ABC's Ross Traces NASA Budget Cutting to Clinton Years

Media Research Center ^ | Feb. 4, 2003 | Brent Baker

[conservativecorner]

Finally, a Democrat blamed for a budget cut which supposedly led to a bad result. Usually it's conservatives who are held culpable by journalists for budget cuts that caused a social problem, such as homelessness or the elderly being unable to heat their homes, but while numerous reporters have been raising questions about budget cutbacks at NASA, ABC's Brian Ross has actually pointed out how they were enacted during the Clinton administration and continued into Bush's first years.

On Monday's Good Morning America, Ross cited how “the White House, under both the Clinton and Bush administrations,” has forced “NASA to operate the shuttle on a shoestring.” He added that the GAO reported “that the cutbacks during the Clinton administration reached the 'point of reducing NASA's ability to safely support the shuttle program.'”

Whether or not budget issues had anything to do with the disaster, GMA co-host Charles Gibson wouldn't let go of the idea. When Democratic Senator Bill Nelson asserted that “this tragedy doesn't appear to be connected with the delay of any of those safety upgrades” which budget constraints prohibited, Gibson demanded: “But Senator, how can you say that?” Gibson argued: “It is possible that some of those safety compromises could have been causative here.”

In the 7:30am half hour of Monday's GMA, in a story which largely matched a piece aired on Sunday's two-hour This Week, Ross reported: “There have been repeated warnings over the last few years about Congress and the White House, under both the Clinton and Bush administrations, forcing NASA to operate the shuttle on a shoestring. Richard Blomberg, former chief of NASA's top safety panel, last year warned the agency was planting the seeds for future danger.”

Ross soon added that Space Shuttle Columbia was “denied a number of recommended safety upgrades because of budget pressures in the Clinton and Bush administrations.” Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison claimed: “In the last six to seven years we've had draconian budget cuts.” Ross: “Despite an excellent overall safety record at NASA, a General Accounting Office report issued just a few weeks ago reached a scathing conclusion, that the cutbacks during the Clinton administration reached the 'point of reducing NASA's ability to safely support the shuttle program' and despite efforts to improve under the Bush White House little has changed. Quote, 'these challenges have not been mitigated,' unquote.'”

GMA went to Gibson in outside of Houston who interviewed Florida Senator Bill Nelson, a former shuttle passenger, via satellite. Nelson insisted that the “last two administrations have been starving NASA of money,” but he maintained that “this tragedy doesn't appear to be connected with the delay of any of those safety upgrades.” Gibson jumped in: “But Senator, how can you say that? Because NASA's own administrator has said, look we can't rule anything out, we don't know. It is possible that some of those safety compromises could have been causative here.” Nelson maintained that the delayed safety upgrades were to such things as cockpit technology, rockets and engines, areas not now under suspicion.

The exchange put Gibson to the left of the Democratic Senator.

As for NASA's budget numbers, a chart in Monday's USA Today revealed that the agency's budget has grown from $12.4 billion in 1990 to $14.5 billion in 2002, but to keep up with inflation it would have had to have increased to $20.3 billion in 2002.

But in that time frame NASA reduced the shuttle flight schedule to conform to the budget it had.

[conservativecorner]

One ABC reporter gets it right!

[Alberta's Child]

But in that time frame NASA reduced the shuttle flight schedule to conform to the budget it had.

Why did they wait until the end of the article to make the most important point?

The impact of budget cuts has NOT necessarily been a reduction in safety standards -- it's been a reduction in the number of shuttle flights. At $500 million per flight, I would have expected to see an immediate reduction of $2 billion in NASA's budget when they cut the number of scheduled flights from 8 to 4 per year.

[syriacus]

Would a huge budget have saved the Columbia crew?

Only if the money had been spent in exactly the right way to save them.

[ez]

NASA's funding was cut by $99 million in 1997, $204 million in 1998, and $100 million in 2000. These cuts, including a small increase in 1999, resulted in a total of $303 million in lost funding during the last four years of the Clinton administration. Notice that the data above show an immediate increase of $700 million in NASA's funding under the Bush administration's first year and a total increase of $900 million for Bush's first two years.

The data show a clear downward trend under Clinton and an upward trend under Bush. They also shed light on today's spin cycle, and allegations that President Bush's announced $470 million increase for NASA in next year's budget is somehow unprecedented and therefore "political." As shown above, George W. Bush increased funding for NASA by roughly $900 million over a two-year period. By this standard a $470 million boost is right on target, and actually smaller than the increase of 2001 into 2002.

Will Rogers once said, "Every American has a right to his own opinions, but no one has a right to his own facts." Americans will hotly debate the impact of any possible budget cuts on NASA and particularly shuttle safety over the next several months. My own view is that safety has always been priority-one at NASA and that disasters such as Challenger or Columbia are an unavoidable cost of exploration that cannot be blamed on budgeting. Your view may differ, but whatever it is, the debate should start with the facts: NASA spending was decreasing under Bill Clinton and has been increasing under George W. Bush.

[ez]

bttt

[TheDon]

Another legacy of the Clintoon years?

[Salvation]

**NASA Budget Cutting to Clinton Years**

We all knew this, right?

[shadowman99]

I'm gonna take the high road on this one, because so many at DU take the low road. It's gonna piss a few of you off, but here it is:

It's not the President's fault that Columbia burned up. Not Bush's. And not Clinton's.

The budget gives so much to Nasa, who at the end of the day are reponsible for how it get's spent. During the Clinton years it meant that a number of deep space probes got mothballed. It meant that we didn't send a probe to meet Halley's comet when others did. But I don't believe that anybody willingly compromised the safety of the shuttle fleet, other than there should have been a 2nd gen shuttle by now.

I don't like Clinton, and I blame him for many things. Nasa did with less under his watch, but Nasa decided how the bills get paid. And it is ultimately Nasa's responsibility. Begin fixes there.

[timestax]

bump

[lorrainer]

His "surplus" had to come from somewhere, right?

[dfwgator]

I agree. It amazes me that conservatives, who state not to rely on the government, are the first to blame the government when something goes wrong.

[timestax]

bump

[timestax]

bttt

[timestax]

bump to the top

[timestax]

bump

[tobiasjodter]

IMO, it is irrelevant the level of funding to NASA. The bottom line is if they didn't have the money to do it safely they shouldn't have been doing it. If NASA thought the risk was acceptable with current safety at current budget what is the issue?

[timestax]

bump

[timestax]

bump to the top!!

[timestax]

bump against the clintoon dictator

[Wphile]

HowToSpellNASARevival

Interesting take on NASA and the space shuttle from the WSJ.