NASA Program and Funding

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (Texas):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,    You previously said, "Thank you for contacting me regarding the future of our nation's space program.  I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this issue".
    In summary, I agree that we need a space program primarily for national defense and to maintain status as a world power. However, I completely disagree that funding for the program through NASA should be increased at this time, as has been done by Congress in its recent appropriations bill to fund government through September 30.
    I have previously recommended that all government agencies should have an expenditure reduction of at least 20%, with the dissolution of the Departments of Energy and Education. Such action would be a step in the direction of resolving our fiscal problems. Expanding funding for NASA puts us further in debt.

Congressional Excessive Spending

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (Texas):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,    All of what you said below is true, but the rhetoric, if it speaks for Congress, does not follow through.
    In the recent appropriations bill to extend operation of the federal government through September 30, both the House and Senate voted a majority of 3 to 1 for the extension, in spite of the fact that it included an increase of $221 million For the National Science Foundation (NSF) and unspecified increases for NASA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
    I consider this by no means an attempt by Congress to reduce its appetite for spending.

Previous:

Dear Dr. Sucsy:   Thank you for contacting me regarding the federal budget and efforts to reduce the size of government.  I appreciate your comments and share your frustration with Washington’s inability to restrain spending.     On March 1, 2013, an across-the-board reduction, or sequester, of $85 billion for Fiscal Year 2013 went into effect.  This sequester amounts to 2.4 percent of the federal budget.  Although the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, President Obama’s failed tax-and-spend agenda continues to sink us deeper and deeper in the red.  Instead of trying to scare the American people into believing that government is not big enough, he should immediately put forward a plan that addresses this issue and launch serious, transparent budget negotiations.  After all, the American people deserve a reliable and honest budget that holds Washington accountable for its reckless spending habit.     And on March 23, 2013, for the first time in almost 100 years, the Senate passed a budget (S.Con.Res. 8) prior to receiving the President’s own budget proposal for the upcoming fiscal year.  Unfortunately, S.Con.Res. 8���the Senate’s first budget in over 1,400 days���raises taxes by $1.5 trillion, increases spending by 60 percent, and adds $7.3 trillion to a national debt that already eclipses our entire economy.  S.Con.Res. 8 grossly exacerbates Washington’s spending problems and therefore I voted against the proposal.     I am also disappointed that the President again failed to comply with the law, which requires him to submit a budget by the first Monday of February.  In fact, the President has failed to timely submit a budget four out of five times.  For these reasons, I  introduced the No Budget, No OMB Pay Act of 2013 (S. 620).  This legislation would withhold the pay of the Administration’s top budget officials for every day the President’s budget is late.  Texans do not get paid for not doing their job; neither should Washington bureaucrats.   I recognize the importance of funding programs that support our national defense, protect our borders, and care for our veterans and the need to make sure that each dollar is spent wisely.  Our national debt is now over $16 trillion���making it larger than our entire economy���and it has increased by more than 50 percent since the beginning of the Obama Administration.  We are spending more than $30,000 per household and borrowing more than 40 cents of every dollar we spend.  Like you, I am worried about how excessive government spending and regulations dampen job creation and I am more determined than ever to implement the spending cuts and structural entitlement reforms that are needed to secure the long-term fiscal integrity of our country.  After all, every dollar borrowed today means higher taxes tomorrow if Washington does not reduce its appetite to spend recklessly.   The biggest fiscal problem in Washington is excessive spending.  If we do not reduce spending and reform our three biggest entitlement programs���Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security���then we will strangle economic growth, destroy jobs, and reduce our standard of living.  With annual deficits of more $1 trillion, and with more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities hanging over us, our toughest fiscal decisions cannot be postponed any longer.  The President does not deserve another blank check to spend Texans’ hard earned money, which is why I opposed House Resolution 325 (H.R. 325; P.L. 113-3), which temporarily suspended the debt limit until May 19, 2013, adding approximately $400 billion to the national debt.  This is unacceptable.   Because of Washington’s runaway spending, I support adding a Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution.  I have introduced Senate Joint Resolution 7 (S.J. Res. 7), a bill that would require the federal government to balance its budget each year unless two-thirds of each House of Congress decided otherwise.  In addition, S.J. Res. 7 would require a supermajority vote to increase taxes and the debt limit.  I am also a cosponsor of the Dollar-for-Dollar Deficit Reduction Act (S. 43), which would require that any debt limit increase also include an equal amount of spending cuts.  Families across Texas have to balance their budgets and make tough choices to live within their means.  There is no reason Washington should operate any differently.  The American people want fiscal discipline, and the Balanced Budget Amendment and the Dollar-for-Dollar Deficit Reduction Act would deliver it.     I am honored to represent Texas in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will keep hardworking taxpayers in mind as I fight to curb excessive government spending.  Thank you for taking the time to contact me.   Sincerely, JOHN CORNYN United States Senator

Increases in Federal Agencies Expenditures

    Congress recently passed an appropriations bill to fund the federal government through September 30. I believe most people would agree that we need a continuing federal government and that some funding would be necessary.
    Need I remind you that the federal government is already $17 trillion in debt, and with budget imbalance, this debt increases hourly.
    In spite of that, the appropriations bill increases funding for several agencies involved with science. The National Science Foundation gets an increase of $221 million. NASA gets a slight increase, as does the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Why?
    The National Science Foundation (NSF) already has a bloated budget to do things no reasonable person would ever consider practical, and the other agencies certainly do not need an expansion. I previously suggested that their budgets should be cut by at least 20%
    Apparently, Congress has not yet come to the realization that the federal government has real money problems.

NASA Funding for Meteorite Study

    On February 15, a meteoroid, which is a chunk of space rock, exploded over the Russian city of Chelyabinsk. It was reported that 1500 people were injured, mostly by flying glass. No fatalities were reported, but there was obviously some building damage resulting in the flying glass.
    Within the past few days, Fox News reports that NASA is petitioning the U.S. Congress for funding for meteorite study. Apparently, NASA is following the old adage of "always look for opportunities in any catastrophe".
    If this proposal gets to Congress, I suggest the various Representatives and Senators have a little understanding of meteorites.
    Space junk continually moves through the universe. Most of it is rock but since man's advent into space, there is also considerable man-made debris.
Considering only the space rock, if a meteoroid is more than 32 feet in diameter, it is classified as an asteroid. It is estimated that the meteoroid exploding over Chelyabinsk was about 50 feet in diameter. Therefore, it is considered a small asteroid.
    To complete the definitions, meteoroids that burn up in the Earth's atmosphere are called meteors. Those that allow chunks of solid material to fall on earth are called meteorites. The Chelyabinsk object was a meteorite.
  NASA said it is currently tracking 1379 potentially hazardous asteroids, but it cannot track objects smaller than 1 km in diameter (0.62 miles). It was unable to track the Chelyabinsk meteorite, and will presumably ask Congress for funding to be able to develop this technology. However, what if it could have known about the Chelyabinsk meteorite? Warning the people would not have accomplished much. Perhaps a few could have boarded up their windows to avoid broken glass
  Taking this in its full implication, does that mean the US is unable to detect objects coming into its atmosphere smaller than a kilometer in diameter? I doubt that. If that were true, the US would be obviously susceptible to a surprise rocket attack from outer space. If NASA can't presently detect a meteorite the size of a rocket, I believe the US Military can. If it can, why do we need NASA to accomplish the same thing?
From another perspective let us consider, whether such research and development would be worthwhile, or shall we say cost-effective.
It is estimated that about 500 meteorites reach the earth's surface each year. This means solid material was deposited on earth. How many of these do we normally hear about causing human injury or property damage? In fact, scientists can't find enough pieces to study more than five or six of these events. http://www.express.co.uk/fun/top10facts/378833/Top-10-facts-about-meteors .
  Of the 500 meteorites reaching the earth's surface each year, consider that they range in size from a grain of sand to that of the Chelyabinsk meteorite. According to a study in 1985, a meteorite will hit a human being about once every 180 years. Will it be the size of a grain of sand or much larger?
  Consider further the probability of property damage from any of the 500 meteorites falling each year. Only 3%
of the Earth's land is developed, that is covered by buildings and roads/concrete. What is the likelihood of any meteorite of significant size falling on any of that 3%?
  In these times of already bloated budgets and tremendous national debt, Congress should not give a second thought to any NASA request for funds to study meteorites. There is already the capability to determine when a large asteroid is going to hit the earth with disastrous consequences. We don't need to further refine this to the point where we learn about possible events of insignificance.

The Ryan Budget

    The Ryan budget is no good!
    It increases the size of the Federal government by 3% per year.
    I want to shrink the size of the Federal government.

Sequestration

Open Letter to Congress:

Dear Federal Representatives and Senators,
    I am writing this from my perspective on the chemical industry and academia.    
    Research advocacy groups are calling for avoidance of sequestration which would reduce the budgets of federal R&D agencies by about 8%.    
    Research advocacy members and academia in general strongly promote the use of public funds distributed by federal agencies to universities for "Research and Development". The obvious reasons are the federal agencies can use taxpayer funds to promote their special political projects, and the University researchers love to have taxpayer funds to use in playing with their toys, whether such playing is productive are not.
    If you have any doubt as to whether the present status of R&D funding to universities through public grants is productive, consider the billions of dollars that we have spent over many years and relate that to specific gains. I personally can't think of one.
    Therefore, I recommend you not only cut R&D spending to federal agencies by 8% but actually go much farther and eliminate all R&D spending accept for the military.
    Secondly, a package of custom duty suspensions favorable to the chemical industry was passed in 2010 and now expires at the end of December. The chemical industry is fighting hard to avoid the reapplication of these custom duties.
    The chemical industry in general has found manufacturing overseas favorable to their operations, primarily because of fewer regulations imposed by foreign governments, especially when they can import the products of such foreign manufacture into the US duty-free.
    The placement of such manufacturing overseas is unfavorable to the US, because it reduces the opportunity for US jobs and takes investment out of the US.
    Raw material supplies, especially natural gas, are now no less available and at low cost in the US than they are in foreign countries. Allowing the custom duty suspensions to expire will be favorable to the US economy. 
    However this is not to say that we should ignore the difficulties imposed on manufacturers through US government regulation. Congress must also act to reduce such regulations in order to justify forcing chemical industry manufacturing back to the US and also to attract foreign investment.

Charitable Giving

The following essay on charitable giving is by anonymous CJ. I have contributed my own comments at the end.

                                                    "Charity
     Over the past month or so I have provided commentary on a variety of political issues.  Today I want to comment on charitable giving.
     As you may know, Americans are as a nation the most generous people on the earth.  There are many factors involved not the least of which are our founding principles as embodied in our Constitution.  In recent years, the federal government has become more and more involved in support programs for the disadvantaged.  Some of these programs have worked fairly well and others have been disasters.  None have worked as efficiently and effectively as private charity.  However, one consequence of the government's intrusion has been the dampening of private charity.
     Having said that, I want to urge you to continue and to expand the good work that all of you do on behalf of others.  This takes the form of charitable gifts of money but also in gifts of your time and talent.  Perhaps in your early years the charity is more of the latter, but both are important.  As you consider your gifts, kindly remember to keep the focus sharp.  Contributing small mounts to many is commendable, but larger gifts to a few will have a greater impact.  The simple reason is that in sharpening your focus, you will learn just how much of the gift is delivered to those in need.  It is relatively easy to determine, but you must do "due diligence".
    Prime examples of charities that are efficient and effective are the Catholic Church and the Salvation Army.  There are others.  Examples of charities that are far less efficient  are the United Fund and the Red Cross.  The Red Cross is most efficient in delivering aid in specific cases such as natural disasters.  The United Fund has efficiency and effectiveness problems in general.  The federal government is far and away the least efficient."

    CJ has not covered one of my pet peeves, which is the tremendous number of mail and phone call solicitations that I receive asking for money. We also see these presented as TV advertisements.
    These generally concern destitute animals, starving children, homeless vets, cancer, drunk driving, and a multitude of other things. I generally consider these to be opportunistic attempts to fleece me and line the pockets of the instigators. My attempts to find out how much of each dollar actually goes to the intended purpose have met with failure.
    While I never contribute to these organizations, my wife will occasionally send a small check. This seems to put her on the "grand mailing list", which increases the number of mail solicitations and phone calls. I admit that I could reduce my consternation by getting caller ID, but I hate being forced into that situation. It's also impossible to convince my wife that she is likely perpetuating fraud with these miscellaneous contributions. My son has said, as has also anonymous CJ, that one should take leadership in charitable giving rather than be reactive to advertisements and requests. His leadership suggestions are to contribute only to her church, the Children's Home, and one of the local colleges which she supports. But it falls on deaf ears.
    Anonymous CJ has said it correctly. Use due diligence, which means if you can't spend the time and effort to find out how your money is being spent when you contribute it, you should not be contributing. The other aspect which I will second, is to do work. It can be as a volunteer to the local school system or university, the local food bank, Meals on Wheels, etc..