Senate/House budget conflicts over science and space

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 or below. 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.

Link here. The article gives a good overview, from a pro-science, pro-big spending perspective, of some of the significant budget differences between the proposed House and Senate budgets for 2018.

Except for NASA’s planetary program, the House generally wants to cut more than the Senate. This once again reflects the overall political trends. Because House membership changes more frequently (its members must face the voters every two years), the positions of its membership tend to reflect more closely the wishes of the voters. The Senate meanwhile (with only one-third of its membership facing re-election every two years and with six year terms for all senators) has historically trailed behind, defending past positions that are no longer popular with the voters.

If you want to predict the political future, look at what the House proposes. The budget proposals here reflect the increasing desire of the voters to trim back the federal government. Congress (and the establishment Republican leadership) might not yet realize this, but the trends show it. Soon (I hope after 2018), the resistance by that leadership and within the Senate will break, and we shall finally see some major budget cutting.



  • The easy way to get a new government is to vote it in. Incumbents need to go as they create a consolidation of power. If we strive to elect new people to do the job, eventually the job will get done.

  • Tom Billings

    ” If we strive to elect new people to do the job, eventually the job will get done.”

    In particular, in an election year when Republicans may expect an easier time of it, 2 things may swing the Republican leadership more strongly towards cutting back:

    1.) Pro-cutting primary challengers being successful in seats thought safe by the RNC.

    2.) The success of these challengers in the general election at higher percentages of the voting population than was expected for the beltway-friendly candidates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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