbia tragedy, the shuttle fleet now stands at three, and despite NASA's Herculean efforts to implement new and improved safety protocols, the chances of another shuttle disaster are still significant. The loss of another shuttle, or of another astronaut, could spell the end of the shuttle program. At that point, NASA would either be forced to temporarily abandon manned operations, or to swallow their pride and "outsource" taxi services to the Russians, whose Soyuz system, despite its rude-and-crude reputation, has a comparatively good safety record. Although the financiallystrapped post-Cold War government in Moscow could use the infusion of cash, relying on the Russians is a political option that NASA cannot afford to consider. B. Improved space technology is key to U.S. leadership GlobalSecurity.org [focused on innovative approaches to the emerging security challenges of the new millennium] “A New Space Race Is on the Launch Pad”, BY PETER PAE, Copyright 2002 / Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, August 17, 2002, http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020817-eelv1.htm (HEG) The continued reliance on the old rocket technology has cost the U.S. leadership in the commercial launch business in the last decade, as Western European nations, China and Russia have moved aggressively into the market. In recent decades, the Pentagon and NASA have faltered in efforts to create advanced-technology space launchers that would dramatically reduce costs. Former NASA chief Dan Goldin lamented to Congress in 1996 that the space community "should hang its head in shame" over its failure to protect U.S. leadership in space. C. Hegemony is key to maintaining democracy, free markets and rule of law, preventing proliferation, regional threats by renegade states, global rivals, and a global “cold or hot war” (including nuclear exchange) Zalmay Khalilzad [RAND Corporation], “Losing The Moment?” Washington Quarterly, Vol 18, No 2, p. 84, 1995 (HEG) Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best longterm guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

Space superiority is key General Lance W. Lord [Commander of Air Force Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado], Published in High Frontier [The Journal for Space & Missile Professionals], Volume 1, Number 3, "Space Superiority", Page 5, United States Air Force Space Command, Winter 2005 (HEG) Space Superiority is the future of warfare. We cannot win a war without controlling the high ground, and the high ground is space. In future wars, gaining and maintaining space superior- ity will be equally as important as air superiority, so we must begin work now to ensure we maintain the high ground. Our doctrine and strategy for achieving space superiority are critical to realizing the full benefit of our systems and technology.

Impact: Global Warming A. NASA funding key to weather research in the atmosphere Statement of Bruce Carmichael [Ph.D. Director, Aviation Applications Program Research Applications Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research] Before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Committee on Science and Technology, 29 March 2007, Hearing on JDPO and the Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status and Issues, Pages 7-8, http://www.ucar.edu/oga/pdf/carmichael_testimony%203-07.pdf (HEG) Uncertainty of NASA's funding and lack of integration with the rest of the weather community in this area is creating difficulty in coordinated weather research planning. Research in use of unmanned aircraft systems as platforms for targeted observations of the atmosphere offers considerable promise to improve forecasts in high value areas with sparse observations. NextGen needs to explore the integration of unmanned aircraft observing systems into the National Airspace System. This research is a natural fit for NASA, but programs in this area have disappeared. B. That places the climate program in jeopardy – means we can’t deal with warming Patriot News, June 15, 2007 [accessed via LexisNexis] (HEG) Other questionable decisions include dramatically scaled-back efforts to measure global warming from space. Technology glitches and a near-doubling in the original $6.5 billion cost, The Associated Press reported, moved the Defense Department to reduce the number and delay the launch of satellites collecting weather and climate data. Consequently, the new satellites will be used primarily for weather forecasting and the U.S. will rely on European satellites for climate-related information. NOAA and NASA scientists told the White House in December that "the recent

loss of climate sensors ... places the overall climate program in serious jeopardy." The result is that there will be a major loss of data that only can be collected by satellite about ice caps and sheets, surface levels of seas and lakes, sizes of glaciers, surface radiation, water vapor, snow cover and atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to AP. This comes at a time when both the problem of global warming and efforts to deal with it are reaching critical mass.

Impact: Economy A. NASA funding aids economy K.C. Jones, “Proposed NASA Cuts Draw Fire”, InformationWeek, June 8, 2009, http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/federal/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=217800116 (HEG)

Democratic Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas and Republican Congressman Bill Posey sent a letter to their colleagues Monday urging restoration of the funds. Both representatives are from Florida, where NASA's Kennedy Space Center has a major impact on jobs and the economy. "Tens of thousands of jobs are at stake in our state and across the nation," they wrote. "In 2008, the U.S. space industry contributed approximately $100 billion to the U.S. economy and directly employed more than 262,000 people in 41 states at skill levels and pay scales far above national averages according to the Department of Labor." They said that, in Florida, every NASA job translates into 2.82 more jobs, which, in fiscal year 2008 gave Florida $4.1 billion in output, $2.1 billion of household income, and 40,802 jobs. "With the second-highest job loss numbers in the nation in 2008, maintaining current jobs in Florida and ensuring future work at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) represents a road to economic recovery for Florida and our nation," they said.

AT: China gets mad China supports space exploration – they won’t oppose the results of it Xinhua News Agency, “Chinese Expert Deeply Regrets Tragic Incident of Columbia”, February 2, 2003, http://www.china.org.cn/english/scitech/54970.htm (HEG) Chen Maozhang, member of Chinese Academy of Engineering, on Sunday deeply regretted the tragic incident of US space shuttle Columbia, saying such incident would not shake the mankind's space exploration program. Chen, who also serves as professor of Beihang University (the original University of Aeronautic and Astronautic Science and Technology in China), told Xinhua that the mankind's space exploration is a great cause that would suffer various setbacks. "But the mankind will not give up the dream of space exploration. Facing the setbacks, the mankind need to find out thecause of the accident and make improvement," he added. US space shuttle Columbia broke apart into flames as it streaked over Texas toward its landing strip at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Saturday, killing all seven astronauts. Six Americans and the first Israeli astronaut were on board. Four of the seven astronauts were on their first shuttle flight.

AT: Free market would solve Privatization causes more accidents and deaths from space travel Terence Corcoran [editor and columnist for the Financial Post section of the Toronto-based National Post], National Post, “Go further, faster without NASA”, February 4, 2003 (HEG) This is not to suggest that space exploration run by a competitive private sector would be free of tragedy and death. There would be, one must assume, even more deaths and setbacks in a privatized space industry. As more companies, explorers, scientists and adventurers take up the challenge and launch new experiments, the risks will increase. Because NASA is a giant state institution, it takes on giant and obsessive preoccupations. NASA's expanding projects commandeer huge multi-billion-dollar appropriations that draw more political scrutiny. As the scrutiny intensifies, the agency develops an obsessive and excessive preoccupation with safety.