Replies

Rush has his opinion, but I think you're misreading the transcript. I too am not saying that NASA has had some benefit. I am disputing that the benefit was:

1. Cost effective.

2. Not available in the private market

As a way to move away from NASA and government funding of many unConstitutional programs including things like the AdCouncil, NPR, and etc. Romney should move toward an X-Prize type program.

Notably, Limbaugh is criticizing Obama for his policy priorities and I agree with him. I'd rather fund NASA than a Muslim outreach program. If given the choice between funding NASA or not funding NASA I'd drop the funding for NASA. This isn't an attack against NASA per se, but against the extra-Constitutional expansion of the federal government into realms in which it doesn't belong.

As conservatives we must ask ourselves were will it lead? Let's take a look at the comments by the caller (who I suspect is a liberal):

And I’m thinking to myself, well, NASA’s populated with hundreds, maybe even thousands, of PhDs who went to federal schools on federal student loans and federal student aid.

That's the money quote in the transcript. The problem is that America doesn't need federal schools, federal student loans or federal student aid. It violates federalism in which the 50 states compete and good ideas win over bad ideas.

Look here:

Microwave weapons: Wasted energy

and here:

Golden Goose Award

Here's the press release for the "Golden Goose" award. Note the leftist organizations sponsoring it.

Golden Goose Award Press Release

As conservatives we should be very wary when our ideas intersect with the ideas of the left. You said I was being too extreme and asked if I were a libertarian. I am not a libertarian. I am a Constitutionalist. It is a God-given document and one that works really well. It has been undermined through the insidious fascist/communist thought toward the end of the 19th and during the entire 20th century. Is it too extreme to ask government to exist within the bounds set by the Constitution?

The argument isn't can government funding of basic science bring benefits and not even should government do it. The argument is and always must be is it Constitutional? We've watched our rights get flushed down the toilet all in the name of progressivism. Our nation's runaway debt, crony capitalist bailouts, entitlement debt bomb are all an outgrowth of asking "can government help?" and then answering "should government help?". The real question is "what is Constitutional?". That's the only way to keep our rights and retain our freedom. There isn't any other way out.

As an aside here is a good article from the Cato Institute. They are a libertarian outfit and I don't agree with all their positions, but this article gets it right:

End Government Science Funding

That article was written in 1997. Has it gotten better? Look at all the fake science out there used to promote any number of dubious, political agendas. Note that the funding for the global warming hokum comes from the federal government.

Here's another one:

He Who Pays the Piper: Federal Funding Of Research

That one is from 1983 and it is still true because it is based on a fundamental principle - 1. Government is political by its nature and 2. Who pays decides.

Please realize that I'm not against basic science funding or NASA's goals. I am just against the unConstitutional use of federal money and power to achieve it. It's dangerous to our republic. As conservatives we have to understand our basic principles and then adhere to them.

First chance you get please read this book: The Myth of the Robber Barons

It will change your view of private investment, public finance and the proper role of government in a market economy. Also read all you can on Bastiat. This same stuff has been happening for centuries and it was just as destructive then as it is now.

Best FReegards,

TenTen