You are here: Home / Archives for Congress

Should Space Exploration Be Manned Or Unmanned?

September 27, 2011 By 1 Comment
VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 5.7/7 (6 votes cast)

Photo provided by NASAConsidering that our national debt now exceeds $14 trillion, is space exploration still cost justified?

And, with today’s advanced robotics and satellite technology, should we still send up astronauts (whose safety in space is extremely expensive to maintain)?

President Obama made his opinion on the subject quite clear when he cancelled the Constellation program, which was our next step in manned exploration, and included a return to the moon. His goal is to change NASA from a space transportation provider to a research and development organization.

Many agree with the president, pointing out that private contractors can build the necessary hardware and that technological advancements have rendered manned space travel not worth the risks.

Other experts disagree, arguing that robots can only uncover what they’re programmed to seek out. And, since space exploration may involve encountering the unimaginable, robots are ill-equipped to properly respond.

G. Scott Hubbard, professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Stanford University summarized the arguments for the utility of space exploration and the relative roles of humans and robots in a recent forum at freakonomics.com:

  1. Space exploration will eventually allow us to establish a human civilization on another world (e.g., Mars) as a hedge against the type of catastrophe that wiped out the dinosaurs.
  2. We explore space and create important new technologies to advance our economy. It is true that, for every dollar we spend on the space program, the U.S. economy receives about $8 of economic benefit. Space exploration can also serve as a stimulus for children to enter the fields of science and engineering.
  3. Space exploration in an international context offers a peaceful cooperative venue that is a valuable alternative to nation state hostilities. One can look at the International Space Station and marvel that the former Soviet Union and the U.S. are now active partners. International cooperation is also a way to reduce costs.
  4. National prestige requires that the U.S. continue to be a leader in space, and that includes human exploration. History tells us that great civilizations dare not abandon exploration.
  5. Exploration of space will provide humanity with an answer to the most fundamental questions: Are we alone? Are there other forms of life beside those on Earth?

Obviously, there are compelling arguments on both sides of the issue. And one of the most severe consequences of our long-term fiscal irresponsibility is that we may no longer be able choose our course of action based solely on the merits of those arguments.

But look at the bright side. At least the manned space program ran long enough to give us Tang and Velcro.

Dodocase for Kindle

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 5.7/7 (6 votes cast)
Filed Under: Congress, Opinion Tagged With: , , ,

Why Do Republicans Keep Supporting War?

August 16, 2011 By Leave a Comment
VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

As the country continues to accumulate unprecedented and unsustainable debt levels, some Republicans are beginning to question why we’re still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While largely supportive of President George Bush’s objectives for invading both countries after 9/11, our expensive and confusingly-defined presence a decade later confounds many on the right. Should we continue expending American lives and spending billions of dollars on nation-building exercises in Muslim countries which are culturally incompatible to democracy?

Some Republicans are even joining the harsh war critics on the left in questioning the initial justification for attacking Iraq. While Saddam Hussein’s possession, use and ongoing efforts to procure weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is the 80′s was well known, large quantities of chemical weapons had been located and destroyed after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Despite UN Inspector Hans Blix’s report that he had found no stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, the US invaded Iraq in 2003, citing the WMD threat as a primary justification. When no WMD were found, Bush admitted to lapses in military intelligence but maintained that his decision was sound, stating:

“But what wasn’t wrong was Saddam Hussein had invaded a country, he had used weapons of mass destruction, he had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction, he was firing at our pilots. He was a state sponsor of terror. Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing for world peace and the security of our country.”

Many liberals and some conservatives aren’t convinced that the intelligence was flawed, and suspect the WMD threat was deliberately overstated to solidify support for the war. Similar to President Lyndon Johnson’s use of the alleged second attack on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin as a pretext for initiating war with North Vietnam, many question Bush’s honesty.

The question of whether the US should invade a foreign country and dictate how that country governs itself is extremely controversial, regardless of your politics. Especially now, when we’re drowning in debt and need all available resources to ensure that our democracy remains intact.

It’s informative to recall the 60′s when the US was embroiled in the civil rights struggle, with race riots regularly erupting on the streets. Did any foreign power invade in order to install a fair and just society?

No. We resolved our differences ourselves.

There’s a lesson there somewhere.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)
Filed Under: Congress, Opinion Tagged With: , , , ,

Will The Debt Ceiling Compromise Actually Reduce The Deficit?

August 9, 2011 By Leave a Comment
VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

With typical Washington hysterics, Congress struck a last-minute deal to raise the US debt ceiling, enabling the Treasury to continue borrowing and, supposedly, avoid defaulting on payments to our creditors.

The deal included neither the level of spending cuts the Republicans wanted, nor the tax increases the Democrats were looking for. Conventional wisdom says that since both sides were unsatisfied with the deal, it must have some redeeming qualities. But, since when is wisdom in Washington conventional?

The deal immediately increases the US debt ceiling by $400 billion, and allows the President to request another $500 billion increase which Congress could vote down (by attaining a veto-proof a two thirds margin). An additional increase of $1.5 trillion becomes available after a special committee identifies matching levels of spending cuts.

The agreement also calls for spending cuts of more than $900 billion over ten years, with discretionary spending being decreased by $21 billion in 2012 and $42 billion in 2013. The compromise does not include any tax increases.

The deal also creates a 12-person House and Senate special committee to identify further spending cuts. The committee must make its recommendations to Congress, which will hold an up-or-down vote (Congress cannot modify the committee’s recommendations). If the special committee fails to reach an agreement or if Congress rejects its recommendations, automatic spending cuts of at least $1.2 trillion (50% defense/50% non-defense) would go into effect.

So, will this compromise solve our debt crisis? The numbers aren’t promising.

For fiscal years 2008, 09 and 10, Congress recorded budget deficits of $1 trillion, $1.9 trillion and $1.7 trillion, respectively. The $4.6 trillion debt incurred during these three years is equivalent to total debt the US accumulated from its founding in 1789 through 1994.

Further, this agreement raises the debt ceiling from $14.3 trillion (which is 98.6% of our 2010 GNP) to $16.7 trillion. Plus, the spending cuts are “back-loaded” (discretionary spending is reduced by a mere $21 billion – 0.6% of the $3.8 trillion budget – in 2012), and can be waived in the future.

Clearly, the fact that these outrageous spending levels are up to Congress’ “discretion” is the problem.

Fortunately, the debt ceiling agreement also requires that the House of Representatives and the Senate vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

Though passage neither assured nor likely, such an amendment is our only option for reclaiming fiscal sanity.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)
Filed Under: Congress, Opinion Tagged With: , , , , ,