Bush's Moon Mission Called Bold, Wasteful

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.

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.

"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."

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."

For the Nay Sayers: Three things

1). Without a renewed space program, Aerospace in America is dead. Without Aerospace, we don't have defence. Without Defense, we don't have sovereignty. How much is that worth to us?

2). The Space Shuttle was never intened to work, it was a sneaky way of keeping Nixon and the Democraps from killing our lauch capability. The Bush plan only increases Nasa's budget by %5 a year. It won't break the bank. Tax Payers pay more than this to keep Ted Kennedy in Scotch.

3) This post is from CNN and is merely a Vehicle for this Greenstein cat to spew his anti-bush invective

"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. "

The above lets you know exactly which side Greenstein is playing for.

Right on. People should realize that our military is so powerful based largely on our space assets. The Chinese know this, and it is a reason for their sudden interest in space (helped by all the technology bubba and co. sold to them). We absolutely should see China's space program as a grave threat to this nation, and we should act to counterbalance it.

Thirty years is a long time away. And the only way we stay on top year-after-year is by doing the right thing from a military standpoint each year. The moon has no credible military value for decades to come. Orbital weaponry is where its at. Even laser weapons on the surface of the moon are at a disadvantage to orbital lasers because of the distance/lightspeed factor. Especially considering that the moon is --- half the time --- on the wrong side of the earth (regardless of what the "right side" happens to be in any particular engagement). On the wrong side and very far away. Orbitals are where you want them, 100% of the time, 100% ready, and a mere hundred miles or so above the ground. Sure there's anti-orbital technology, just as there's anti-aircraft technology. But how many aircraft have been shot down in recent decades. Besides helicopters (which are particularly vulnerable) very very few.

The fact is, the only value of the moon is astronomy and tourism. Astronomy can be done by robots and tourism should be funded by private industry.

Want to go to the moon? Form a corporation dedicated to that purpose. Get investors. Do it your way. On your dime. In the long run, your corporation will get very very rich.

In the meantime, leave the taxpayers alone.

This thread is over a year old, for a minute there when I read Bush was getting to announce a major space initiative, I was thinking 'again'? The first one was pretty good.
Anyway, I think it's pretty silly for people to carp about "wasting money in space" if we didn't spend it towards NASA, it would be spent somewhere else, likely funding all kinds of stupidity.
At the very least, it forces a lot of congress critters to back off on a lot of their little pork programs to free up money for space exploration.
I'd much rather have a mission to the moon rather than another community swimming pool in Robert Byrd's district.

Quite right. For one thing, the rockets aren't carrying into orbit a payload of the money spent on them. For that matter, our soldiers aren't rolling up five dollar bills and pumping them into the terrorists around the world.

...oh yeah... and we now have the re-election in retrospect... looks like the voters really had their underwear in a bunch about these terrible deficits. Oh, no, whatever shall we do? Every cent will have to be paid back, with interest, within thirty years!

Just as every deficit dollar ever has been.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.