INKS: Budget blustering should not hurt space program
Tuesday marked the 50th anniversary of Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin’s history-making flight that made him the first man in space back in 1961.
Near the anniversary of such an extraordinary feat, Americans should be reminded of the importance of having a sound space policy from our government.
The ability to launch vehicles and satellites into space has vast benefits for this country, ranging from improved military strength and intelligence to better scientific research and observation.
NASA employs close to 20,000 people, and the tourism it has brought in is greatly beneficial to our economy.
The U.S. has always been one of the leaders in space exploration, and plans to eventually put a man on Mars, first proposed by President George W. Bush and continued by President Barack Obama, will ensure this country remains one of those leaders.
Unfortunately, the recent budget debacle has done nothing but harm the long-term goals that President Obama has made for NASA. Instead of being able to implement the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, NASA had been forced to follow the federal budget that Congress has passed.
Normally this would not present a problem, but the short-term budgets contradicted the space policy bill passed back in 2010, meaning that NASA had been unable to implement the new plan for over half a year.
At a time when the federal government needs to cut spending, many said, and will continue to say, “Cut NASA! It’s unnecessary.” These comments come from people who often have misconceptions about NASA and exactly how much money goes to fund it.
When the Smithsonian Institution did a survey asking what percent of the federal budget was spent on NASA, the average response was around 20%, but as of 2008, it was only 0.60%.
This is not to say NASA is not wasting money. NASA spent over $275 million on the Constellation program that was designed to send Americans back to the moon. President Obama announced the cancellation of that plan in October, but NASA has been forced to continue to fund it.
Why? Senator Richard Shellby, R-Ala., inserted wording into the original 2010 budget proposal prohibiting NASA from shutting down the program so that jobs in his state would be protected. Each time Congress passed a temporary budget, it acknowledged the problem, yet failed to remove the provision, until finally removing it in last week’s long-term budget.
When it comes to debating the budget for the next fiscal year, instead of wasting taxpayer money on defunct programs, Congress needs to get its act together and pass a budget that funds NASA in a way that matches up with the long-term goals of the NASA Authorization Act.
Failure to do so is unacceptable. Space technology and exploration has played a major role in the history of this country, and it would be a sad commentary on our political system if we destroyed our role in space exploration because we could not pass a budget once again.
