Author Topic: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4  (Read 152681 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17418
  • Liked: 7204
  • Likes Given: 3096
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #640 on: 01/09/2023 02:27 pm »
The challenging budget environment for Artemis going forward...

Quote
The struggle over the Speakership and flaring intra-party tempers are important from a space policy perspective because of what it foreshadows for passing legislation in these next two years. Getting any legislation passed is a challenge, but all the more so when the Speaker and his supporters are at such odds with a group within their own party that it takes 15 votes to get elected. This was the first time since 1923 that it took more than one. It took nine that year. The record was 133 ballots in 1855-1856.

That’s on top of the sharp divide between Republicans and Democrats on many issues, especially government spending. Republicans want to increase defense spending while cutting non-defense spending (e.g. NASA and NOAA) to reduce the debt. Democrats insist that non-defense spending be funded commensurately with defense.

Washington Examiner reporter Susan Ferrechio reports that in order to win over detractors, he [McCarthy] vowed the House will pass a budget resolution capping discretionary spending at “FY2022 levels or lower,” reject negotiations with the Senate unless they comply with House direction, and refuse to increase the debt limit unless the growth of spending is reduced or capped.

NASA’s budget could drop from the $25.4 billion it just got for FY2023 to $24.0 billion if they held to FY2022 levels on an agency-by-agency basis.

Another concession McCarthy reportedly made was that each of the 12 appropriations bills must be passed individually instead of combined into a single omnibus bill, open to amendment on the floor, and on time. That sounds reasonable and Members from both parties on both sides of Capitol Hill routinely decry the use of Continuing Resolutions and omnibus bills, but they are commonplace because there’s no other way to reach agreement.

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/house-finally-ready-for-118th-congress-government-spending-cuts-top-priority/

Yes, I posted this article in the space policy section.

I don't expect that shutdowns will happen. Republicans always get blamed for shutdowns (so they try to avoid them) but I would expect CRs. Apparently, the House CRs would be at 98% of the funding of the prior year.

Year-long CRs are possible but it doesn't happen very often. It last happened in FY2013 and before that in FY2011 and FY2007.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/20-years-of-congresss-budget-procrastination-in-one-chart/

Having said all of that I am not sure that the challenging budget environment will affect Artemis more than other programs. A budget resolution isn't binding, so capping amounts in a budget resolution doesn't have much of an impact on the appropriations bill. If the House insists on capping amounts to the FY22 level, the likely result would be a series of CRs and perhaps even a year-long CR for FY24. For FY25, an agreement might be possible after the 2024 election.
Listen to what the republicans are saying. Don't just assume they will do the opposite. Believe what they are saying. Many of them DO NOT WANT to govern. They will view a shutdown as a success. It only takes a handful to stop the entire process. They will want to cut the budget by rediculous amounts and defund entire sections of government that doesn't ideologically align with whatever they are mad at right then. Obviously the senate won't go along with that. Hence no agreement.

There is no reason to think this won't be like the teaparty (2010ish), but worse, because they party has gotten more extreme.

Wanting to freeze spending isn't extreme. In any event, like I said in the space policy section (see the link below), when the Senate and House can't agree on an omnibus bill, they usually agree on passing a clean CR instead (shutdowns rarely happen and when they do, it is usually for short periods). A CR freezes spending at the prior year's amount, so it would accomplish what the Republicans want without shutting down the government. The reason that a year-long CR for FY24 is possible is that I don't expect Democrats to accept freezing spending. So they may settle on a year-long CR instead which isn't ideal.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56048.msg2447497#new
« Last Edit: 01/09/2023 02:40 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17418
  • Liked: 7204
  • Likes Given: 3096
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #641 on: 01/09/2023 02:31 pm »

The challenging budget environment for Artemis going forward...

Quote
<snip>
Another concession McCarthy reportedly made was that each of the 12 appropriations bills must be passed individually instead of combined into a single omnibus bill, open to amendment on the floor, and on time. That sounds reasonable and Members from both parties on both sides of Capitol Hill routinely decry the use of Continuing Resolutions and omnibus bills, but they are commonplace because there’s no other way to reach agreement.</snip>

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/house-finally-ready-for-118th-congress-government-spending-cuts-top-priority/

How this will ultimately affect Artemis is yet to be determined, but I, for one, applaud the provision that all bills MUST be delivered to the house floor NLT 72 hours before any debate and vote on the bill can be taken, so that it can be read and considered by the members. I'm really tired of the shinannigans that happen every time a bill is delivered to the floor for vote with no time for the members to actually read it (like the 5 hours before the 4,000+ page $1.7 trillion omnibus budget). A lot of super crap gets shoved thru that way, and sometimes it's weeks later, sometimes months, before the members actually find out what they voted for. If we don't get control of this process there will be no Artemis, with all the monies having gone into the pockets of the "favorite" people. This is a good step forward in the right direction.

That rule use to exist in the House, it just made things more complicated but the Representatives still didn't read the bill. I am not against the 72 hour rule but it didn't really change things.

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12088
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7457
  • Likes Given: 3794
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #642 on: 01/09/2023 02:45 pm »
That rule use to exist in the House, it just made things more complicated but the Representatives still didn't read the bill. I am not against the 72 hour rule but it didn't really change things.

I'm aware of that. But those who didn't bother to read the bills couldn't hide behind not having time to read it. When the rule was removed, all it did was give them a place to hide their irresponsibility in the darkness. At least now with the rule restored, they can't hide their irresponsibility in the darkness anymore. It's certaainly not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2023 02:45 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1574
  • Liked: 5032
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #643 on: 01/09/2023 03:05 pm »
I don't expect that shutdowns will happen.

There’s a greater likelihood of dysfunction and disruption in general because the Republican majority in the House is so slim.  That means the governing party is more beholden to its extreme wing, and that wing is explicitly interested in holding the budget and debt ceiling processes hostage to their demands.  That doesn’t guarantee shutdowns, CRs, budget reductions, or debt defaults, but the probability of some of that coming to pass has gone way up.  A lot will depend on whether moderate Republicans have enough political leeway to join with Democrats, ignore the extreme wing of their party, and get business done.  I’m not sure they do given that any single House member can call a snap vote and remove the Speaker.

In terms of impacts, short-term shutdowns and CRs aren’t a big deal. 

Long-term shutdowns and long-term CRs are a big deal, especially for a capital-intensive agency like NASA.  It’s disruptive and ultimately costs extra money and time to take workforce off a development project and then bring them back (see Covid delays) or to hold a development project that needs to ramp up its spending to a flat budget.  This is the situation with most Artemis projects, so we’d expect to see the lunar return date, the mission manifest and other milestones get stretched out even more and move right by a year or two if faced with multi-month shutdowns or a year-long CR.

If indiscriminate, budget reductions would have the same effect of stretching out the schedule and delaying milestones.  The danger is that Artemis, already a slow, thinly manifested flight program, just doesn’t hang together after further delays and gets set up for a future axing.  If budget reductions are targeted, content could be taken out of Artemis and that content would probably be the starts and ramp-ups for the newer program elements that we care about, not the old legacy programs.

If the debt ceiling is not serviced, the economy and the federal government’s borrowing capacity would shrink, with major impacts to agency toplines.

Quote
Having said all of that I am not sure that the challenging budget environment will affect Artemis more than other programs.

The House Republican majority is seeking reductions in non-defense discretionary spending, the part of the budget that NASA is funded through.  And Shelby is gone.  In that environment, the NASA topline almost certainly won’t see the increases of recent years and may well see declines.  Artemis is the part of the NASA budget that is growing, so the cuts are likely to fall heaviest there.  There are lots of scenarios about where cuts come from, but that is the most likely one if the House majority carries through on their promise of targeting non-defense discretionary spending.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17418
  • Liked: 7204
  • Likes Given: 3096
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #644 on: 01/09/2023 03:18 pm »
I don't expect that shutdowns will happen.

There’s a greater likelihood of dysfunction and disruption in general because the Republican majority in the House is so slim.  That means the governing party is more beholden to its extreme wing, and that wing is explicitly interested in holding the budget and debt ceiling processes hostage to their demands.  That doesn’t guarantee shutdowns, CRs, budget reductions, or debt defaults, but the probability of some of that coming to pass has gone way up.  A lot will depend on whether moderate Republicans have enough political leeway to join with Democrats, ignore the extreme wing of their party, and get business done.  I’m not sure they do given that any single House member can call a snap vote and remove the Speaker.

In terms of impacts, short-term shutdowns and CRs aren’t a big deal. 

Long-term shutdowns and long-term CRs are a big deal, especially for a capital-intensive agency like NASA.  It’s disruptive and ultimately costs extra money and time to take workforce off a development project and then bring them back (see Covid delays) or to hold a development project that needs to ramp up its spending to a flat budget.  This is the situation with most Artemis projects, so we’d expect to see the lunar return date, the mission manifest and other milestones get stretched out even more and move right by a year or two if faced with multi-month shutdowns or a year-long CR.

If indiscriminate, budget reductions would have the same effect of stretching out the schedule and delaying milestones.  The danger is that Artemis, already a slow, thinly manifested flight program, just doesn’t hang together after further delays and gets set up for a future axing.  If budget reductions are targeted, content could be taken out of Artemis and that content would probably be the starts and ramp-ups for the newer program elements that we care about, not the old legacy programs.

If the debt ceiling is not serviced, the economy and the federal government’s borrowing capacity would shrink, with major impacts to agency toplines.

Quote
Having said all of that I am not sure that the challenging budget environment will affect Artemis more than other programs.

The House Republican majority is seeking reductions in non-defense discretionary spending, the part of the budget that NASA is funded through.  And Shelby is gone.  In that environment, the NASA topline almost certainly won’t see the increases of recent years and may well see declines.  Artemis is the part of the NASA budget that is growing, so the cuts are likely to fall heaviest there.  There are lots of scenarios about where cuts come from, but that is the most likely one if the House majority carries through on their promise of targeting non-defense discretionary spending.

Like I said above, the worst case scenario is a year long CR. I am pretty sure that the conservative wing of the Republicans would go along with that.

Reductions in non-defense discretionary spending would only apply if the Senate agrees to it in an omnibus bill which seems unlikely. In any event, even if such an agreement was reached, fiscal hawks are often pro-NASA, so it's possible NASA would fair better than other agencies or departments in this respect.

Offline LMT

  • Lake Matthew Team
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2485
    • Lake Matthew
  • Liked: 430
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #645 on: 01/09/2023 03:36 pm »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17418
  • Liked: 7204
  • Likes Given: 3096
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #646 on: 01/09/2023 03:41 pm »
worst case scenario

It means worst case scenario... I don't think that shutdowns are likely. Your meme isn't funny. 
« Last Edit: 01/09/2023 03:51 pm by yg1968 »

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1895
  • USA
  • Liked: 1539
  • Likes Given: 2670
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #647 on: 01/09/2023 03:44 pm »
The challenging budget environment for Artemis going forward...

Quote
The struggle over the Speakership and flaring intra-party tempers are important from a space policy perspective because of what it foreshadows for passing legislation in these next two years. Getting any legislation passed is a challenge, but all the more so when the Speaker and his supporters are at such odds with a group within their own party that it takes 15 votes to get elected. This was the first time since 1923 that it took more than one. It took nine that year. The record was 133 ballots in 1855-1856.

That’s on top of the sharp divide between Republicans and Democrats on many issues, especially government spending. Republicans want to increase defense spending while cutting non-defense spending (e.g. NASA and NOAA) to reduce the debt. Democrats insist that non-defense spending be funded commensurately with defense.

Washington Examiner reporter Susan Ferrechio reports that in order to win over detractors, he [McCarthy] vowed the House will pass a budget resolution capping discretionary spending at “FY2022 levels or lower,” reject negotiations with the Senate unless they comply with House direction, and refuse to increase the debt limit unless the growth of spending is reduced or capped.

NASA’s budget could drop from the $25.4 billion it just got for FY2023 to $24.0 billion if they held to FY2022 levels on an agency-by-agency basis.

Another concession McCarthy reportedly made was that each of the 12 appropriations bills must be passed individually instead of combined into a single omnibus bill, open to amendment on the floor, and on time. That sounds reasonable and Members from both parties on both sides of Capitol Hill routinely decry the use of Continuing Resolutions and omnibus bills, but they are commonplace because there’s no other way to reach agreement.

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/house-finally-ready-for-118th-congress-government-spending-cuts-top-priority/

Yes, I posted this article in the space policy section.

I don't expect that shutdowns will happen. Republicans always get blamed for shutdowns (so they try to avoid them) but I would expect CRs. Apparently, the House CRs would be at 98% of the funding of the prior year.

Year-long CRs are possible but it doesn't happen very often. It last happened in FY2013 and before that in FY2011 and FY2007.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/20-years-of-congresss-budget-procrastination-in-one-chart/

Having said all of that I am not sure that the challenging budget environment will affect Artemis more than other programs. A budget resolution isn't binding, so capping amounts in a budget resolution doesn't have much of an impact on the appropriations bill. If the House insists on capping amounts to the FY22 level, the likely result would be a series of CRs and perhaps even a year-long CR for FY24. For FY25, an agreement might be possible after the 2024 election.
Listen to what the republicans are saying. Don't just assume they will do the opposite. Believe what they are saying. Many of them DO NOT WANT to govern. They will view a shutdown as a success. It only takes a handful to stop the entire process. They will want to cut the budget by rediculous amounts and defund entire sections of government that doesn't ideologically align with whatever they are mad at right then. Obviously the senate won't go along with that. Hence no agreement.

There is no reason to think this won't be like the teaparty (2010ish), but worse, because they party has gotten more extreme.

Wanting to freeze spending isn't extreme.
While this might seem a sensible statement, in practice its a VERY partisan statement due to the rational behind it.
We don't need to get into politics here, but the history of "freezing/stopping gov spending" has ALWAYS been very bad for anything NASA.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17418
  • Liked: 7204
  • Likes Given: 3096
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #648 on: 01/09/2023 03:46 pm »
The challenging budget environment for Artemis going forward...

Quote
The struggle over the Speakership and flaring intra-party tempers are important from a space policy perspective because of what it foreshadows for passing legislation in these next two years. Getting any legislation passed is a challenge, but all the more so when the Speaker and his supporters are at such odds with a group within their own party that it takes 15 votes to get elected. This was the first time since 1923 that it took more than one. It took nine that year. The record was 133 ballots in 1855-1856.

That’s on top of the sharp divide between Republicans and Democrats on many issues, especially government spending. Republicans want to increase defense spending while cutting non-defense spending (e.g. NASA and NOAA) to reduce the debt. Democrats insist that non-defense spending be funded commensurately with defense.

Washington Examiner reporter Susan Ferrechio reports that in order to win over detractors, he [McCarthy] vowed the House will pass a budget resolution capping discretionary spending at “FY2022 levels or lower,” reject negotiations with the Senate unless they comply with House direction, and refuse to increase the debt limit unless the growth of spending is reduced or capped.

NASA’s budget could drop from the $25.4 billion it just got for FY2023 to $24.0 billion if they held to FY2022 levels on an agency-by-agency basis.

Another concession McCarthy reportedly made was that each of the 12 appropriations bills must be passed individually instead of combined into a single omnibus bill, open to amendment on the floor, and on time. That sounds reasonable and Members from both parties on both sides of Capitol Hill routinely decry the use of Continuing Resolutions and omnibus bills, but they are commonplace because there’s no other way to reach agreement.

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/house-finally-ready-for-118th-congress-government-spending-cuts-top-priority/

Yes, I posted this article in the space policy section.

I don't expect that shutdowns will happen. Republicans always get blamed for shutdowns (so they try to avoid them) but I would expect CRs. Apparently, the House CRs would be at 98% of the funding of the prior year.

Year-long CRs are possible but it doesn't happen very often. It last happened in FY2013 and before that in FY2011 and FY2007.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/20-years-of-congresss-budget-procrastination-in-one-chart/

Having said all of that I am not sure that the challenging budget environment will affect Artemis more than other programs. A budget resolution isn't binding, so capping amounts in a budget resolution doesn't have much of an impact on the appropriations bill. If the House insists on capping amounts to the FY22 level, the likely result would be a series of CRs and perhaps even a year-long CR for FY24. For FY25, an agreement might be possible after the 2024 election.
Listen to what the republicans are saying. Don't just assume they will do the opposite. Believe what they are saying. Many of them DO NOT WANT to govern. They will view a shutdown as a success. It only takes a handful to stop the entire process. They will want to cut the budget by rediculous amounts and defund entire sections of government that doesn't ideologically align with whatever they are mad at right then. Obviously the senate won't go along with that. Hence no agreement.

There is no reason to think this won't be like the teaparty (2010ish), but worse, because they party has gotten more extreme.

Wanting to freeze spending isn't extreme.
While this might seem a sensible statement, in practice its a VERY partisan statement due to the rational behind it.
We don't need to get into politics here, but the history of "freezing/stopping gov spending" has ALWAYS been very bad for anything NASA.

Freezing means keeping funding the same. I am not sure what you mean by stopping government spending, nobody has proposed that.

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1574
  • Liked: 5032
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #649 on: 01/09/2023 03:57 pm »
Like I said above, the worst case scenario is a year long CR. I am pretty sure that the conservative wing of the Republicans would go along with that.

The worst-case scenario is a debt default with concomitant rapid implosion in the size of the federal budget.  Still unlikely, but the possibility has gone up with the new dynamics of the thin Republican majority in the House.

Quote
Reductions in non-defense discretionary spending would only apply if the Senate agrees to it in an omnibus bill which seems unlikely.

This is the second-to-worst scenario.  Chances of this have gone up considerably.  To get the Speakership, McCarthy agreed to debate and pass 12 separate appropriations bills — no more omnibus.  If he fails to carry through on that agreement, any single member of his extreme wing can call a snap vote to have him removed from the Speakership.

Quote
In any event, even if such an agreement was reached, fiscal hawks are often pro-NASA, so it's possible NASA would fair better than other agencies or departments in this respect.

By excluding non-discretionary and defense, they’re targeting what is already the smallest slice of the federal budget and may have no choice.  In these kinds of bloodbaths, NASA is just not a national priority.  As NASA’s second-to-last Comptroller liked to say that NASA is the most discretionary of the discretionary agencies.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17418
  • Liked: 7204
  • Likes Given: 3096
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #650 on: 01/09/2023 04:16 pm »
The worst-case scenario is a debt default with concomitant rapid implosion in the size of the federal budget.  Still unlikely, but the possibility has gone up with the new dynamics of the thin Republican majority in the House.

That seems incredibly unlikely. The House might adopt a budget resolution requiring freezing spending at FY22 levels but the Senate will not agree to adopt a similar budget resolution. 

Quote
This is the second-to-worst scenario.  Chances of this have gone up considerably.  To get the Speakership, McCarthy agreed to debate and pass 12 separate appropriations bills — no more omnibus.  If he fails to carry through on that agreement, any single member of his extreme wing can call a snap vote to have him removed from the Speakership.

The House use to pass these appropriations bills on a separate basis not that long ago. What used to happen is that the House would pass all of its bills and then wait for the Senate to pass its own bills or an omnibus version of them. I am not sure that what they are proposing is any different.

Quote
By excluding non-discretionary and defense, they’re targeting what is already the smallest slice of the federal budget and may have no choice.  In these kinds of bloodbaths, NASA is just not a national priority.  As NASA’s second-to-last Comptroller liked to say that NASA is the most discretionary of the discretionary agencies.

The Senate is unlikely to agree to this. I suspect that a year-long CR would have a lot of anomalies making it more manageable than a clean CR.

See the FY13 year-long CR for an example of what this might look like (see page 65 for NASA):
https://www.congress.gov/113/plaws/publ6/PLAW-113publ6.pdf
« Last Edit: 01/09/2023 04:52 pm by yg1968 »

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1574
  • Liked: 5032
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #651 on: 01/09/2023 05:17 pm »
That seems incredibly unlikely.

I agree.  I think moderate Republicans would join with Democrats before opening the Pandora’s Box of debt default.  But we also don’t know all the provisions that McCarthy agreed to in order to become Speaker.  There may be something lurking in that agreement that removes enough degrees of freedom such that raising the debt ceiling becomes very hard.  We just don’t know yet.

Quote
The House might adopt a budget resolution requiring freezing spending at FY22 levels but the Senate will not agree to adopt a similar budget resolution.

The Senate doesn’t have to pass a similar budget resolution for negotiations between the House and Senate to adopt lower House figures, especially for lower priority agencies and programs.  NASA and/or Artemis could be in the sacrificial lamb category vice the national priority category when the final budget knives come out.

Quote
I am not sure that what they are proposing is any different.

It depends on how far the Republican extreme wing wants to take it and what exactly McCarthy has agreed to.  Did he only agree to debate and pass 12 appropriations bills?  Or did he agree not to consider any omnibus bill?  We don’t know yet and may not know until the proverbial you-know-what hits the fan.

Quote
The Senate is unlikely to agree to this.

Again, the Senate doesn’t have to agree to any big-picture budget for lower priority agencies and programs to get cut more than others in negotiations.

Quote
I suspect that a year-long CR would have a lot of anomalies making it more manageable than a clean CR.

Anomalies take time for the Administration to identify (agencies have to aggregate, OMB has to review, and then the list has to be transmitted to appropriators) and for Congress to review.  There may or may be time for that.  And even if there is time, if there are lots of anomalies, the budget hawks may cry foul, and lower priorities will not get the exception.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17418
  • Liked: 7204
  • Likes Given: 3096
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #652 on: 01/09/2023 05:55 pm »
It depends on how far the Republican extreme wing wants to take it and what exactly McCarthy has agreed to.  Did he only agree to debate and pass 12 appropriations bills?  Or did he agree not to consider any omnibus bill?  We don’t know yet and may not know until the proverbial you-know-what hits the fan.

To the extent that the Senate and House agree on the content of the appropriations bills, they are likely to get some bipartisan support in both chambers. So it would be possible to pass the bills separately but obviously more difficult. But it would be nice to see more bipartisanship in the House. The Democrats would only need a few members to vote present or yes for the appropriations bills to pass.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2023 06:09 pm by yg1968 »

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1895
  • USA
  • Liked: 1539
  • Likes Given: 2670
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #653 on: 01/09/2023 07:23 pm »
The challenging budget environment for Artemis going forward...

Quote
The struggle over the Speakership and flaring intra-party tempers are important from a space policy perspective because of what it foreshadows for passing legislation in these next two years. Getting any legislation passed is a challenge, but all the more so when the Speaker and his supporters are at such odds with a group within their own party that it takes 15 votes to get elected. This was the first time since 1923 that it took more than one. It took nine that year. The record was 133 ballots in 1855-1856.

That’s on top of the sharp divide between Republicans and Democrats on many issues, especially government spending. Republicans want to increase defense spending while cutting non-defense spending (e.g. NASA and NOAA) to reduce the debt. Democrats insist that non-defense spending be funded commensurately with defense.

Washington Examiner reporter Susan Ferrechio reports that in order to win over detractors, he [McCarthy] vowed the House will pass a budget resolution capping discretionary spending at “FY2022 levels or lower,” reject negotiations with the Senate unless they comply with House direction, and refuse to increase the debt limit unless the growth of spending is reduced or capped.

NASA’s budget could drop from the $25.4 billion it just got for FY2023 to $24.0 billion if they held to FY2022 levels on an agency-by-agency basis.

Another concession McCarthy reportedly made was that each of the 12 appropriations bills must be passed individually instead of combined into a single omnibus bill, open to amendment on the floor, and on time. That sounds reasonable and Members from both parties on both sides of Capitol Hill routinely decry the use of Continuing Resolutions and omnibus bills, but they are commonplace because there’s no other way to reach agreement.

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/house-finally-ready-for-118th-congress-government-spending-cuts-top-priority/

Yes, I posted this article in the space policy section.

I don't expect that shutdowns will happen. Republicans always get blamed for shutdowns (so they try to avoid them) but I would expect CRs. Apparently, the House CRs would be at 98% of the funding of the prior year.

Year-long CRs are possible but it doesn't happen very often. It last happened in FY2013 and before that in FY2011 and FY2007.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/20-years-of-congresss-budget-procrastination-in-one-chart/

Having said all of that I am not sure that the challenging budget environment will affect Artemis more than other programs. A budget resolution isn't binding, so capping amounts in a budget resolution doesn't have much of an impact on the appropriations bill. If the House insists on capping amounts to the FY22 level, the likely result would be a series of CRs and perhaps even a year-long CR for FY24. For FY25, an agreement might be possible after the 2024 election.
Listen to what the republicans are saying. Don't just assume they will do the opposite. Believe what they are saying. Many of them DO NOT WANT to govern. They will view a shutdown as a success. It only takes a handful to stop the entire process. They will want to cut the budget by rediculous amounts and defund entire sections of government that doesn't ideologically align with whatever they are mad at right then. Obviously the senate won't go along with that. Hence no agreement.

There is no reason to think this won't be like the teaparty (2010ish), but worse, because they party has gotten more extreme.

Wanting to freeze spending isn't extreme.
While this might seem a sensible statement, in practice its a VERY partisan statement due to the rational behind it.
We don't need to get into politics here, but the history of "freezing/stopping gov spending" has ALWAYS been very bad for anything NASA.

Freezing means keeping funding the same. I am not sure what you mean by stopping government spending, nobody has proposed that.
I wasn't referring directly to your statement, but more the general republican idea of "freezing spending". Its usually code for cutting every program that isn't defense so that they can cut taxes more.

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1895
  • USA
  • Liked: 1539
  • Likes Given: 2670
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #654 on: 01/09/2023 07:30 pm »


Quote
This is the second-to-worst scenario.  Chances of this have gone up considerably.  To get the Speakership, McCarthy agreed to debate and pass 12 separate appropriations bills — no more omnibus.  If he fails to carry through on that agreement, any single member of his extreme wing can call a snap vote to have him removed from the Speakership.

The House use to pass these appropriations bills on a separate basis not that long ago. What used to happen is that the House would pass all of its bills and then wait for the Senate to pass its own bills or an omnibus version of them. I am not sure that what they are proposing is any different.
One thing about separate budget bills is that the senate will not negotiate unless all 12 bills are complete. In the tea party era, the house tried to leave out the budgets for a few parts they didn't like (so some parts would stay shutdown indefinitely). The senate refused. Omnibus bills negate this issue.
I think the bigger reason omnibus bills happen is due to the human factor. People negotiating don't want to give ground until the last possible moment. That doesn't leave time to do the 12 normal bills when they wait until the day before shutdown to start compromising.
It also prevents 1 or 2 troublemakers from killing the entire budget. A tiny number of people can do everything to slow bills down (including pretending to negotiate in good faith as another delay tactic).

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12088
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7457
  • Likes Given: 3794
Re: NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #655 on: 01/09/2023 11:13 pm »
If he fails to carry through on that agreement, any single member of his extreme wing can call a snap vote to have him removed from the Speakership.

It amounts to a vote of no confidence, which we've seen many times in houses of parliments. It can only be called for if he violates one of the promises he made to become speaker. It's not a carte blanche ability to call for the vote, and 218 no confidence votes would be required to remove him. AIUI, if he has kept his promise but things didn't go well, the call to remove the speaker cannot be made.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online Chris Bergin

Right, this thread has turned into crap. New thread needed.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49872
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 84096
  • Likes Given: 37627

Tags: artemis 2 Crew 
 

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