Traditionally, going all the way back to Lyndon Johnson, the vice president has been in charge of space stuff, but there is nothing in either the Constitution or any law about it, it’s just a tradition born of historical accident. And in fact, it’s not the case as often as it is. Johnson and Agnew were heavily involved, Ford and Nelson Rockefeller not so much, Mondale was only to the extent that he tried to kill the Shuttle program, and succeeded in reducing the fleet size (a foolish decision, given that the marginal cost of the additional orbiters would have been little at the time, and we’d have had a more robust program in the wake of the two losses). George H. W. Bush didn’t play much of a role, Quayle did. Gore was heavily involved, Cheney not so much. As far as I know, Biden has not been involved at all, leaving things to Holdren. So it’s not clear whether or not it matters whether or not Ryan will guide civil space policy as a veep. Unusually for a pick, he will likely be heavily involved in the formulation of budget policy overall, and will unlikely have time to deal with issues at the level of a couple billion bucks. On the other hand, I’ve had more than one person tell me that he is (or at least was when young) a devotee of Ayn Rand, and he will be receptive to more individualistic and competitive commercial approaches to space than a typical Republican politician might be.
Anyway, all that said, Jeff Foust did the same thing I did — tried to read tea leaves from his record on what he’d do, and as he says, the dossier is pretty thin. I am encouraged by the fact that he voted against the 2010 NASA authorization bill, which was pretty awful, but I’d like to know why. I would hope it was because (among other things) he recognized the pork that was SLS/MPCV. Anyway, given Romney’s clear complete indifference to the topic, he might be a better person to approach on it than the presidential candidate himself. But I don’t expect this to be a significant campaign issue, even in Florida or Ohio.
It would make sense for Romney to give him a big role in budget questions, and I suspect he would be fairly rigorous in examining the SLS. I doubt he would just defer to the Administrator of NASA, which was always the Bush approach. Also, he would have a very good idea of what the dynamics in Congress were, and couldn’t be easily steamrolled by the committee chairs. At a minimum, it wouldn’t be just a replay of the Bush years.
I don’t expect this to be a significant campaign issue, even in Florida
One speech could change that and I expect Ryan will have to give a big speech in Florida consider how the dems will keep portraying him as the guy throwing nana over the cliff.
He’s not going to give a speech on space in Florida.
Don’t you think he has to respond to those describing him as throwing mama over the cliff? If he does that, doesn’t he also have to touch on space issues?
I’m curious why you are so certain he won’t? Does he lose Florida for Mitt? Isn’t that the election?
Don’t you think he has to respond to those describing him as throwing mama over the cliff?
Yes.
If he does that, doesn’t he also have to touch on space issues?
Huh?
I think your syllogism is missing a few steps.
I’m not saying the two issues are related. I’m just saying it’s Florida… home of Canaveral, old folks and eternal IP on mouse ears.
You’re probably right. I just think if he gives a speech, he’s going to touch on jobs and want to include some warm fuzzies regarding a major Florida industry. The dems are going to paint him as a radical risk; he’s going to have to calm and sooth on those points.
The federal government is spending somewhere around $3 trillion each year. That’s $3,000 billion. NASA’s budget is around $16 billion. Put in that perspective, NASA is small potato(e)s indeed. Should Ryan give a speech to address every budget line item to the people who benefit from it? Could he live so long?
am encouraged by the fact that he voted against the 2010 NASA authorization bill, which was pretty awful, but I’d like to know why.
Someone tweeted that Ryan wanted to cut the NASA budget by 6% to increase defense spending.
I have no idea if that’s true. It sounds like the standard “GOP always cuts NASA to waste money on war” line.
It also says nothing about space policy. It’s pretty easy to find inefficiencies in NASA’s budget that would more than make up for a 6% cut.
Personally, I would be elated if 6% of NASA’s budget were transferred to Jess Sponable at DoD for military spaceplane.
Ryan is also a member of the Republican Study Committee, whose “Contract With America Renewed” sent Mark Whittington into a fit of rabid epileptic tongue-wagging hysteria back in 2006. (The RSC wanted to cancel Constellation and rely on commercial transport to ISS.)
The RSC has a lot of members, so I don’t know how involved Ryan was with that specific recommendation. But according to the Club of Growth, he was one of 22 Congressmen who signed on to support the bill (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=4273).
It should be noted that the 2010 bill ended the Constellation program and enshrined Obama’s crony capitalist commercial space policy. Gabby Giffords opposed it on that basis and was vilified by a lot of people for it at the time. We don’t know whether Ryan opposed it on that basis because he’s not saying. In any case, space policy in a Romney administration will be set at the top. We know. of course, who is advising him on that subject. Finally, as usual, I’m pretty sure I don’t know what Ed Wright is raving about, but that is usually the case.
…crony capitalist…
I see Mark is still intellectually embedded in the Occupy Wall Street camp. 🙂
as usual, I’m pretty sure I don’t know…
Since you can’t understand what the grownups are talking about, perhaps you might clam up and listen for a change?
Obama’s crony capitalist commercial space policy
Just who is it that is Obama’s “crony” in this scenario? The CEO of Boeing? Mark Sirangelo? Elon Musk, who held a fundraiser for Dana Rohrabacher at his plant last year?
Why do you continue this idiocy?
While Space policy is very important to us, I suspect we are a thin minority of voters. I haven’t taken a poll so I cannot prove it but I don’t think space policy is on the minds of most likely voters .
At ~$15 billion, space expenditures are an insignificant piece of the pie.
Romney and, I suspect, Ryan, have bigger fish to fry…like avoiding the Grecian Formula and keeping us from falling over the fiscal cliff.
Really, he’s from Wisconsin. Was there ever a member of the Congressional delegation from Wisconsin, the land of Senator Proxmire, that supported spending on space?