From: macko@pilot.njin.net (Peter C. Macko)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Clinton Slashes Space Funding
Date: 14 Sep 92 01:10:39 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:


>		Democrats Will Cut Space Funding

>	There are no set goals for such cuts that I know of,
>	but if Clinton intends to fulfill at least a fraction of his agenda
>	(and I am absolutely certain that he does)
>	then he is going to need some "painless" method
>	to cut government spending.

  With a 400 billion dollar yearly budget deficit there is no way cuts can be 
painless.  The entire space program amounts to just a drop in the bucket.

>	Now defense cuts are obvious,
>	but the current administration has already begun that process.
>	Clinton is not a roll-over-and-die type,
>	in spite of his draft record,
>	so he would be leery of making much more drastic cuts.

>	This leaves a few juicy programs to go after:
>	(1) social security
>	(2) medicare, medicade, etc.
>	(3) public housing, welfare, food stamps, etc.
>	(4) research funding for science and technology

>	Now I would suspect that Clinton
>	is a wise enough politician to avoid (1).

>	He wants national health care,
>	so cutting (2) is just a numbers game for the immediate future
>	and probably another entitlement nightmare in the long run.

>	For (3), he wants to reform welfare
>	and replace it with a jobs-creation/worker-training program
>	which would almost certainly be either a ludicrous joke
>	or far more expensive than social-spending at present.
>	My guess is that he would try to make it work
>	until the costs became obvious, and then quickly back down.
>	No net savings here.

  I agree that it will be more expensive.  But if done intelligently
it would probably be worth the cost in the long term (say 10-20 years).
Politicians however tend to be too short-sighted.  The project would
more then likely be scrapped after 2-5 years.  The money invested

>	This leaves (4), and while you may argue
>	that the money he would save with cuts in this area is minimal
>	(in comparison with social security, defense, and medicare)
>	remember that he wants to cut the deficit and lower taxes.
>	To even attempt this, he would need to make
>	every possible cut in areas not vital to his agenda.

  Here is where I disagree with you most strongly.  Clinton is a
firm believer in the benefits of R&D.  He believes that technological
advancement is the way to grow our economy into further prosperity.
His vice-presidential running mate Al Gore has sponsored a number of
signifigant bills dealing with national investment in new technologies.
Just this week he sided with those defending space station Freedom 
against those that wanted to eliminate it.

>	If Clinton is elected, I can promise you that there will
>	be major cuts in technology research and space funding.

  I doubt it since he views these things as the key to America's greatness.
You can cut out all of discretionary spending and you'd cut the yearly
deficit by a third.  Discretionary spending is only 14% of the budget.  
And that is the pot from which things like R&D and scholarships come from.  
He is far more likely to raise taxes then he is to cut R&D.

  The problem is you're taking Clinton's words more seriously then Bush's.  
The economic plans of both candidates have holes large enough to float a 
battleship through and I don't particularly trust either one of them.
Bush has yet to hand congress a balanced budget despite the pledges he
made last election.  (Not that congress is innocent either.)  Candidates 
are much more likely to act as they have in the past then follow through 
on their campaign pledges.  Bush is an excellent example.  I can think of
four pledges he's broken off the top of my head.

  Pick your poison, er I mean candidate.  On R&D it doesn't make much
difference.  Clinton is a much stronger proponent of new technology then
the more laissez-faire Bush but he won't be in a position to spend more 
due to budgetary constraints.  He will at least attempt to hold the line.
If he is truly serious about reigning in the deficit he will raise taxes
as well.  As I said earlier, pick your poison.


					-PCM
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space