And So It Begins

A case study in Republicans who are against big government, but not really.

A case study in Republicans who are against big government, but not really.

Not really. At least not a good one. NASA is less than a percent of the federal budget. It might be bad government, but not big government.

The expansion of Medicare (and education) under Bush is a much better one.

NASA is less than a percent of the federal budget. It might be bad government, but not big government.

That is a highly debatable calculation. You could make the same argument about the proposed Gravina Island Bridge, a.k.a. the bridge to nowhere: "This isn't big government, because it's only one hundredth of one percent of the federal budget." The problem with that ratio is that the Gravina Island bridge obviously would have been big government on the scale of its intended purpose. It would have been by far the biggest public works project that Gravina Island had ever seen.

So what about the space shuttle? Again, on the scale of its intended purpose, or on the scale of its actual impact, it clearly is big government.

Education may be bigger than NASA, but it's qualitatively in the same boat. It's "only" 3.5% of the federal budget. So it isn't "big government" by the same squint test that is argued for NASA. In reality, much of both NASA and Education are bloated on the scale of their functions.

Okay, since you have a set retort for the "big government" phrase, let's put it this way. This letter to the White House is a case study in Republicans who are against bloated government, but not really.

That is a highly debatable calculation.

Not at all. Except, of course, to trolls, who can never admit error.

You could make the same argument about the proposed Gravina Island Bridge, a.k.a. the bridge to nowhere: "This isn't big government, because it's only one hundredth of one percent of the federal budget." The problem with that ratio is that the Gravina Island bridge obviously would have been big government on the scale of its intended purpose. It would have been by far the biggest public works project that Gravina Island had ever seen.

Except that it wasn't the Gravina Island government that was funding it, so it's still not big government. For the government that was funding it, it was trivial government. It's just bad (very bad) government. And it should be opposed as well.

Fine then, I used the wrong word the first time. (And there, see, I admitted to error.)

If something is bloated, it isn't necessarily big on an absolute scale, but it is much bigger than it ought to be. For instance, if your hand has swollen to three inches thick, then it still isn't very big compared to a bread box, but it is bloated.

As Republicans, McCain, Hutchison, and Vitter have all cultivated a reputation of opposition to bloated government. Except that in this case, they're for it.
The space shuttle always was and always will be a bloated government program. And that's reason enough to cancel it.

So, what are your plans for ISS for the next 10 years?

I struggle to recall seeing any serious solutions from you on any given topic, just hatred...

So, what are your plans for ISS for the next 10 years?

I don't have any plans for the ISS. It's another bloated government program.

I struggle to recall seeing any serious solutions from you on any given topic

Should we always press the government for solutions to problems? I'll grant that it's sometimes important, but not in this case. What Rutan et al are doing with space tourism is 100 times better than what NASA is doing, because they're minding their own business. NASA should get out of the way, and one good step to doing that is to retire the space shuttle. And, since you ask, the space station.

Bush said that we will retire the space shuttle in 2010. He's right that we should.

Thank you. That's much preferable, and in this case, I actually agree--I have little qualm over abandoning ISS, despite the massive sunk costs; in no small part because I suspect that there will be something better, cheaper, and built primarily with non-government money (and therefore most likely far better spent) within the near term.

That said, if we're not going to abolish NASA, it'd be awfully nice to appropriate a larger chunk of our money that's already being allocated to them towards the folks who have the best shot at getting us back up there the soonest--and I don't necessarily mean the shuttle folks.

Rand, is there any hope that you could implement a 'spam' filter so that your readers could be spared wasting their time reading word parsing inanity by say a certian poster? A name filter perhaps?

One could argue that the people supporting Shuttle extension are Republicans. Not Libertarians, but Republicans. Republicans are against "wasteful government programs" but are strictly-speaking not anti-government, or at least to the degree of strict Libertarians. Democrats are also against "wasteful government programs", perhaps a somewhat distinct set of such programs than Republicans.

A strict Libertarian would call for terminating NASA outright and be encouraged by Burt Rutan and Elon Musk's efforts. But again, the divide between Democrats and Republicans is not between everything done by government and no government -- it is a question of differences in emphasis, priorities, what one values. The same could be said for Libertarians. Some Libertarians who value human exploration of space would be for doing away with NASA long-term but would accept NASA as part of the way things are done in the present system. You know, the argument on whether Libertarian is a direction or a desired end state.

Also Republicans, like Democrats, span a spectrum of Libertarian through almost Socialist in how much government they want. But historically, the space program has been more in line with how the Democrats see things. It was Kennedy who launched Apollo into high gear on the philosophy of government participation in national greatness, after Eisenhower was indifferent to the pressures to "beat the Russians", followed by Nixon, who would have deep sixed the Shuttle if he could have gotten away with it but settled on the compromise Shuttle design as he read the tea leaves on the political support for this kind of thing.

But to the extend that NASA is merely a jobs program, it is a kind of jobs program that Republicans support because it nurtures jobs and an aerospace infrastructure that we don't need now but would have trouble reconstructing in the future if our national security situation changes. But many Democrats support NASA, perhaps more for the jobs aspect than the defense aspect, but that is the nature of the political system, that Republicans and Democrats have different philosophies and different priorities but occasionally come together on some issues.

One Republican value is that if government money is spent on a program, it should be spent to good effect rather than simply spent as a matter of entitlement to those receiving it. This is not to say that Democrats don't share this view, but what I have expressed reflects a Republican principle and priority. Democrats may more directly cast their argument in terms of the needs and entitlement of constituent groups whereas Republicans may feel more comfortable casting support for government programs in terms of broader and more abstract purposes. Democrats may argue that Republicans are de facto serving the constituent group of favored business interests, but Democrats do some of that too (favoring business interests instead of merely the downtrodden), and the debate on these philosophical guiding principles continues.

Rand has expressedly professed that he is not a Republican, but Republicans seem to be welcome in these parts. Libertarian, Democrat, or Republican, whether NASA is spending its money wisely is hotly debated hear, and the debate is engaged without changing the subject to a pork-barrel bridge project, that was indeed a hypocrisy for Republicans and helped get them voted out in 2006.

Mr. Harris, leave aside whether it involves Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, Communists, or whose fault it is, what do you think is the correct action to take on Shuttle extension and why? If terminating the Shuttle results in early termination of ISS, do you support that? In light of promises made to international partners?

Mr. Harris, leave aside whether it involves Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, Communists, or whose fault it is, what do you think is the correct action to take on Shuttle extension and why? If terminating the Shuttle results in early termination of ISS, do you support that?

It's very simple, Paul. They're both a waste of money. We should just say NO.

Libertarian, Democrat, or Republican, whether NASA is spending its money wisely is hotly debated here

The only debate here has been to argue the ways that NASA isn't spending its money wisely.

In light of promises made to international partners?

So is that the excuse, that it might hurt the feelings of the French? Or the Russians? It shouldn't take long to explain to them that we've decided to stop wasting money on this. Replace it with a better partnership, if you feel internationalist, for instance one involving private spaceflight. Scaled/Virgin already is a collaboration with the UK, isn't it? You could look for a Bransonne in France or a Rutanovich in Russia to work with.