“Sequestration would come at ‘great cost’ to NASA.”


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Another whining article about sequestration: “Sequestration would come at ‘great cost’ to NASA.”

Let’s be blunt. An 8.2 percent cut in NASA’s budget will not destroy the agency. It will hurt them, surely, but it will only bring their budget back the agency’s 2005 budget. Considering the deficit and debt, this is hardly a draconian cut.

If the Republicans are serious about getting the budget under control — as they say they are — then these automatic cuts imposed by sequestration should not give them heartburn.

As for the Democrats, no point in caring what they think or do. We already know they aren’t serious about getting the budget under control, considering the budgets Obama has proposed, all of which were rejected unanimously by both Houses of Congress, and the refusal of the Democrats in the Senate to even offer a budget for the past three years.

Share

7 comments

  • Tom Billings

    I think the anticipated pain is less in the cuts themselves than it is in the shrinkage of maneuvering room in the bargaining space the NASA/Congressional Complex has between its own groups and individuals. This is a level that few want to expose to public view. At this level , which many at HQ are focused on, an 8% drop could cut their maneuvering space by 80 percent! I doubt many look at that possibility with glee.

  • The bigger picture is too little, too late. With QE3 they’ve opened the door on hyperinflation. Unlike 1 and 2, this one is open ended. We are way too civil to these murdering bastards… make no mistake, deprivation and death is on the way due to these simpleton bureaucrats.

    My mistake, it’s already here if you are a state department employee.

  • Jim

    The whining about sequestration shows the lack of seriousness from both sides on spending reductions. Both sides are in fact telling us that they want less in spending reductions, and sadly even sequestration is not enough.
    Every company that ever found itself in financial problems would go to every one of its departments and say, “Take 10% out of your budget.”
    And you know what every department’s response would be?
    “We are the one department that cannot take any further cuts because WE have always run at ultimate efficiency. Its the other guys who need the cutting. Also, we are indispensable.”

    Sound familiar?

  • In a private business, management would tell each department, “Well, that’s too damn bad. If you won’t reduce your budget by 10%, we will.” And you know what? Each department would somehow find ways to make the cuts.

    I think the situation in Washington right now is actually complex. The Democrats do not want to do anything and will fight to the last to prevent any cuts. Among the Republicans, there is a split generally between those who have been there for awhile and the new guys, most of whom came in under the tea party wave of 2010. That 2010 wave is politically powerful and is serious about cuts, but isn’t powerful enough yet to force the kind of cuts it wants and we need.

    Because that 2010 election was a trend, however, and not a fluke, there will be a second wave in 2012, followed by later ones in ’14 and ’16, each of which will increase the power of the new guys. I expect we will begin to see real cuts in the next Congress.

    There are also other signs that this trend is real. For example, scientists used to squeal when Congress just hinted at reducing the rate of growth of their budgets. Now they are fighting to avoid real cuts, and would be happy if their budgets merely stated level.

    One more point, I think you are fooling yourself if you think there is no difference between the two parties. Anyone who wants the federal budget brought under control but votes for a Democrat at this time is not serious about the problem.

    This is not to say the Republicans are saints. They are not. However, at least among Republicans the idea of cutting the federal budget is greeted with some seriousness.

    But the record of the Democratic Party for at least the past six years, since 2006, is very clear: They want to spend money and increase the power of the federal government. To fix this problem they have got to go.

  • Jim

    In my life, I was in a similar position to Mitt in that I was a management consultant. Bain was somewhat of a competitor, although they did mostly strategy projects, while we did operations projects. It was Mitt, by the way, who expanded the Bain model out to go from simple management consulting, to a hybrid of venture capital and M&A, and then tied that back to management projects. I know how hard it is to sell consulting projects…what he did was a stroke of business genius. I worked with many Fortune 500 firms. And I saw the examples you and I both use first hand. It goes on all the time…each department thinks its the other guy who needs to do the cutting.

    I will challenge you on point…I know there are some in the Tea Party (Rand Paul, for one) who believe defense needs to be on the table. But I think most do not want cuts there (Jim DeMint). Could be wrong, but that is what I believe.

    I think cuts need to be everywhere, but there are also other things I believe as well…as you and I have debated over the past year.

  • When it comes to defense, you are right, many tea party candidates whine as loud about cuts as any Democrats. I think they are wrong. I also know that if you push them on this they back down, because they are more interested in getting the budget under control than saving any one particular part of that budget. I know this from my contacts within the tea party in Maryland, Virginia, and Arizona.

  • Jim

    You and I could work out a deal. Sadly, you and I are just posting thoughts.
    We always have sequestration, but lets see what happens…I bet there is some agreement and it will result in less spending cuts.
    You can’t make it up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *