Author Topic: White House proposes steep budget cut to leading climate science agency  (Read 1962 times)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6549
  • UK
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 152

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3209
  • Liked: 370
  • Likes Given: 81
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

This is our canary in the coal mine. Im waiting to see what happens to this page.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30331
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 8593
  • Likes Given: 276
congress is not going to go along with it.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2919
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 1834
  • Likes Given: 2012
congress is not going to go along with it.

In "normal" times that may have been true, but we're in uncharted political territory at this moment in history.  Many Republicans are viewing this moment in history as an opportunity to do things not possible in the past, and Trump may be willing to go along with them in order to show "positive" results (he's lacking those right now).

I'm of the opinion that such cuts would be "pennywise but pound foolish", however the effects of the cuts won't show up for years down the road - too far for anyone to ultimately assign any blame to Trump, and assigning blame to him won't do anything to correct the situation.

If you have a strong opinion about this topic, now is the time to contact your representatives in Congress and let them know what those opinions are...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Europe
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 32
congress is not going to go along with it.

Could you explain to us foreigners why you think a congress that approves Pruitt as head of the EPA with a comfortable margin would hesitate to agree to budget cuts for NOAA? Do such budget cuts require special majority? Or is there a significant fraction of republicans that support NOAA but not the EPA? Or is it just the budget in its entirety that is not going to be approved? Because the latter seems just delaying the inevitable, as the budget cut will probably survive into the version of the budget approved by congress...

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4017
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1252
  • Likes Given: 1
congress is not going to go along within​ it.

Could you explain to us foreigners why you think a congress that approves Pruitt as head of the EPA with a comfortable margin would hesitate to agree to budget cuts for NOAA?
>

Because Presidential budget requests are routinely killed by huge majorities, if they even get a vote. When Obama had a Senate run by Democrats his requests lost by 99-0 or similar.

Ours isn't a parliamentary system where back benchers, or even front benchers, fall into lockstep and vote as they're told. It's more like herding cats on crack.
DM

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6549
  • UK
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 152
congress is not going to go along within​ it.

Could you explain to us foreigners why you think a congress that approves Pruitt as head of the EPA with a comfortable margin would hesitate to agree to budget cuts for NOAA?
>

Because Presidential budget requests are routinely killed by huge majorities, if they even get a vote. When Obama had a Senate run by Democrats his requests lost by 99-0 or similar.

Ours isn't a parliamentary system where back benchers, or even front benchers, fall into lockstep and vote as they're told. It's more like herding cats on crack.

I don't think that's so much the case at the moment, it looks from the distance of the UK to be a more compliant senate.

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4017
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1252
  • Likes Given: 1
Appearances can be deceiving. There are two major pieces of legislation being worked on now where keeping errant senior Republicans in line is what's holding up the rest of the calendar for the year.
DM

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10513
  • Liked: 2116
  • Likes Given: 1
congress is not going to go along with it.

Could you explain to us foreigners why you think a congress that approves Pruitt as head of the EPA with a comfortable margin would hesitate to agree to budget cuts for NOAA?

Because generally speaking, the president is considered to be entitled to put the people he wants in executive branch positions unless they do something that is considered to disqualify them (like hire an illegal immigrant as a maid, or kill a street musician or something--unless he's playing the tuba).

But when it comes to budgets, well, Congress views budgets as their own domain. That's where the old saying "the President proposes, but the Congress disposes..." comes into play. Many members of Congress consider the president's budget to be a "proposal" and not the actual budget. Plus, as you probably realize, budgets get spent in the districts and states that members of Congress come from, so they tend to pay attention.

The NOAA story is being covered badly, because people have this impression that "NOAA = climate." That's a tiny part of what NOAA actually does. If you really want to cut NOAA's budget, you cancel satellites for weather forecasting. And then people realize that "NOAA = tracking hurricanes that kill people and destroy cities" and then they get wary of cutting budgets.

Offline incoming

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • washington, DC
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 22
congress is not going to go along with it.

Could you explain to us foreigners why you think a congress that approves Pruitt as head of the EPA with a comfortable margin would hesitate to agree to budget cuts for NOAA?

Because generally speaking, the president is considered to be entitled to put the people he wants in executive branch positions unless they do something that is considered to disqualify them (like hire an illegal immigrant as a maid, or kill a street musician or something--unless he's playing the tuba).

But when it comes to budgets, well, Congress views budgets as their own domain. That's where the old saying "the President proposes, but the Congress disposes..." comes into play. Many members of Congress consider the president's budget to be a "proposal" and not the actual budget. Plus, as you probably realize, budgets get spent in the districts and states that members of Congress come from, so they tend to pay attention.

The NOAA story is being covered badly, because people have this impression that "NOAA = climate." That's a tiny part of what NOAA actually does. If you really want to cut NOAA's budget, you cancel satellites for weather forecasting. And then people realize that "NOAA = tracking hurricanes that kill people and destroy cities" and then they get wary of cutting budgets.

To be more specific though - getting a presidential appointee through in the Senate now only requires a simple majority.   This was what all the uproar was about several years ago when the dems used the so called "nuclear option," changing the rules from the 60 vote to simple majority threshold for getting Obama's nominations through, since so many of them had been held up by the republicans.   Generally, all legislation in the Senate can still be blocked by a filibuster unless a 60 vote "super majority" can override the filibuster.  I believe Supreme Court nominees are also still subject to the 60 vote threshold.

In the case of appropriations bills, things get a little trickier.  Congress must pass either an appropriations bill or a continuing resolution to keep the government operating.  That's why there is always so much drama over appropriations bills and CRs.  If a member holds up an appropriations bill or CR, and the majority doesn't have 60 votes in the senate prior to the end of a fiscal year to end debate (or whatever period the previous CR covered), the government shuts down.

So if a member was so passionate about cuts to NOAA that they were willing to shut the government down over it (which they may very well be given the fact that constituents generally want weather forecasting), then they could block Trump and his allies in congress from achieving such an outcome, at the expense of shutting down the government, which causes all kinds of other problems.   

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10513
  • Liked: 2116
  • Likes Given: 1
To be more specific though - getting a presidential appointee through in the Senate now only requires a simple majority.   

And to be even more specific--political appointees only require a single up/down vote in the Senate, but budgets have to go through both houses of Congress, and their respective committees. That is a much more involved process.

Tags: