Bush's Moon Mission Called Bold, Wasteful

CNS News ^ | 1/12/04 | Susan Jones

[truthandlife]

After returning from Mexico, President Bush will set his sights on the moon and beyond. He plans to announce a new space initiative on Wednesday in Washington, and already the critics are carping -- and Bush's aides are defending him.

President Bush will call for Americans to build a permanent outpost on the moon to serve as a launch pad for future missions to Mars.

Critics warn that the moon-to-Mars project will cost an astronomical amount of money - and they want to know where the money will come from.

Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, estimated the cost of such a project at billions of dollars - maybe even a trillion dollars.

Given the looming budget deficits, Greenstein said, there is no money available in current or future budgets for the expensive new space endeavor.

"In the past three years, what were multi-trillion dollar budget surpluses projected for the coming decade have turned into multi-trillion dollar budget deficits," he said in a press release.

Greenstein said President Bush must explain where the money for his space initiative will come from: "Will he agree to scale back some of the munificent and very costly tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?" Greenstein asked.

"Since the answer seems to be 'no,' what parts of the budget does he propose to cut -- Medicare, education, environmental pollution, other areas, in order to finance the space initiative? Or does he propose not to finance it and simply to allow deficits to become even larger, with adverse consequences down the road for the economy and the standard-of-living of average families?"

Greenstein criticized the president for telling the nation in 2001 that "we could have it all - large tax cuts, a major defense build-up, a Medicare drug benefit, and more -- without going into deficit at all. That proved wrong," he said.

"It now is clear that we cannot simultaneously proceed with the tax cuts, a prescription drug benefit, a global war against terrorism, efforts to improve our education system, measures to make Social Security and Medicare solvent for the long term, and the new space initiative. Something (probably many things) has to give," Greenstein said.

"We should not repeat the mistakes of the past and dig the deficit hole even deeper, which would load still larger financial burdens on younger generations," he concluded.

'Bold vision'

Two Bush Cabinet members defend the president's space initiative over the weekend.

Treasury Secretary John Snow said the mission would proceed "within a framework of fiscal responsibility." He said the budget blueprint that President Bush is about to send to Congress will include not only a moon-settlement plan, but also a plan to cut the federal deficit in half within five years.

"We can do both. We really can," Snow said on ABC's "This Week."

"This is a country of enormous resources, and we have the capacity to pursue a number of priorities at one time, but we have to do so within the framework of fiscal responsibility. I think you'll see that reflected in the budget."

President Bush is "not one to shy away from bold visions," Snow added.

Commerce Secretary Don Evans also defended the moon mission, saying, "Whatever the program is, however big it is, it will be within a responsible fiscal budget."

Evans told CNN's "Late Edition" that "America has always needed a challenge of a big and bold idea."

[billorites]

I'd rather have a tax cut.

[philosofy123]

With such a big defisit, and lifelong preoccupation with the Moslem terrorists war, we need to waste more money on space like we need a hoens in our heads!

[samtheman]

I'd rather have more defense spending.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
19	Wisconsin	566.00	16	35.38	245	2.31	173.00	11

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[ravingnutter]

I'd rather have a tax cut.

I'd rather see the unemployment rate go down, which will drive the economy up and then you can have your tax cut...hence, I think it is a great idea. If you just stop and think about how much technology that we use in everyday life that has come from the space program, it boggles the mind. Look at the Velcro manufacturing business, for one example.

[theDentist]

Yeah, why explore space, take the next step away from our tiny planet, or provide an impetus to our economy and technology when we can instead give those dollars to the welfare state?

[ClearCase_guy]

John F. Kennedy:

Gave us a tax cut
Ratcheted up the Vietnam War
Pushed for social programs
Challenged the US to put a man on the moon.

He is a God. Bush is a wasteful, disengaged moron. Repeat until you believe.

[Vision]

This is idiotic. Our country is disintegrating and W wants to go to the Moon. Fantastic!

If Bush only wants to keep busy on things that haven't mattered in 30 years, someone please tell him not to run in '04.

[Fresh Wind]

Yeah, why explore space, take the next step away from our tiny planet, or provide an impetus to our economy and technology when we can instead give those dollars to the welfare state?

If we go into space, somehow we will end up giving welfare to the space aliens. Either way, we lose.

[templar]

Look at the Velcro manufacturing business, for one example.

You're gonna have to explain this to me (how it was the result of space exploration).

George de Mestral, a Swiss inventor, got the idea from studying burrs that got stuck in his dogs fur. Velcro was patented in 1955. It was dependant on Nylon, developed back in 1937.

[binreadin]

Weaponization of space is only a matter of time--and the Chinese are already developing this avenue. If we could place a military base on the moon it would give us tremendous advantage at some point in the future.

[CPOSharky]

A space program like this will have to start from scratch and work its way up (no pun intended). It won't be a trillion dollars it first year or even the first five years. Total cost is likely to be spread over years if not decades. So all these weenies would rather give money away than work for something to benefit the whole country?

If we don't start now, where will we be in ten years? Renting space from the Chinese on their missions?

[samtheman]

Comparing the cost-effectiveness of putting weapons on the moon compared to putting them in orbit around the earth (not to mention their military effectiveness) is like comparing the cost effectiveness of putting aluminum siding on your home and gold-plating your home. The aluminim will work just fine, and will cost 1/1billionth.

[binreadin]

In thirty years there will be weapons and surveillance programs developed that we can't even dream of now. At this point, it isn't valid to compare cost effectiveness. I'm not willing to leave the exploration of space to the Russians and Chinese.

[goldstategop]

I'd rather farm it out to the private sector. If we have to conquer the far reaches of the final frontier, let Boeing take the lead for a change.

[Consort]

All your waning gibbbous are belong to us.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Bush is just testing the waters of public opinion. This looks good, forward looking, bold thinking, etc, etc. However - this is years off. If public opinion to this isn't favorable on the whole, this will probably quietly fade off the front page - especially considering how short the American people's memories are.

[Frankss]

There is fuel on the moon for starters.We can mine the moon. I think a missle base on the moon is a great idea. We can ship all of our toxic waste up there too. It can be the stepping stone to other planets.It is a good thing for America psychologically and a bad thing for terrorist, let them ponder, while they duct tape nails to a stick of dynamite to kill an innocent stranger, Americans are traveling to other planets. It is the direction for the future, to explore the unknown ,go where no man has gone, ect.

[SunkenCiv]

Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities... "In the past three years, what were multi-trillion dollar budget surpluses projected for the coming decade have turned into multi-trillion dollar budget deficits," he said in a press release. Greenstein said President Bush must explain where the money for his space initiative will come from: "Will he agree to scale back some of the munificent and very costly tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?" Greenstein asked.

What I want to know is, why are there not laws mandating that non-gov'tal political shilling organizations aren't required to have "Ad hoc Non-Governmental" as a prefix to their names? And who pays Greenstein's bills?

Trillion dollar budget deficits? What a ridiculous claim. The total budget is north of a trillion, compared with the few hundred billion it was under JFK, LBJ, and Nixon, when the $20 billion Apollo program rec'd much of its funding. Infrastructure for a moon program won't have to be built from scratch.

The US has no direction in space, apart from maintaining the expensive ($500 per launch and turnaround) STS (space shuttle) so that (eventually, when that resumes flying) large pieces of the ISS (international space station, meaning that the Russians use it) can be delivered and installed, and eventually (within 15 years) the whole structure can be decommissioned and dumped into the Pacific.

The US should build a heavy lift capability that is much cheaper, and that means so-called expendible boosters like the old Saturn V. Anything the US does in space (space station, Mars missions, probe missions to the planets and beyond) will require a heavy lift capability. The US also should build a lunar station, on the "dark side", for radiotelescopy. -- 'Civ

People seem to forget -- as they do with military spending -- that the money spent mostly (or entirely) stays in the US. In the case of the Pentagon, we don't roll up $50 bills and shoot them into the crania of the enemy. The bullet makers are people working in the US. Same goes for the space program.

No, I don't work in either the aerospace or defense industry.

The tax cut was nice, but to really do it right, the rates should be left alone and the personal exemption raised to $20,000. Everyone who pays income taxes now would still get a tax cut, but it would fall disproportionately on those of us who don't make a lot. Supposedly the rich folks pay 96 per cent of income taxes, so the total "cost" to the gov't would be less 4 per cent of receipts.