Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NASA To Face $1.3 Billion Cut Next Year Under Sequestration

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the more-for-less dept.

NASA 242

littlesparkvt writes "A budget forecast that was released on Friday shows that the defense department isn't the only department getting hammered: NASA is as well, if the automatic budget cuts happen. According to Nature magazine, NASA will lose '$417 million from its science budget, $346 for space operations, $309 for exploration, $246 for cross agency support, among other cuts.'"

cancel ×

242 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Budget cuts should not be imposed (4, Informative)

mostwanted678452056 (2597853) | about 2 years ago | (#41353939)

It is because of NASA we are enjoying the fruits of GPS and other such technical marvels. I don't think there should the any more budget cuts.

Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41353981)

Wrong. The cost of GPS and "other such technical marvels" could easily be absorbed into the federal budget. The real problem is that we choose not to. It's all politics, and neither party really has a good stance on the issue.

Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41354621)

Wrong. The cost of GPS and "other such technical marvels" could easily be absorbed into the federal budget.

Sure, but you'd have to create an agency to handle development of the "technical marvels". It would need a lot of fancy buildings with high tech gear inside them, a good acronym...and...we're back to NASA.

Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#41354777)

Or DARPA.

Or NOAA or NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology) or DOE. Lots of cutting edge tech in government institutions.

Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354051)

GPS came from AF / Navy, not NASA.

Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354093)

Oh the AF/Navy have their own launch vehicles and launch facilities now? I guess I wasn't keeping up.

Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354149)

not sure if trolling, or idiot

Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354569)

Space Nutters don't like being told their religion is wrong. NASA invented the wheel, the computer, the lever, the Sun, the car, colors, Teflon and Tang. Reality be damned, everything useful ever came from launching rockets.

Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#41354797)

Space Nutters don't like being told their religion is wrong. NASA invented the wheel, the computer, the lever, the Sun, the car, colors, Teflon and Tang. Reality be damned, everything useful ever came from launching rockets.

Don't go confusing NASA with Apple now.

Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed (2)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | about 2 years ago | (#41354267)

Who do you think runs Cape Canaveral? Trolls?

Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354799)

;-)

Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed (4, Informative)

tnk1 (899206) | about 2 years ago | (#41354391)

Oh the AF/Navy have their own launch vehicles and launch facilities now? I guess I wasn't keeping up.

They have had their own launch facilities for years. Vandenberg AFB and the AF operated launch complexes at Cape Canaveral.

Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed (4, Interesting)

fluffy99 (870997) | about 2 years ago | (#41354441)

Oh the AF/Navy have their own launch vehicles and launch facilities now? I guess I wasn't keeping up.

You are correct - you're not keeping up. Airforce launched them. DOD paid for them. In fact the bloc I GPS sats were launched using Atlas rockets, aka repurposed ICBMs.

Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354619)

I guess you weren't. Before NASA even existed, who do you think launched Vanguard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Vanguard

I know you people think NASA invented everything, but NASA basically just used military technology after it was already invented. We owe a lot of our technical marvels to WWII.

Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed (4, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 2 years ago | (#41354277)

I think the DoD would have something to say about your assertion, since GPS was their toy from day one, ad it was under their budget that the constellation was launched and maintained...

Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed (1)

craigminah (1885846) | about 2 years ago | (#41354535)

The USAF launched and still launches GPS satellites via USAF owned/operated facilities at both Vandenberg AFB, CA and Cape Canaveral AS, FL. Since the DoD is the parent organization of the USAF you could say the DoD launched/launches GPS but that's kind of silly. The DoD pays the USAF to do this as it's part of the USAF's expertise.

Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed (3, Funny)

AsmCoder8088 (745645) | about 2 years ago | (#41354775)

Actually, I would like to point out that as a taxpayer Al Gore contributed to DoD's budget and therefore took the initiative in creating what we know of today as GPS.

Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 2 years ago | (#41354873)

The Debt is what matters. Everything else, in age of austerity, pales in comparison. We need to find joy in despair. We need to find wisdom in the void. Only then will we know the truth.

It won't matter (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41353961)

With the looming currency crisis that is coming due to the Fed's monetary blunders, NASA's budget cuts will be the least of our worries.

Re:It won't matter (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354021)

With Congress taking money out of the economy for the last 30 - 35 years, what else would you expect?
People, if you want the economy to recover, reverse the policies that have been taking money from the middle class and concentrating it in the hands of the few.
We have a demand driven economy, with the middle class driving the demand. Kill the middle class and you kill the economy.
The middle class IS America.

Re:It won't matter (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354319)

take your class warfare bullshit to cuba, asshole. rich people DESERVE their money because they worker harder than the middle class.

Re:It won't matter (4, Insightful)

tibit (1762298) | about 2 years ago | (#41354479)

There is no such thing as "working" hard when you make more in a year than a middle class person makes in their entire lifetime. Human performance doesn't scale up that far, we're talking multiple orders of magnitude. On the way down from middle class you can of course slack as much as you want, but on the way up -- you know, a day only has 24 hours, no matter how bright you are, you can only do so much before you start, effectively, exploiting others.

Re:It won't matter (1, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#41354927)

There is no such thing as "working" hard when you make more in a year than a middle class person makes in their entire lifetime. Human performance doesn't scale up that far, we're talking multiple orders of magnitude.

Who do you think employs those middle class people?

Mainly other middle class people (3, Insightful)

publiclurker (952615) | about 2 years ago | (#41354975)

But don't worry, maybe some rich person will take pity on your attempts at brown-nosing, and give you a job as a footstool or something.

Re:It won't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354669)

Or they're just lucky. And know how to schmooze, lie and manipulate other people. You know, like Slashdot's favorite hard working hero, Elon Musk...

"PayPal’s early growth was due in large part to a successful viral growth campaign created by Musk."

Oooooh hard work there! A bunch of lies, some luck, voila!

Re:It won't matter (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354065)

With the looming currency crisis that is coming due to the Fed's monetary blunders, NASA's budget cuts will be the least of our worries.

This statement should be the first post for all topics!!!

The Fed is creating a HUGE bubble and when it pops we will be F__KED.
I don't know if this blunder is due to incompetence or an expectation that the current administration will lose the next election hence they have adopted a scorched earth policy.

Re:It won't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354115)

what currency crises dude? all the funny money that went up in a puff of smoke during the housing collapse needs to be replaced for the economy to grow again. bonds are at the lowest in something like a century. inflation is also extremely low, hell we barely escaped deflation. stop being a paultard and learn some "reality based" economics.

Re:It won't matter (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354597)

If you think inflation is extremely low, you must not eat or drive. I guess you can argue those two items are too volatile to include in the inflation measurement (despite the CPI being a measure of YOY changes, which takes out the volatility), but the reality is, people still buy gas and eat. So much for that reality based economics of yours.

BTW, deflation should have been welcomed, not avoided. It's a regression to the mean, and the ones who get hurt by it are the ones who live beyond their means, like the government (it's no surprise that deflation is taught as being evil). I don't need protection from things becoming cheaper and the poor and unemployed would certainly be better off with falling prices.

Reality based economics? What like Keynesian economics? The 'mathematical models' hardly explain human behavior at all. Politicians only run to Keynesian methodologies when the shit hits the fan because it's better for them politically than to tell their constituents we need a market correction, otherwise Keynesianism would have been dead after the stagflation of the 1970s.

Re:It won't matter (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354245)

I've been reading comments about how the Fed's policy is replacing money that has been "taken out" of the economy by the rich or the housing bubble.

The first thing you need to know is that the Fed does not create wealth... Every time they print money, they devalue the current money. Wealth must be CREATED by hard work.

Here is an example, an owner of a glass processing facility told me a story and it illustrates this point beautifully... Unfortunately, I can't remember all of the detail but I can do a fairly good job of summarizing.

The first stage of the glass process is to make the glass... First sand is sold at ~$3 per pound. It then goes to a facility where the sand is made into glass and it's value increases to ~8$ per pound... It then goes to different companies who continue the processing of the material. Finally, It makes its way to the glass factory where I learned this story and there the final processing yields a product that sells for ~$80 per pound (As it turns out that particular product was actually being sold back to the original producer who sold the raw material for $3 per pound). That is how wealth is created.

The rich don't horde money so that you can't have it... YOU need to do something that creates wealth and then you too can accumulate large quantities of dollars.

WEALTH is not a 0 sum game!

Damn Democrats!!1 (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41353965)

Those damn Democrats and their spending cuts! Why don't they spend more, like good Republicans?

Re:Damn Democrats!!1 (5, Insightful)

pecosdave (536896) | about 2 years ago | (#41354263)

Neither party really tries to spend more or less than the other.

What people fail to realize is there's very little difference between the two parties. Those issues everyone campaigns on? They're to polarize people to give them a sense of duty to vote for one party or the other. If you'll notice very little actually gets accomplished on polarizing issues, those issues exist to keep you from voting third party.

What is the real difference in the parties? It's like a sports franchise. Each party is playing for different companies.

Obviously the Republicans are playing for defense contractors and some other civil engineering types.

The Democrats are obviously playing for unions, health insurance, and pharmaceutical companies. (non-health insurance companies fall anywhere in the spectrum)

So in the NFL what happens when two teams go to the Superbowl? One team wins and the other loses. Does that mean the losing team doesn't make any money? NO! The losing team makes a huge profit, the winning team gets the glory and makes an even bigger profit.

Tax money is like a river to these people. There's a fork in the river with a dam going to each fork. Winning an election is winning the right to open up the gates to your fork a little wider so your team gets more of the profit, like winning the Super Bowl. The other team still gets some.

As tax payers we've lost focus. We've put all of our focus into deciding who to trust with the gate controls further down the line. Fact is the river is supposed to come off of a lake, the lake is nearly empty because all the waters been diverted to the river. Sure some asshole keeps setting the trees on fire in the mountains to melt snow into water (inflation) but that's destroying the land we live in. We need to close the dam where the river starts and turn our taxes into a stream, not the friggin Mississippi. As long as you're voting for the NFL we all lose.

Re:Damn Democrats!!1 (2)

Greyfox (87712) | about 2 years ago | (#41354519)

You kind of lost me there at the end, but I think I want to say "Yup! They're both the same!" Pretty much any method of selecting our leaders would work better than what we have now. We could select people randomly out of a phone book and treat Congress like jury duty and have better leadership than we do now.

In the past I've thought we should just install a revolving door on Congress and vote in new people in each election cycle. Congress would change polarity every election cycle, but they'd all be new people without much experience and maybe at least somewhat likely to work together. But like you say, they're both the same. Voting for third parties might help a little, but I doubt the people would go for that. Actually most of the people seem to be happy to vote the same guys in over and over again, despite an approval rating for Congress that is fast approaching single digit territory (Unless we've already crossed into it, I haven't checked in a couple of months.)

This situation can not continue perpetually. Eventually the country will collapse under the weight of this, and then we'll all be much worse off than we are today. And I do mean everyone. The top few percent might be able to flee to another country, but their taxes will generally be higher and their security will generally be lower. I'm not sure I'd want to live in the same world as a country with a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons collapsing, either. Hell, the thought of a nuclear-armed Pakistan collapsing is bad enough.

Whatever happens, we brought this on ourselves. Russia collapsed due to economics, it looks like we'll collapse due to stupidity. If we're lucky, maybe everyone won't die in the process.

Re:Damn Democrats!!1 (1)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41354661)

Neither party really tries to spend more or less than the other.

- what you are really saying is that neither party touches the expenses that are added by the other party. Yeah, that's a fair statement. They have a deal, they have their status quo, the 'compromise'. The compromise is that they'll get their special interests covered and will not fight each other's special interests all while the tax payers (and generally, people in the economy) are being slaughtered (figuratively speaking for now).

Spending is going to grow under Obama, Bernanke has already cast his vote (so it's most likely Obama for another term, especially given the stupid road that Romney took, trying to out-Democrat the Democrats). [slashdot.org] .

This sequestration is very unlikely to take place. Don't forget why the idea even exists in the first place, that's because Rs and Ds couldn't agree what to cut and in order to appease the rating agency in question [wikipedia.org] , there was the idea that there would be automatic cuts.

However just listen to the news cycle, listen to the talking heads, they are almost all singing the same tune: this is a coming 'fiscal cliff', what a disaster.

The real disaster is in NOT cutting the spending, that's the point. That's the promise by the rating agency (and really, who gives a shit what the bought political rating agencies rate US debt at? It's junk, it's been junk for a long time now).

Look at the 10 year bond, the price went down as Bernanke announced QE3. That's not what normally happened, normally traders would enter in order to front run the sale to the Fed, but not this time.

Bernanke's 40 billion a month will go to asset purchases to try and re-inflate the property and equity bubbles again, that's his goal. He was failing at it even as it was announced. He'll be pumping much more than 40 billion a month, I am sure of it.

But again, the language is such, that this coming deadline is a 'fiscal cliff'. It's most likely that there will be no cuts at all, they'll "avoid the disaster of the fiscal cliff", they'll prevent spending cuts.

Maybe there will be some tiny token cuts, I wouldn't even bet on that, but they are truly irrelevant, just like that rating agency. US debt is junk, just like Greece's debt was junk not only now or 2 years ago, but also 4 years ago and 6 years ago. It's just the market is so corrupted by the central banks and their policy of counterfeiting and setting fake interest rates and stealing property (that's what asset purchases mean when you counterfeit) that the system still kept going for a while probably on inertia only.

Will NASA face these cuts? Maybe. Maybe it will be ONLY NASA that will face these cuts. But most likely there won't be any cuts and even if they have some cuts, most likely there will be another 'round of stimulus' and NASA will get their nominal dollars back.

Re:Damn Democrats!!1 (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about 2 years ago | (#41354477)

Sequestration isn't a spending cut, per se. It was an agreement so that the Congress would make themselves come up with a budget or they would face automatic across the board spending cuts. By doing it that way, the belief was that the Congress would be forced to compromise because the congresspeople would lose money spent on their own constituents if it was an across the board cut. That and the cuts might actually hit things that needed to be funded continuously.

The problem with that is, it doesn't seem to have worked. Indeed, if I was completely paranoid, I'd say it was an extremely clever plan by Congress to slash the budget without getting blamed for this or that specific change. Want to cut the defense budget, but you're a Republican and can't say that out loud? Sequestration! Are you a Democrat and think money spent on entitlements is overboard, but can't say it out loud? Sequestration to the rescue!

It would be clever if they used the political infighting to actually achieve goals that their special interests don't want them to, all while pretending to fight really hard for those same special interests.

Too bad they're not that clever. On the other hand, I don't think you can actually fix the budget with a hack job like this either, but it would be cool if the politicians actually were able to do an end-run around their owners and tried to do something right for a change.

Units you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41353967)

That's only $417,000,901...

DoD (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354013)

Can we please just cut $1.3B extra from Defense and leave NASA alone? Seriously, $1.3 is only like half a B2 bomber - DoD can absorb that cost.

Re:DoD (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about 2 years ago | (#41354495)

B2 bombers are already bought and paid for by now. You need to find a new DoD boondoggle to attack.

Maybe the F-22?

Re:DoD (4, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | about 2 years ago | (#41354693)

1.3 Billion? That's 5 F-35 Lightning II's the DoD will have to cut out of it's budget! (Yes I know the A version costs "only" 197 million, but just wait...)

In any case, sequestration will hit the DoD (and Veterans Affairs) as well. If you weren't paying attention, last year Congress refused to raise the misleading named "debt ceiling" -- which is not a ceiling on actual *debt*, but rather securitizing *debt* already incurred. In other words, they wouldn't allow the treasury to issue notes or bonds to pay for expenses already budgeted, authorized and incurred. In order to avoid sovereign default, the administration worked out a deal where it would iron out the budget differences with Congress after the election. To give that commmitment teeth they arranged for automatic budget cuts, split evenly between DoD and the rest of the federal budget, if they failed to achieve 1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.

Since this voluntary deficit reduction will almost certainly have to be achieved without tax increases or defense spending cuts, NASA's prospects don't look any brighter if we avoid sequestration. Without a huge and probably unrealistic economic boom we're going to be cutting stuff that the public cares about a lot more than NASA. Sure, NASA's costing the average taxpayer less than 20 cents a day, but we'll be scrounging under the sofa cushions for pennies.

So close a center or two (1)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#41354033)

So cancel the museum at Slidell, close Stennis, cut headquarters staff, and lay off most of the PR department.

How fucking sad. (3, Informative)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about 2 years ago | (#41354107)

NASA is where all the money should go.

Re:How fucking sad. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354133)

Are you sure about that?

Even when the money is wasted on this dweeb to babble in podcasts?

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/podcasting/nasaedge/bio-blair.html

Re:How fucking great! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354555)

I don't support the space fantasy fiction.

All those dedicated, intelligent people should be working on the problems we have here on earth, not on the fiction that space 'exploration' is going to do anything for the short term survival or benefit of humanity.

The space program should be left to those countries that have their environmental, energy, population and human rights problems solved. Currently no one qualifies. And there's 0.00% chance that we'll be able to overcome these same limitations as they apply to long term space flight, exploration or colonization if we can't adequately manage the same terrestrial limitations, right down here!

Re:How fucking sad. (1)

Memroid (898199) | about 2 years ago | (#41354935)

NOAA too - I think they are often overlooked.

News coverage question of the day (5, Insightful)

Whatsmynickname (557867) | about 2 years ago | (#41354113)

When the republicans temporarily shut down the government while budget battles raged on, we had 24/7 wall to wall coverage of this. [wikipedia.org] Contrast this with today where absolute NO TV and virtually no newspaper coverage exists for this event. Why?

Who owns all of those TV channels and newspapers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354301)

That's why.

Re:News coverage question of the day (5, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#41354337)

Contrast this with today where absolute NO TV and virtually no newspaper coverage exists for this event. Why?

Because Fox News Corp. and AOL Time Warner doesn't want to show the republicans as the reason nothing gets done during the election season. This way if the republicans sweep all the elections, they can brag about how they were the ones to finally get something passed.

Re:News coverage question of the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354525)

It's just Time Warner now. AOL was spun off in 2010. I should know, I was an employee at the time. Just saying.

Also, I've met the news people at AOL and Time Warner. They are, to a man, all Obama supporting liberals. I know this because I used to run news coverage servers and worked with the News people during the election cycles.

By and large, with very few exceptions (like FOX), the journalism trade is one filled with liberals. If there is some reason they don't want it coming out, it's not because the RNC is pulling their strings.

Re:News coverage question of the day (2)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#41354599)

CNN has a corporate bias which tends to favor conservatives much more than liberals.

Re:News coverage question of the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354369)

I have heard them talking about the automatic spending cuts on CNN every day for the last month, multiple times per day, as well as NPR.

Don't blame others if you don't pay attention.

Eliminate NASA completely (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354121)

I'll complain when someone can show me in the Constitution where the federal government is authorized to establish NASA and engage in space activities.

Anything that the constitution does not specifically permit the federal government to do, is illegal for the federal government to do.

WRITE IN RON PAUL 2012!

Re:Eliminate NASA completely (1)

pecosdave (536896) | about 2 years ago | (#41354315)

I am a Paul Bot.

DO NOT WRITE IN RON PAUL

Paul is out of the race, he's said so, he would rather you not write him in.
If you really want a Paul minded individual vote Gary Johnson. Paul hasn't said that, but he's said he likes the guy and they agree on most issues. There's some sticky family reasons that keeps Paul from actually endorsing him, but he's made statements in the past that are close enough. Writing in Ron Paul truly is a wasted vote, especially in states that won't recognize that particular write in.

DO NOT LISTEN TO PARENT! GOP PROPAGANDIST!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354433)

DO NOT LISTEN TO PARENT!

Ron Paul HAS NOT withdrawn from the Presidential race. HE IS STILL RUNNING, and will NOT give up.

Don't listen to GOP plants astroturfing as Paul supporters (who would never voluntarily call themselves "Paulbots") trying to get you not to cast your vote for the one and ONLY man who can save America!

When he wins, he will happily accept the job. Once he's elected, he can start getting rid of all of these unnecessary and illegal government agencies, and finally, FINALLY de-fund the Zionist terrorists who are constantly stirring shit up in the middle east and costing US Taxpayers TRILLIONS funding illegal wars and the corporate war machine.

Re:DO NOT LISTEN TO PARENT! GOP PROPAGANDIST!! (1)

noobermin (1950642) | about 2 years ago | (#41354567)

lmfao

America! (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#41354135)

America Fuck yeah coming to obstructing congress to save the day!

Nasa is the spearhead (5, Insightful)

MindPrison (864299) | about 2 years ago | (#41354153)

Nasa is the spearhead of innovation, if it wasn't for them, we'd not have a lot of the materials today that we make our innovations even more innovative with. Nasa isn't just all about space exploration, but what we can do with materials in near zero gravity, search for alternative energy sources that can literally save our lives, nanotechnology and beyond.

To see such an innovative organization being stripped down like that, rips my heart apart.

Re:Nasa is the spearhead (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | about 2 years ago | (#41354521)

Nasa is the spearhead of innovation, if it wasn't for them, we'd not have a lot of the materials today that we make our innovations even more innovative with. Nasa isn't just all about space exploration, but what we can do with materials in near zero gravity, search for alternative energy sources that can literally save our lives, nanotechnology and beyond.

To see such an innovative organization being stripped down like that, rips my heart apart.

NASA WAS a spear head of innovation in the 60's and 70's. Not so much today as they are using primarily off-the-shelf components. Other industries, including DOD and the personal electronics market are driving innovation much faster. Shooting probes to Mars is fun and all, but it's just providing a very myopic archaeological perspective of the planet. Imagine an alien race visiting 4 places on earth and looking at maybe a few square miles. It's just delusional to think that's representative of anything at all.

I'd much rather see that money diverted towards something with a larger social impact, like curing a disease or producing a vaccine for something like Norovirus which accounts for half of all food-borne illness and affects 20-million people each year. Depending on your wage estimates and taking the person of of action for 1-2 days, that's easily 500-billion in lost wages.

Deficit. (1)

fermion (181285) | about 2 years ago | (#41354159)

I think the public debt is a problem. I enter life at the tail end of it falling, then in the 80's it doubled as a percentage of GDP and we say a lot of problems from it. Not so much the interest rate, which only hurt families that lived on debt, but the lack of good jobs at the end of the 80's. Then in the 90's we got good jobs with the debt was falling, and then those went away in 2000's as the debt began to double as percentage of the GDP again. We are seeing the end of that doubling now. The only thing that saves us is that interest rates are low, so the US government is actually paying less on interest than we have in a very long time. Many of us over the past 10 years asked for spending not to be so high, for instance the trillion dollar home land security and the trillion dollar medicare part d, AKA the drug addiction program for old people, but pretty much no one listened. There there was unlimited funds to kill people we did not like.

The sequestration program was enacted because it was the only way that we could agree to manage our debt. It cut things that some people hated and some people liked. That is what compromise is. It is like a family cutting out salon visits and the football package on cable. It hurts, no one wants it, but if the money is not there, there money is there. That combined with ending of temporary tax cuts is going to solve the problem in a very direct way. I know we wished there was vodoo of a faith based economic solution, but there is not. The invisible hand is not going to come down and magically provide everything we need. If it could we would be communist, but in reality one has work and spend responsibly as individuals.

There will be some negative effects. People with less expendable income will have even less, so walmart will have a reduction in sales so they will have to lay off some poorly paid employees who will have to go on welfare or find other poorly paid jobs. People will buy less gas so those of us who live in states with petroleum economies won't be making quite so much money. The military will no longer be able to absorb so many semi skilled employees, so the unemployment rate may go up until those people can be convinced to get a skill and start to do real work. Doctors and hospitals will have to be punished for over billing medicare/medicaid.

But we are talking about a bipartisan plan that was passed and signed by the president because it was the best deal everyone would agree to and would solve the problem. That a few people are complaining now that they did not understand what the deal was, well, then, they should leave office. If you aren't smart enough to understand what it is your voting for, then stop stealing the tax payers money. This is not a great solution, we are going to lose some programs, but what else is there to do? Raise taxes on the top 5%? Stop tax write-offs for yachts? Ask the pentagon to not waste so much money on poorly executed military activities? I would say cut welfare checks, but then Wal Mart would hardly have enough customers to survive.

Re:Deficit. (1)

LeanSystems (2513566) | about 2 years ago | (#41354381)

The "sequestration" was not the best plan... it was supposed to force congress into making a decision on how to actually cut the budget because it was such a bad plan. At that's what I have heard the talking-heads say.

That being said. I think it's a pretty decent plan. As you said, you can find people that like every singe expendature and think it should be un-touched. Therefore, just cut them all equally. As a former member of the military, I guaran-fucking-tee, there is 10% that could be cut from pre 9/11 budgets without a threat to national security.

I can't be as sure about other programs, but I just left a McDonalds and over heard 5 losers talking about how you lose your disability if you get a job and few other comments about how to keep the gubment money rolling in. They couldn't have been older than 20. My point being, I am fairly sure we could figure out how to cut 10% out of just about any government program.

I do think the cuts should be 10% per major area. It can be hard to cut 10% of your cable bill if you are already on basic cable. If my bill is $50, how do I cut out $5? Again, this was why the original sequestration was supposed to spur actual budget planning and cuts... 10% on every program may not make sense. But if we agreed to cut 10% from DOD, Medicaid/Medicare, and from the remaining 30% of the total budget, it would probably work out.

But what do I know...

Re:Deficit. (1)

Great Big Bird (1751616) | about 2 years ago | (#41354423)

The "medicare part d" according to Wikipedia cost just under $50 billion in 2008. The cost of "homeland security" from 2001 to 2011 was $649 billion according to: http://costsofwar.org/article/homeland-security-budget [costsofwar.org] . Even on a ten year basis these things are hardly "trillion dollar" anything. Your primary discussion is on the debt, which I generally agree that a debt is bad to at least carry —no doubt with one as large as the United States has. Debt itself is not bad, because governments can use it to soften downturns, but must be good enough to repay on the upturns. If you want a good economic recovery, the last thing you want to do is "cut welfare checks". If you want to get money into the economy, give it to the people who will spend it. Those are the people who are down on their luck, or otherwise don't have savings. Those people are the exact people you want to cut welfare from. In Ontario, Canada there was once a man named Mike Harris. He believed in the very same things: cut welfare, give money back to the rich and they will spend it. It doesn't work, because they don't spend it - they save it. Savings takes money out of the economy, because the economy is the continuous flow of money.

Re:Deficit. (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41354593)

>>> I enter life at the tail end of it falling, then in the 80's it doubled as a percentage of GDP..... Then in the 90's we got good jobs with the debt was falling

You clearly have NO idea what you're talking about. Look at the treasury.gov website. The public debt has never fallen..... not since the 1940/50s under Truman/Eisenhower. The public debt went up in the 60s and 70s because of the war and the oil crisis. Went up in the 80s and 90s too. There is not one single instance on treasury.gov that the debt went down in the 70s or 90s (as you falsely claim).

much as I like NASA... (2, Interesting)

kenorland (2691677) | about 2 years ago | (#41354207)

Much as I like NASA, if that's what it takes to get the deficit under control, then that's what needs to happen. Given that the DOD takes the brunt of the cuts, it seems fair. And a billion dollar in cuts for NASA amounts to pocket change when distributed about all the billionaires that are currently financing private space ventures. We'll probably do better altogether by getting the economy going again and having them work on getting to space than to keep financing bloated DOD and other programs an relying on handouts for NASA to get us into space.

Re:much as I like NASA... (4, Insightful)

vitriolum (1280610) | about 2 years ago | (#41354327)

Except NASA's budget goes right back into the pockets of the American people, plus we get space missions.

"The economic benefits of NASA's programs are greater than generally realized. The main beneficiaries (the American public) may not even realize the source of their good fortune. . ." - paper in Nature, 1992

In 2002, the aerospace industry accounted for $95 billion of economic activity in the United States, including $23.5 billion in employee earnings dispersed among some 576,000 employees (source: Federal Aviation Administration, March 2004).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Economic_impact_of_NASA_funding [wikipedia.org]

Re:much as I like NASA... (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about 2 years ago | (#41354601)

You could say the same about DoD money going back into the pockets of the people. I mean they do give us real tangible benefits too. Like the Internet and GPS and a few other things like lots and lots of jobs. I get that they also blow up other people, and that's bad and all, but it does happen to be a job that we do need the ability to do.

Perhaps NASA is more efficient than DoD at distributing that money, but they're a government bureaucracy too, so I am not sure that is the case.

Incidentally, the only way sequestration works is by across the board cuts. That is why it went through, everyone knew it would suck for them, so they agreed to it as a way of getting each other to compromise. If you gave a NASA exemption, the politics would appear and it would not have worked.

Re:much as I like NASA... (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41354651)

By that logic building drones & blowing them up in wars is "good" for the economy too. The truth is that spending money on items that will be destroyed (or abandoned to rust) is no more helpful than smashing windows to create jobs for glassmakers. It's the Broken Window Fallacy..... or the Cash for Clunkers fallacy.*

*
* I took advantage of this "deal". My new low MPG car is actually a worse polluter than my old high MPG car according to greenercars.org. Way to go Congress. Nice job bozos.

Re:much as I like NASA... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354349)

Cutting NASAs budget by 1 billion is like saving 10 cents on dish soup after buying a tv.

Re:much as I like NASA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354385)

Really? Do you think that all those billionaires (probably a very low number) are going to let you go into space? Without doing any research, I'm fairly confident in saying that NASA was voted for by the citizens for the purpose of space exploration for the good of the citizens. We, as the people in this country, should be outraged at the mismanagement happening at EVERY SINGLE LEVEL of U.S. government. I know I am.

A government funded space colonization project is for the good of everyone (of that country), a privately funded one is not, for many reasons, more than I'm willing to type up. It's that simple.

Re:much as I like NASA... (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 2 years ago | (#41354413)

Given that the DOD takes the brunt of the cuts

Don't hold your breath.

Re:much as I like NASA... (4, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#41354419)

Much as I like NASA, if that's what it takes to get the deficit under control, then that's what needs to happen.

NASA's budget is insignificant compared to the entitlement programs and DOD spending. Cutting NASA's budget doesn't upset the old people, the welfare recipients, and the retired military veterans. Cutting NASA's budget does little for actually balancing the budget. It's just the least important to that good o' red blooded american voter that is so important this time of year.

The problem with the budget has always been that politicians do not look at what will be good for the nation's future when making decisions. Instead they look at what is good for their individual political future and saying "I cut welfare, defense spending, and social security" won't win them any votes. They particularly love the elderly vote since they outnumber the rest of us and they don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy story.

Re:much as I like NASA... (1)

Sgs-Cruz (526085) | about 2 years ago | (#41354573)

It would be one thing if the cuts ("sequestration") really happened as planned, equally distributed between defense and non-defense discretionary spending.

Except that the defense industry has been on top of it for months now, and have a very good lobbying campaign going to scare the shit out of Washington about what will happen if the defense cuts go through. So I fear that what will happen is either the defense cuts will be reversed, and the other cuts will still happen, or else none of the cuts will happen.

People are pretty excited about Operation Chimichanga and the thought of a real shooting war with China. They should be horrified and disgusted.

Re:much as I like NASA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354679)

Our defense budget is some $900 Billion and is most certainly not necessary. Cut that by 2/3 and we save 46 times as much as we would cutting anything from NASA. There are plenty of other things that can be completely and entirely cut before NASA should ever be considered. What about the IRS? A little tax reform and we can completely eliminate that entire thing. What about mandatory spending? Not only aren't we trying to give people financial solvency by making them invest in their own future, we're asking them to pay into a big pot of money we'll pay everyone out of (which is guaranteed mathematically to always gain money, even though it's about to go red, which makes it clear the motivation behind its creation). We created yet another entitlement program guaranteed to grow to consume the other 50% of our available budget, meaning at our current taxation levels, the entirety of funds available from taxes would be consumed by 3 entitlement programs alone, all which require their own cost to each of us on top of taxation. And then how do we continue operating if not a single penny from taxes ever sees any department of govt (hint: taxation up to 70% for you and me)? We could easily fix this. We just have to stop trying to create a financial divide between the rich and "poor" to do it, and invest in things that matter.

I should point out that those entitlement programs only effectively funnel money into massive corporations, because we don't impose pricing regulations. If we did, they would cost a tiny fraction of what we currently pay into them. So when something is "covered" by those systems, the few corporations that get the deals can charge basically whatever they want, and the government has to pay it, so it pays $40,000 for a routine surgery that really should only cost $3000, and $1000 for a bottle of medication that costs $2 to make, or $3.60 if you factor in R&D costs and expected sales over the 20 years the patent grants. Not only should these systems be dismantled and something sane put in place (like.. pricing regulations so normal people can actually afford medicine, medical procedures, and insurance and a mandatory 401k or IRA for personal savings), but it's a crime against my generation and our future generations every year we don't. Surely within the next few decades there's going to be a revolution because of all of this. Cut education, cut technology, cut science researching, spend on defense and create entitlement programs. All the wrong decisions.

Re:much as I like NASA... (1)

Solandri (704621) | about 2 years ago | (#41354757)

Much as I like NASA, if that's what it takes to get the deficit under control, then that's what needs to happen.

This won't do squat about getting the deficit under control. The cause of the deficit is Medicare/Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office has been telling us this for over a dozen years. Left as it is, Medicare/Medicaid will consume all tax revenue in 50-70 years [cbpp.org] . All the savings from cutting defense since the 1960s (when it consumed over 10% of GDP - half the federal budget) has been counteracted by growth in Medicare/Medicaid. [thefiscaltimes.com]

Unfortunately, (1) The most powerful voting block is retired people, who are the primary beneficiaries of Medicaid/Medicare. They vote against anyone suggesting it be cut or restructured to slow its growth. And (2) most members of one of the major political parties absolutely refuse to believe social programs are the cause of our budget woes (they're excluded from the automatic cuts if sequestration hits). They think everything can be fixed by cutting defense spending, even though we'd still be running a budget deficit if we dropped military spending to zero. And no, FICA taxes do not cover Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Medicare/Medicaid outlays have exceeded Medicare/Medicaid tax revenue for over a decade, and Social Security outlays began exceeding Social Security tax revenue in 2010. We've known for 3 Presidents exactly what the problem is. We've just refused to do anything about it.

Don't take my word for it, don't take some pundit's word against it. Read the CBO reports [cbo.gov] . Read their older reports [cbo.gov] if you like. Then decide for yourself.

Re:much as I like NASA... (1)

ThorGod (456163) | about 2 years ago | (#41354889)

The deficit...so much populist misunderstanding about the difference between public and private debt. The worst part is politicians willingly feed (aren't aware of?) the important difference between private and public debt.

Read up on Keynesian economics.

Another nail in the coffin of science in America. (3, Insightful)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 2 years ago | (#41354233)

I'm sure there are a depressingly-large number of Americans who would be overjoyed at the prospect of NASA being monetarily crippled, if not defunded altogether. Not only is it a haven for climate scientists (NASA has Earth-looking satellites, and has monitored the Antactic ozone hole for years), but it's packed to the gills with astrophysicists who maintain that the universe is billions of years old instead of a mere six thousand.

Re:Another nail in the coffin of science in Americ (1)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 2 years ago | (#41354251)

Sigh... "Antarctic ozone hole".

Re:Another nail in the coffin of science in Americ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354397)

Grow up.

NASA isn't being defunded because TEA Partiers believe the earth is 6000 years old.

NASA is being defunded because, like every single government program, it has grown like a cancer.

Nothing will happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354247)

No cuts will happen. It's not binding on the next congress, so after the election they'll simply change it.

Which is too bad, because we need to cut, cut, cut the federal budget. It's insane.

Forrest and Trees (4, Insightful)

jasnw (1913892) | about 2 years ago | (#41354259)

All this focus on the released details of the bad things that will happen to each agency is a waste of energy. The administration put this document together because Congress insisted on it, and if it had been dropped in my lap I would have done as litle as necessary to put this useless exercise in budgetary masturbation together. This is all focusing on the "trees" of "OMG, my favorite NASA program will be axed" when it should be on the forrest of "DAMN, Congress is about to put a shotgun to the head of the US economy and pull the trigger." We should be furious about the short-sighted, infantile, "he's touching me" inability to work together of what passes for leadership in Congress, particularly on the REPUBLICAN (there, I said it) side of the aisle. NASA losing $1.3B is a candle against the general confligration this disaster will cause to the US.

Please justify NASA's existence (-1, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41354261)

What on earth have the trillions of dollars spent since 1980 accomplished? Pretty pictures. A few minor changes in science textbooks ("Saturn has dozens of rings not just two big ones"). Anything else? The money would be better spent feeding the hungry, creating more jobs at home, studying the earth's climate, or simply paying down the insane ~$190,000 per American home government debt. (Add another $100k for personal mortgage/credit card debt.)

Re:Please justify NASA's existence (-1, Offtopic)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41354341)

- 1.

That's not an answer. That's acting like a cop who beats a victim just because he holds the authority and nobody can stop him. Just because you hold moderator points does not mean you use them to punish the person or post. In fact /. rules specifically forbid such usage, and instead encourage you to REPLY to posts rather than mod them down.

Re:Please justify NASA's existence (2)

noobermin (1950642) | about 2 years ago | (#41354553)

lol u mad

If you want to make a point and engage in actual debate, then using a mocking tone like that won't convince or intrigue anyone. It just serves to circle-jerk up people who agree with you and enrages people against your opinion, the latter of which is considered trolling.

I'll bite by saying this: more money is already spent on feeding the hungry (food-stamps) and some amount goes to NSF [nsf.gov] , some of which goes to climate research, I'm sure. Not as much as nasa, but then again, it's priorities, I guess.

Paying down the debt, true. Then again, more revenues would help too.

Re:Please justify NASA's existence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354343)

The money would be better spent ... studying the earth's climate

Do you suggest that we send a bunch of people out all over the world with hand-held thermometers instead of maybe investing in equipment that could take weather and climate observations from a very high altitude (i.e. space)?

Re:Please justify NASA's existence (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#41354471)

The big red elephant in the room is that the easiest way to keep taxes low is to borrow, and boy do they borrow. The trick is to retire from politics before you run out of road on which you are kicking the can. This has been SOP for both parties especially the so called conservative one.

Non-workers need their government checks (-1, Flamebait)

Kohath (38547) | about 2 years ago | (#41354281)

Yeah, so? Get used to it. The entire budget will eventually be taken up to write checks for retirees, SNAP (a.k.a food stamp) recipients, Medicaid recipients, people on "disability", TANF (a.k.a. welfare) recipients, grant recipients, corporate subsidy recipients, and everyone else who takes out rather than paying in.

You want the government to do anything else, then figure out how to start saying "No" to people with their hands out.

Re:Non-workers need their government checks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354475)

The unemployed starving to death and the uninsured dying in the streets will soon put an end to the handout mentality.

Re:Non-workers need their government checks (0)

Kohath (38547) | about 2 years ago | (#41354725)

Everyone should read these 3 posts by the same AC poster. This is why NASA and every other item in the budget except handouts will eventually be cut to zero: because cutting even $1 from any non-worker's government check causes starvation and death. If you believe him, you need to resign yourself to the end of NASA and anything else you could ever ask the federal government to do (besides write you a welfare check).

Re:Non-workers need their government checks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354485)

I'm one of those people who would either starve to death or suffer horribly for a few years before succumbing to disease and dying without SNAP and Medicaid.

There's a conspicuous item on your list which isn't a handout and never belonged: corporations are not people. Let them pay in as they are theoretically supposed to, for once.

Isn't keeping people alive, again, theoretically, what society is meant for? Keeping in mind that YOU, dear Parent, would also perish were it not for the graces of society in some form or another...

Re:Non-workers need their government checks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354545)

I always laugh that people are upset about solvent, trust based programs paid into seperately, while we spend over $600 Billion, per year, on a military that has bloated to some multiple of all the other military powers in the world, combined.

I know Europe has been known to drop the ball entirely on military aid (to the tune of thousands of lives lost), but we can't afford to keep donating our services to everyone on earth, whilst maintaining operations in places for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Our homeless are not our drain. Our military is.

Briar patch (0)

ultracosm (471238) | about 2 years ago | (#41354355)

The democrats thought they were onto something with the onerous "sequestration" deal they got with the republicans. What they didn't count on was that a large number of those republicans think cutting the federal budget to the bone (and beyond) is a good idea, while the rest figured they'd eventually be able to get things they want (defense spending) exempted from the cuts. And no republican will do a thing that makes any democrat look good.

The chances of the federal government figuring out how to make a budget and stick to it are pretty much dead, unless democrats give in and do exactly what the republicans and teapartiers demand. So, yeah, the Obama administration really does need to get ready for the sequestration cuts to happen. The only way out is for Obama to be re-elected, and democrats to get a majority in the House and a super-majority in the Senate ... and even then it's not guaranteed, since democrats can't agree on anything useful.

Hooray for austerity, and going back into Super-recession.

Re:Briar patch (1)

noobermin (1950642) | about 2 years ago | (#41354473)

I really see no other way out of it. I read a op-ed (can't find the link) on cnn in which the author said that if the repubs win all, then the dems out of spite might very well obstruct the government from whatever plan they come up with.

Let's just keep our fingers crossed, I guess.

Re:Briar patch (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 years ago | (#41354543)

But it also contains big military cuts, which Republicans don't like. However, if no deal is reached, they perhaps figure they can blame the military cuts on the Democrats and claim we are vulnerable.

Re:Briar patch (2)

tnk1 (899206) | about 2 years ago | (#41354711)

Yeah, not sure why the Democrats went with that plan. It's exactly what the Tea Party wanted, an enforced budget cut that made the government figure how how to operate on less money. Perhaps the Democrats thought that the Tea Partiers were insincere career politicians like they were and would not want to play chicken.

The problem with thinking you can play chicken with someone is that, on a rare occasion, the other guy is actually there to see what a car accident feels like.

I've never been one for the hack and slash approach to budget cuts, but I do have to admit that it might be the only way to do it with special interests having a constant steel cage match to get more and more money for themselves. Look on the bright side, do you really think the Democrats would ever get even close to the amount of defense budget cuts they could under this?

Not a good time to be in science or academics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354373)

Bankers, politicians and crooks are doing much better in these hard times!

Why is NASA needed (-1, Redundant)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41354409)

I refuse to be censored by /. moderators. I HAVE an opinion and I'm not xchangign just becaus you're a Dmocrat that hates free specch.

What on earth have the trillions of dollars spent since 1980 accomplished? Pretty pictures. A few minor changes in science textbooks ("Saturn has dozens of rings not just two big ones"). Anything else? The money would be better spent feeding the hungry, creating more jobs at home, studying the earth's climate, or simply paying down the insane ~$190,000 per American home government debt. (Add another $100k for personal mortgage/credit card debt.)

Re:Why is NASA needed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354641)

Flash frozen peas, coordless drill, memory foam beds, subsidized travel development, clean water, LED, scratch resistant lens, and many others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

Oddly enough, we never spent trillions of dollars. In fact, we never even spent one. It said the bank bailout is greater than the entire 50 years of nasa

If you were smart enough, then nasa is the poster child of a properly run government agency. Only technology and innvoation can solve our problems. You are not helping our problem by cutting our only future.

If you want cut down the debt, cut dod, congressmen pay checks, and other things that were not on the table. Increase H1B Visas. It is important that skill workers enter America, because without them we cannot expand

Having worked at NASA for the past two years.. (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about 2 years ago | (#41354421)

... I can say that the waste and inefficiency at NASA is for worse than in DOD (which I worked in for 20 years).

This would be for the best... if you are looking to eliminate waste.

Re:Having worked at NASA for the past two years.. (1)

Simulant (528590) | about 2 years ago | (#41354949)

<quote><p>... I can say that the waste and inefficiency at NASA is for worse than in DOD (which I worked in for 20 years).</p><p>This would be for the best... if you are looking to eliminate waste.</p></quote>

If this is true then good riddance. The DOD is a money flushing machine.

No. Daddy got laid off. You cannot have a pony. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41354429)

When you get laid off from your job and your unemployment is about to run out, you put your vacations and hobbies on hold.

When you are flat broke, you don't take vacations to Mars.

Sincerely,
The Citizens of the U.S.A.

Nasa is chump change, need to hit the sacred cows. (5, Insightful)

PerMolestiasEruditio (1118269) | about 2 years ago | (#41354449)

The real waste in the Budget is in things like Medicare. US spends 15% of GDP on health, while most OECD countries spend about 7-8% on evil "socialised medicine" yet have everyone is covered and in many cases they have higher life expectancies. 7% of us GDP is about $1 Trillion per year, I realise that isn't the federal budget but it is money that people could use for other things if they weren't wasting it.

Higher education 3% of GDP vs OECD average 1.5%. College attendees are getting screwed to the tune of $200 billion per year.

Around $1000 per person spent on tax filing per year due to ridiculously complex tax system - another 2-300 $billion per year.

And I am not even going to bother talking about the Pentagon.

Point is that there are ways of saving all that needs to be saved without impacting negatively on peoples standard of living, but the US needs to be willing to adopt the best practices of the rest of the west, regardless of philosophical objections about free-markets etc.

Ain't gonna happen (2, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | about 2 years ago | (#41354453)

These sequestration cuts will not happen. After the upcoming election, minds will be concentrated, horses will be traded at a furious rate, and this can will be kicked down the road. The details of the can-kicking and horse-trading will depend on the nature of the election results, but the can will be kicked down the road. Of that you can be sure.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?