Wondering where the money is coming from for our three wars, including the over $1 billion for the latest war in Libya? Well, as we spend billions on the wars (including one for an oil-rich nation which has refused to re-pay any of the costs), the White House is slashing domestic programs. A good comparison is that the cost to date of the Libyan war is basically what Congress is about to cut from the budget of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The cuts from Congress are above those asked by the Administration. Trillions of cuts are being worked out in light of budget shortfalls.
Hundreds of millions will be cut from the Joint Polar Satellite System, a reorganized satellite system and hundreds of millions more will be cut from NOAA’s Operations, Research and Facilities budget. NOAA is already a lean organization with an expanding mission. Other countries are increasing oceanic and weather monitoring to protect lives and property. However, with yet another war launched by President Obama, we can hardly be tossing away money on the environment and science while tossing cruise missiles at Tripoli.
Source: Science Mag
Roco,
The “seen and unseen” is perhaps the highest opportunity cost of a universal health care system. Innovation will slow to a crawl and people will never know the new pharmaceuticals, medical improvements, and higher quality of life they are missing.
Roco, Bastiat didn’t know that we have a money tree in Washington that never stops blooming. All you have to do is reach back to some perceived good, no matter how tangential, say what a great thing it was and what it has led to, then you shake the tree until you have enough money to pay for your next research project.
kderosa:
ole Freddy Bastiat calls that the seen and the unseen. What you see is some technology, what you dont see is what technology that didnt get developed because of the allocation of resources to government funded science and technology programs.
Virgin Galactic
Whatever space-age NASA technology is behind TOTUS has certainly paid off.
I’m talking about the Integrated circuit. NASA may have purchased a lot of them, but I do not believe the initial funding came from them or other “early space program” research.
Also, you seem to think we live in a world in which resources are not scarce (in the economic sense), funding is unlimited and you can wave your magic wand and point to some technology that has resulted from government funded research and demand ever increasing funding like it isn;t going to affect our ability to fund other areas.
K, I was there. I have been at what I do for well over a half century. I am a scientist, and I know where ideas and big machines come from. I am also a businessman, and no business leader in his or her right mind would fund “blue sky” projects that exceed the total worth of the business. Boeing took an enormous gamble with the 707, and had it failed, the business would have gone under. But even then, the swept wing and the engines were the result of government funded research that went well beyond Boeing’s–or any other airframe manufacturer, to build. In fact, it was the German government that initially developed the swept wing used by the Horten brothers and Messerschmidt. Our early jets had straight wings (P-80 Shooting Star, F2H Banshee, etc.).
OS, I think you have your timeline a little off and your research funding sources as well.
Gene H, you’re going to fit right in here.
So we should determine funding levels by polling the scientists who stand to benefit from increased funding levels, is that what you’re saying? Why bother, we know the answer to that question.
LottaKatz,
As the late Jack Horkheimer used to say, “Keep your feet on the ground and your eyes toward the stars!”
kderosa,
I’m sorry, but I thought I was quite clear when I said I don’t take anything you say seriously. However, thanks for reminding people that it is their duty to vote out of office politicians that would be so irresponsible as to mandate projects and then not adequately fund them. The best way to cut governmental waste is by eliminating the special interest purchased members of Congress who lack the vision to understand the long term importance of programs like NASA.
To expand on Gene and other comments, here is a prime example of the issue. The Rutan shop would not have been able to build Spaceship One without the data from NASA. Despite Burt Rutan’s genius at design, he needed the vast amount of space data created by NASA scientists in order to build a spaceship that you can fly in without being a billionaire.
As a spin off, solid state computer technology came directly from the early space program. A few years ago, I was at the University having lunch with several computer scientists who told me that without government funded space program research in the early days of the 1950s and1960s, we would still be using vacuum tubes in our room-sized 4 Mhz computers with about 28 K of memory.
Gene, your posting was very interesting in that it aptly demonstrated how government money is going to subsidize private companies while basic research by NASA will suffer as that money is siphoned away. A bad trade-off I think.
Gene H., “None of changes that cutting out pure science projects like the Webb Space Telescope in favor of private enterprise support is both literally and figuratively shortsighted. Space is one of the most hostile environments imaginable and the more we know about it, the safer we can make our inevitable outward expansion. The JWST is a valuable tool in gathering that knowledge.”
———–
And even if it doesn’t foster any outward expansion just think of the pictures!
I say that in all seriousness. Hubble, by dint of it’s pictures, reinvigorated NASA and an interest in space. While it added tons of information to our knowledge and, more importantly, raised many new questions, it was the pictures that brought a sense of excitement and awe to the space program that hadn’t been present since the end of the Apollo missions.
People need ‘awe’ on a very basic level IMO. People need something like a Moon walk or Voyager flyby of Saturn or a Hubble to shake them out of their day-to-day and get them to look up, instead of just shuffling along looking at the ground.
[Well, as we spend billions on the wars (including one for an oil-rich nation which has refused to re-pay any of the costs),]
WTF Prof. Turley? Refused to pay? Why would Iraq be expected to pay for the costs of a war of aggression based on lies against it? On the contrary, they should be demanding reparations and any fair court would grant them.
Gyges,
Based on previous comments, I’m not sure what you get and what you don’t get.
Having said that though, it is one thing to know that BP lobbies and quite another to know that they have been wildly successful with said lobbying efforts because our federal government has many members who are all too willing to accommodate them.
Successful lobbying takes two parties: the lobbyist and the willing government official.
Your comment focused on BP and ignored the government part. That seems to be your default bias. My article not only shed some light on government part, but also on the extent of BP’s lobbying efforts.
You were content wondering without any facts. I provided some. I never stated those facts were definitive; it is unfortunate that you read it that way.
KDE,
Let me use an analogy for our conversation so far:
“I wonder how big of a piece of cake Bob wants,”
” Bob can eat dessert.”
“What does that have to do with the question I asked?”
“I CAN eat cake, duh.”
I get that BP can lobby, that’s implicate in the phrase “how much lobbying.” I’m wondering why you expected an article that says BP lobbies, but makes no mention of the specific instance of lobbying I’m curious about, to answer the question how much lobbying did BP do in this particular case. Or alternately, I’m wondering why you would say “Why Wonder” when linking to an article that you know doesn’t address the unknown I’m wondering about.
We agree that BP can and does in fact lobby, go us.
We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
Gyges,
Er, it’s pretty clear BP doesn’t have a problem lobbying for cuts it thinks benefits them and doesn’t have a problem finding Reps and Senators (mostly Democrats) willing to accommodate them in exchange for lobbying support in other areas.
You obviously think NOAA cuts benefit BP.
2+2 = 4
Gene H,
I’m glad to see you’ve found your place in the herd so quickly.
The context is that even accounting for inflation, NASA has over a billion dollars (about 8% more) more in its budget than it had in 2007. And that doesn’t even account for any expected productivity gains which apparently never occur in the government sector.
The entire purpose of making a budget is to set priorities. That means cutting some old/obsolete crap in favor of some new stuff, if they can’t fit the new stuff in the extra billion dollars plus they have.. If you don’t like the priorities our government favors you should use the democratic process and elect new representatives.