From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Space and Presidential Politics
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:48:54 GMT

Note the followup line.

In article <1469100016@igc.apc.org> Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org> writes:

>The simple facts are that neither party has 
>said much about what they would do 

On the contrary. Both canidates have said what they would do. Both canidates
also have track records which can be evaluated. Simply because Gore's track
record doesn't measure up is no reason to call other people absurd.

Are you suggesting Gore will suddenly change several years of activity just
because he becomes VP?

>and that the issue is rightly peripheral to the campaign.

Rightly? Not in my opinion. To me space exploration and colonization is
very important. A canidate who supports it tells me that he/she has vision
and a belief in a brigher future.

Canidates who say that we cannot afford to explore show they are not
looking to the future. They are stagnant and willing to throw away the
seed corn for some short term political gain.

In the future sir, do not tell people how important they should regard
ANY issue. That is for each of us to decide, not you.

>I would like to comment on some of the more egregious
>extrapolations that have been made.  For example, Allen Sherzer
>accuses Al Gore of being insufficiently enthusiastic about the
>space program because his subcommittee (Science, Space, and
>Technology) has not produced an authorization bill for NASA in
>years.  All the action in the Senate takes place in the full
>committees, not the subcommittees, so this complaint is more
>properly aimed at the full committee (Commerce, Science, and
>Transportation) Chairman, Fritz Hollings.  

This is simply wrong. According to the rules, the full committee cannot
act on a bill until the subcommittee reports it out. Gore routinely fails
to do so therefore the full committee can do nothing. Who told you this
anyway?

The intent was that both house and senate would pass authorization bills
by June or so every year. The appropriations committees are then to use
the authorization bill as gideance in their appropriations.

To see how it should be done, look at defense. Gore's subcommittee is a
laughing stock but nobody laughs at the Armed Services Committee. Gore
doesn't pass authorizations, ASC does. Gore is ignored, ASC isn't.

>In fact, the real
>action in the Senate is in the Appropriations subcommittee, where
>Barbara Mikulski is the main player.

True enough. That is because Gore's refusal to pass authorizations means
that the appropriations has a free hand. This is why Traxler managed to
kill NASP and convert it into pork for his district; had Gore done his
job, the NASP program (which is far more important that pork for Traxler)
would have lived.

The House committee under Brown worked hard this year to pass a timely
diciplined authorization. This would have gone a long way toward restoring
the power of the Authorizers, but Gore couldn't be bothered. I suppose his
golf game was more important than doing his job and passing a timely
authorization bill.

>Allen Sherzer has also complained that Clinton and Gore are
>relying on the advice of space pundit John Pike, whom he accuses
>of being skeptical (heaven forbid) about the prospects for SSTO
>technology.  

Not at all. I know lots of people skeptical about SSTO and I respect
their opinions. The difference here is that those people have specific
technical objections.

Pike is different. His objection is: "nothing we have dont to date
has reduced costs therefore costs can never be reduced". This shows
a person who simply is too close minded to accept new ways of doing
things. Putting such a person in charge of the space council at this
time would be a disaster.

>I can only conclude that if you care about space so much that you
>would base your vote on the issue you have 1) little to go on and

On the contrary, we have an extensive track record of the top space
policy makers within a Clinton adminstration. I consider that a lot
to go on since actions speak louder than words.

>2) loose marbles.  Get real!  Space is not and should not be a big
>issue in this Presidential election.  

for reasons stated above, space should be an issue. It shows how
a canidate views the future.

>improve their lot while reducing the deficit

Clinton going to reduce the deficit? Come on now, nobody actually
believes that. Surely you don't?

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------208 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+