Author Topic: Impact of Republican Control of Both the House and Senate on Space Policy?  (Read 66584 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Many false and wrong conclusions and statements in the above.
Please give precise statements and links to support your claim in detail.


Not until you provide precise data to support your claims in detail with relevant and plausible assumptions.  None of your statements or links do that.
And you keep repeating the same stuff over and over.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2014 02:52 pm by Jim »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Chris asked that this thread not drift into general politics. Please respect that. Trimmed a couple of posts.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
I was alive during the sixties. Taxes were much higher, and people did not complain about it. As a result Apollo was paid for with current revenues. The US is still severely in deficit and there is no possibility of a tax increase to pay for it. Consequently any budget increase for NASA would require additional borrowing. If you know of any possible source of the additional funding that will be necessary to fund a meaningful program of human exploration of the moon and Mars with SLS/Orion technology, please don't keep it a secret.

I don't think this is general politics, and this thread seems to be attracting more interest than any others.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
I was alive during the sixties. Taxes were much higher, and people did not complain about it. As a result Apollo was paid for with current revenues. The US is still severely in deficit and there is no possibility of a tax increase to pay for it. Consequently any budget increase for NASA would require additional borrowing. If you know of any possible source of the additional funding that will be necessary to fund a meaningful program of human exploration of the moon and Mars with SLS/Orion technology, please don't keep it a secret.

I don't think this is general politics, and this thread seems to be attracting more interest than any others.

Government spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than its ever been. So high tax rates weren't really necessary to pay for Apollo in the 1960s. The U.S. corporate tax rate (35%-40%) is higher than just about all other OECD countries and makes it hard for U.S. companies to compete internationally. Both Obama and Republicans recently promised to reduce the federal corporate tax rate through corporate tax reform but I wouldn't hold my breath. How does this relate to space? Economic growth brings larger government revenues and corporate tax reform is necessary to spur this growth. Corporate tax reform should be a priority but I doubt that Obama and Congress will find a way to compromise on this issue.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2014 05:50 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Tea Party Space Czar

  • President, Tea Party in Space
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • TEA Party in Space Czar
  • Washington DC
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 284
One thing that may matter is Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, who is now Majority Leader in the House and is likely to replace Boehner as Speaker. Musk is one of his contributors.

He also represents Antellope Valley and has been a big fan of commercial space companies like XCOR, Masten, etc. I got to meet him briefly after Masten won the NGLLC back in 2009. His district doesn't include Palmdale, but does include Edwards. But most of the aerospace companies he interacts with are of a more commercial flavor than most. Hopefully he has bandwidth to pay attention to what they have to say if he becomes Speaker--space won't be a priority issue, but at least commercial space will likely have more of a connection with him.

~Jon
Congressman McCarthy has the bandwidth.  I say this with 104% certainty.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
How does this relate to space? Economic growth brings larger government revenues and corporate tax reform is necessary to spur this growth. Corporate tax reform should be a priority but I doubt that Obama and Congress will find a way to compromise on this issue.

More tax money is being wasted on forcing NASA to be it's own transportation provider than what would be gained by reforming our tax code.

And in any case, Congress spends whatever it wants to spend on NASA, regardless what the tax implications are, so I see no reason why a future Congress would want to give NASA more money just because more tax revenue is coming in for whatever reason.  It's just as likely that a future Congress would use additional tax revenue to pay down our debt without increasing spending for any agency or department.
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 Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
The U.S. corporate tax rate (35%-40%) is higher than just about all other OECD countries and makes it hard for U.S. companies to compete internationally.

It's true that the headline US corporate tax rate is unusually high, but, according to the GAO, the effective corporate tax rate is quite a bit lower, because of numerous deductions and the like.  It's also the case the corporations in the US are paying a much smaller share of the federal government's total tax take now than in previous decades (you can look it up on OMB's website).

None of this is to say that the US corporate tax code doesn't need overhauling -- it may well do.  It's just that the 35% rate itself isn't the problem.  I don't know a lot about US corporate taxes, but the fact that a blatantly faulty argument (the 35% rate) is so often trotted out as proof that US corporate taxes are too high makes me suspicious that US corporations are actually not over-taxed, especially in light of their declining share of total US tax burden.

PS  I do not mean to imply, yg1968, that you are being deceptive in mentioning the 35% rate -- it is, after, widely talked about.  I'm just suggesting that under scrutiny it does not hold up as evidence that the tax code is unreasonably burdensome on US corporations, and some corporate interests may disingenuous in highlighting it.
« Last Edit: 11/07/2014 10:01 am by Proponent »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
The U.S. corporate tax rate (35%-40%) is higher than just about all other OECD countries and makes it hard for U.S. companies to compete internationally.

It's true that the headline US corporate tax rate is unusually high, but, according to the GAO, the effective corporate tax rate is quite a bit lower, because of numerous deductions and the like.  It's also the case the corporations in the US are paying a much smaller share of the federal government's total tax take now than in previous decades (you can look it up on OMB's website).

None of this is to say that the US corporate tax code doesn't need overhauling -- it may well do.  It's just that the 35% rate itself isn't the problem.  I don't know a lot about US corporate taxes, but the fact that a blatantly faulty argument (the 35% rate) is so often trotted out as proof that US corporate taxes are too high makes me suspicious that US corporations are actually not over-taxed, especially in light of their declining share of total US tax burden.

PS  I do not mean to imply, yg1968, that you are being deceptive in mentioning the 35% rate -- it is, after, widely talked about.  I'm just suggesting that under scrutiny it does not hold up as evidence that the tax code is unreasonably burdensome on US corporations, and some corporate interests may disingenuous in highlighting it.

Corporate tax reform would imply reducing some of these deductions. It's supposed to be revenue neutral. As far as the corporate tax system bringing less revenue than before. That's partly because more and more small businesses are setup as LLCs where the members are taxed directly as if they had earned the income directly (i.e., they don't pay corporate taxes, they pay taxes at individual rates). There is also the fact that the U.S. international tax system encourages U.S. companies not to repatriate money from their foreign subsidiaries back to the U.S. because the companies try to avoid paying additional tax in the United States by not paying any dividends to their parent U.S. company (an exemption system would make more sense since these profits have already been subject to foreign income taxes). This is somewhat off topic. But my point was that growing the economy (through corporate tax reform, for example) can increase tax revenues because of the resulting increase in GDP. More revenues would be good for NASA and all other federal government agencies.
« Last Edit: 11/07/2014 04:30 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
I really don’t expect an overall increase for NASA, perhaps only to specific programs that benefit specific districts...
« Last Edit: 11/07/2014 05:23 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Colorado's incoming Senator Cory Garnder teamed up with Reps. Mo Brooks of Alabama and Mike Coffman of Colorado in accusing SpaceX of having sufferred "an epidemic of anomalies" in its launches last July (letter attached).  To my mind, this was misleading and melodramatic.  He doesn't sound very newspace-friendly.

Your asking the wrong questions.   That was July2014, this is Nov.2014 has the administrator complied with the Congressional oversight?   What were the results?

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
But I'm not asking any questions -- I'm just calling attention to some data that bears on the topic of the thread.

Offline WindyCity

Many have lamented NASA’s “loss of vision” after the end of the Apollo era. For decades the nation’s reach into space has extended no farther than low earth orbit. Different reasons have been put forth to explain it.

Some critics have pointed to the absence of a single focussed mission objective as the cause; instead of unifying behind a long-term resolve, such as “to land men on the moon and bring them back safely within a decade,” NASA succumbed to the fractured political demands of powerful competing interests. A variety of disconnected projects sprang up state by state, corporation by corporation, that did not share a common goal. The hugely expensive International Space Station, while a substantial achievement, has turned out to be more an exercise in international cooperation than a prolific boost to scientific research and discovery.

Another explanation is that after America “won” the Cold War-triggered space race, the public lost interest in human space flight. Many felt that the government’s resources would be better spent on education, ending poverty, fighting disease, etc. Sending people into space for what some perceived to be grandstanding displays of technological might was at best a diversion. Some on the left perceived NASA as a branch of the military/industrial complex whose ultimate purpose was to master the “high frontier” as a weapons platform; others saw it as pork tossed to greedy corporations.

I would like to suggest another two-fold explanation, which is that the success of Apollo posed a threat to the conservative worldview that Big Government cannot achieve great things; while, paradoxically, it reinforced the opposite belief on the left that government was capable of solving major problems and should therefore redirect its full resources in an “Apollo-style” effort to solve pressing social problems. Many conservatives believe that large government initiatives inevitably sink in a “bureaucratic quagmire”; whereas private enterprise, driven by the profit motive, is flexible, innovative, and efficient. Apollo showed that a government-led “enterprise” could succeed, and that was unwelcome to them at a deep psychological level. Liberals, on the other hand, were frustrated that so much of the public coffers were cast away on a “flags and footprints” stunt when the inner cities were rotting and millions struggled in poverty.

In this sense, NASA became a victim of its own success. While its post-Apollo history is by no means an unequivocal failure, it has certainly exhibited symptoms of “bureaucratic stagnation” and aimlessness, precisely what would draw fire from conservatives.  I suggest that conservatives have found the accomplishments of the NASA of the past forty years far more satisfying and reassuring that they did those of the 1960s. Billions spent on going nowhere shows that Big Government is not the answer. Liberals, on the other hand, can point their fingers at all the billions thrown away on an orbiting white elephant or grandiose schemes that hoover up billions of tax dollars only to get canceled when a new administration comes to Washington.

I submit that NASA's post-Apollo problems aren’t the fault of incompetent or short-sighted administrators, nor the fault of the dedicated engineers and technicians and policy architects who work for the agency; the failure to move forward in the path that Apollo blazed is an expression of deep-seated values in the American polity—on the right, a mistrust and fear of large-scale state enterprise; and on the left, a conviction that human space flight has nothing to do with satisfying the basic needs of the people.

« Last Edit: 11/13/2014 02:46 am by WindyCity »

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
I'm on the extreme left and I support not only human spaceflight but commercial crew, the only form of NASA-supported human spaceflight that has any prospect of becoming commercially sustainable. And I disagree with the assertion that  the choice is between accepting or rejecting "big government". The _original_ mission of NASA, from its origin in 1915 until the beginning of the Moon Race, was to act in_partnership with private industry to advance America's economy, productivity, jobs, exports, environment and quality of life by facilitating practical advances in science and technology.

Like all liberals I decry government waste. Apollo was not waste; it was a symbolic substitute for a nuclear arms race that nearly killed us all. It was a master stroke in its time, but times have changed. SLS/Orion serves no such geopolitical goal.

The ISS is valuable because it accomplishes the same thing by the opposite strategy; it allows nuclear adversaries to work together toward a common goal. The major failing of the ISS program is the failure to include China, one of only two countries (the other is the US) that dominate the world economy and one of only two (the other is Russia) that have the present ability to launch humans into orbit.
« Last Edit: 11/12/2014 05:39 pm by vulture4 »

Offline WindyCity

I'm on the left, too, and I support human space flight. Always have. But we're outliers. Most people on the left do not support space; it's not even on their radar.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
I'm on the left, too, and I support human space flight. Always have. But we're outliers. Most people on the left do not support space; it's not even on their radar.

Right, left or center, space geeks are outliers anywhere on the political spectrum.

Offline CraigLieb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1193
  • Dallas Fort Worth
  • Liked: 1349
  • Likes Given: 2394
All it will take to change the calculus of Space flight is boots on the ground (the Moon) that are not wearing a US flag. Then we can talk about what budgets become available as China, or Russia starts occupying what we just visited.
On the ground floor of the National Space Foundation... Colonize Mars!

Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1568
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 0
All it will take to change the calculus of Space flight is boots on the ground (the Moon) that are not wearing a US flag. Then we can talk about what budgets become available as China, or Russia starts occupying what we just visited.

That wouldn't change a thing.  The US doesn't own the Moon anymore than they own Antarctica.

Offline pagheca

  • Bayesian Pundit. Maybe.
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Lives in Ivory, Tower
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 161
All it will take to change the calculus of Space flight is boots on the ground (the Moon) that are not wearing a US flag. Then we can talk about what budgets become available as China, or Russia starts occupying what we just visited.

That wouldn't change a thing.  The US doesn't own the Moon anymore than they own Antarctica.

I think CraigLieb means that should another country be ahead the US in their moon program, they would hurry up again.

Antarctica is a good example indeed. Before IGY 57 some countries filled claims on some Antarctic sectors where they had stations, even before real economic benefits were recognized. The US reacted spreading large stations in the continent, a very detailed exploration and scientific program and putting a station just in the "center" (Amundsen-Scott Station), making de facto claims on "slices" useless as they were on any of them!

This is something where history could repeat herself. One can imagine a very remote scenario where  a country "claims" sovereignty on the Moon region around their permanent station, even before a real economic potential is recognized, just for "security" purposes, for example.

Which would be the reaction of the US? Difficult to say (history is very unpredictable), but certainly a new Moon race would be an option and the Conservative would probably be the first to ride it.
« Last Edit: 11/13/2014 01:21 pm by pagheca »

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5412
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3861
I'm on the left, too, and I support human space flight. Always have. But we're outliers. Most people on the left do not support space; it's not even on their radar.

I disagree that this is a left right thing.  People on extreme edges are all one thing or another.  Whether it's give everyone food stamps or cut taxes to zero.  Thankfully a large majority of people are not on those edges.

For those of us in the center we just end up frustrated with the inability for this government to lead and do what is right for the country.

That said, I'd like to the new congress move away from this asteroid distraction and set sites on the moon. 

I think the best goal for a lunar base is to base it on it's own self development.  Bootstrapping up from a small nuclear reactor, mining and processing resources to build more equipment and power generating capacity.  With 3D printing technology coming along nicely this is a field that NASA would be great at developing. 

China and India are going to get to the moon in a decade or two.  Hopefully America is there to greet them and not here on earth arguing over nonsense.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
I would like to suggest another two-fold explanation, which is that the success of Apollo posed a threat to the conservative worldview that Big Government cannot achieve great things; while, paradoxically, it reinforced the opposite belief on the left that government was capable of solving major problems and should therefore redirect its full resources in an “Apollo-style” effort to solve pressing social problems.

Not a bad analysis at all from Chicago.

Quote
I submit that NASA's post-Apollo problems aren’t the fault of incompetent or short-sighted administrators...

Here, however, you miss, somewhat inadvertently, due to the falsehoods perpetuated by our lawmakers since at least 11-22-63:  That perfect resumes, piles of academic paper, and fat bank accounts are the sole data points of determining competence.

Comprehensive, rational, beneficial, multi-decadal government policy has always deferred to the warmongers and false social prophets.  I certainly agree with your observation that the demonstrated success of Apollo, which proved that mankind can indeed live on other celestial bodies, at least for a limited time, struck at the false heart of the two ideologies which you summarize so well.

The most casual observation of global economies will readily reveal that the expenditures of the liberals' "war on poverty", and the conservatives' "war on education" can be discounted.  There has been enough money spent on actual wars for the purpose of killing innocent people, supported by both parties, to have conclusively demonstrated a viable attempt at creating an off-world human economy based on peaceful premises.

Again, it's not about competence, it is about willingness.

Solo dicendo.

Oooo.  Oooo.  I'm exactly centered between my left wing and my right wing.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0