nasa funding tradeoff (politics) (.doc version)

8/14/2019 NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics) (.doc version)

1/32

Will Malson NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics) Page 1 of 32

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics) -- Index (1/3)

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics) -- Index (1/3)..............................................................1 Normal Means....................................................................................................................3

A. Spending is PayGo; made in tradeoffs ...................................................................................... 3

The plan is supplementary spending, or spending added in the middle of a fiscal year .....................3

Normal means for supplementary spending is for it to be funded by cutting other programs they trade-off...................................................................................................................................................... .......4

Normal Means....................................................................................................................4

A. Spending is PayGo; made in tradeoffs ...................................................................................... 4

Paygo rules require that new spending trade off with old spending................................................4

PAYGO rules require that any new programs be funded by cutting other programs .........................5

Normal Means....................................................................................................................5

B. NASA is properly funded now Obamas political capital ..................................................... 5

Status quo gives Obama the necessary political cover to hold the line on NASA................................5

Obama will push the NASA budget up now.........................................................................................6

The absence of political makes NASA always an easy target and the first thing to get cut..................6

Normal Means....................................................................................................................6

C. NASA is properly funded now budget ................................................................................... 6

2010 budget request is still strong for NASA.......................................................................................6

NASA funding is going up now but is not completely decided.............................................................7

NASA is properly funded however, new funding risks getting it cut based on shifting priorities ... ..7

The 2009 budget gives NASA 18.7 billion...........................................................................................7

Normal Means....................................................................................................................7

D. NASAs cut first ........................................................................................................................ 7Empirically, increased spending proposals are at the expense of NASA.............................................7

NASA is typically cut to fund new programs.......................................................................................8

Even funding NASA for other reasons takes money out of space exploration .....................................8

Normal Means....................................................................................................................8

D. NASAs cut first ........................................................................................................................ 8

NASA funding is volatile and under extensive review in the status quo...............................................8

Space is on the chopping block; any new spending will kill it ............................................................9

Normal Means....................................................................................................................9

E. A stable budget is key ................................................................................................................ 9

A stable budget is key to NASA in the long term..................................................................................9

Funding is key to American space program overall..........................................................................10

Normal Means..................................................................................................................10

AT: Only small cuts ......................................................................................................................10

Cutting NASA dooms it to irrelevancy even if it exists, it wont be effective...................................10

Normal Means..................................................................................................................11

AT: No tradeoff ............................................................................................................................ 11


2/32


A. If the plan DOESNT trade off, it tubes PayGo, destroying fiscal responsibility...........................11

B. Fiscal irresponsibility is likely to trigger economic collapse .......................................................12

Normal Means..................................................................................................................12

AT: No tradeoff ............................................................................................................................ 12

C. Economic collapse will likely trigger nuclear conflict .................................................................12

Backup: Economic collapse would escalate to full-scale nuclear conflict.........................................13

Normal Means..................................................................................................................13

AT: Obama wont follow PayGo ................................................................................................. 13

Pelosi will strictly follow PayGo no matter what Obama does .........................................................13

Pressure for complete compliance with PayGo is high ....................................................................14

Impact: Hegemony...........................................................................................................14A. The more budget-pressed NASA becomes, the more the entire program is jeopardized and the more likely

accidents become...............................................................................................................................14

B. Another accident would destroy competitiveness and space exploration, shutting down NASA and forcing

us to turn to the Russians for space access........................................................................................15

Impact: Hegemony...........................................................................................................15C. Competitiveness is key to hegemony ............................................................................................15D. Hegemony is key to maintaining democracy, free markets and rule of law, preventing proliferation,regional threats by renegade states, global rivals, and a global cold or hot war (including nuclearexchange)........................................................................................................................................ ..16

Hegemony Extensions .....................................................................................................16

A. Domestic Access ......................................................................................................................16

NASA is key to providing domestic access space (and to Floridas economy)..................................16

NASA needs funding or human space travel is gone forever.............................................................17


A. Domestic Access ......................................................................................................................17

A strong space program is key to US hegemony and the economy....................................................17


B. Leadership ................................................................................................................................18

Improved space technology is key to U.S. leadership........................................................................18

NASA is the lynchpin of U.S. soft power budget support is key......................................................19


B. Leadership ................................................................................................................................19

Soft power is key to hegemony...........................................................................................................19

Space superiority is key to military hegemony ..................................................................................20

Impact: Global Warming .................................................................................................20A. NASA funding key to weather research in the atmosphere............................................................20

B. That places the climate program in jeopardy means we cant deal with warming............ ..... ....21

Impact: Global Warming .................................................................................................21C. Global warming rips the fabric of our biosphere apart, destroying nature and our very race . . . .21

Impact: Soft Power ..........................................................................................................22A. NASA is the lynchpin of U.S. soft power budget support is key..................................................22

B. Soft Power is key to providing foreign talent, preventing anti-Americanism and terrorism, maintaining


3/32


international influence, reducing proliferation, disease, human and drug trafficking.......................23

Impact: Economy ............................................................................................................23A. NASA funding is key to the economy ............................................................................................23

B. Economic collapse will likely trigger nuclear conflict .................................................................24

Economy Extensions .......................................................................................................24

A. NASA .....................................................................................................................................24A strong space program is key to US hegemony and the economy....................................................24

Economy Extensions .......................................................................................................25

B. Impact ...................................................................................................................................... 25

Economic collapse would escalate to full-scale nuclear conflict.......................................................25

Impact: No Mo Space Colonization................................................................................26A. NASA is key to accessing international cooperation on space colonization and the space market 26

Impact: No Mo Space Colonization................................................................................27B. The future of an earthbound human race holds a bleak future of inevitable extinction only colonizing

space can enable the possibility of surviving in the long term its do or die...................................27

Space Colonization Extensions........................................................................................28Space colonization solves extinction..................................................................................................28

Impact: Blitzkrieg and/or Spartaaaaa!..............................................................................29NASA is key to prevent extinction: comets, nuclear threats, nukes, bioterrorism, an aging sun ...... .29

AT: China gets mad..........................................................................................................30China supports space exploration they wont oppose the results of it............................................30

AT: Free market would solve...........................................................................................31Privatization causes more accidents and deaths from space travel ..................................................31

Normal Means

A. Spending is PayGo; made in tradeoffs

The plan is supplementary spending, or spending added in the middle of a fiscal yearThe OMB Watcher Online [a nonprofit research and advocacy organization], Vol. 1 No. 3, "BiennialBudgeting", February 29, 2000 (HEG)

Sen. Dominici (R-NM) again introduced a bill (S.92) to change the federal budget, appropriations and authorizationprocesses from a yearly cycle to every two years. It has been placed on the Senate legislative calendar and will likely beconsidered within the next few months. Here's a quick primer: Why biennial budgeting? The argument is that a biennialbudget cycle would streamline the budget process, provide more focused time for congressional oversight, and enhance theability of agencies to manage their operations. It sounds good, but would this really help, or cause a yearly unscheduled train


4/32


5/32


President Obama put it earlier this month, "It is no coincidence that this rule was in place when we moved . . . to recordsurpluses in the 1990s -- and that when this rule was abandoned, we returned to record deficits that doubled the nationaldebt." President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress set paygo aside, turning borrowed money into massive taxcuts for the most privileged. Borrowing made those tax cuts politically pain-free as long as Mr. Bush was in office, but it onlypassed the bill on to the next generation -- along with ever-inflating interest payments. Democrats, on the other hand,

understand that we owe it to our fiscal future to pay our bills up-front. As soon as our party took back Congress in

2007, we made the principle of paying for what we buy part of the House rules. To be sure, Congress hasn't always lived upto that commitment, usually when the Senate rejected House bills that were paid for. But that is all the more reason to give

paygo the force of law. On Mr. Obama's behalf, we have introduced legislation to keep Congress, whethercontrolled by Democrats or Republicans, from sacrificing our fiscal health to the political pressures ofthe moment.

PAYGO rules require that any new programs be funded by cutting other programs

RTTNEWS, Orszag Says Statutory PAYGO Strengthens Fiscal Responsibility, June 25, 2009,http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/TOP%20STORY/2390190/ (HEG)

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget said Thursday that the new Statutory Pay-As-

You-Go Act of 2009 would strengthen the country's enforcement of and reemphasize its commitment tofiscal discipline. At a hearing before the full House Budget Committee, OMB Director Peter Orszag emphasized the needto enact the PAYGO Act proposed by the Obama Administration into law. "We should follow that Hippocratic Oath that

first directs doctors to do no harm," Orszag said. PAYGO rules, enacted as part of the Budget Enforcement Actof 1990, require that increases in direct spending and decreases in revenue be offset by other spendingcuts or revenue increases. Starting in the late 1990s, when the federal budget was in surplus, Congress began looseningPAYGO rules before fully abandoning them in 2002. However, facing a fiscal year 2009 deficit of $1.7 trillion,the Obama administration has endorsed making PAYGO a statutory part of the budget process in orderto reign in new entitlement spending and new tax cuts. Before the committee, Orszag outlined the rules of thePAYGO Act and described how the OMB would enforce those rules to make sure Congress adheres to the PAYGO principle.In prepared testimony, Orszag said that the OMB would maintain a PAYGO ledger to record "the average ten-year budgetaryeffects of all legislation enacted through 2013 that affects governmental receipts or mandatory outlays relative to the

baseline." Orszag also said that the PAYGO Act would enforce budget constraint through the threat ofsequestration and will force policy makers to make decisions to pay for new mandatory spending and taxreductions. Speaking more specifically, Orszag added that President Obama could sequester resourcesfrom non-mandatory programs if there is a net cost found on the PAYGO ledger. "Set up in this way,sequestration strongly encourages policymakers never to violate PAYGO budget constraint and triggersequestration--in other words, sequestration is in practice a threat, not a remedy," he said.

Normal Means

B. NASA is properly funded now Obamas political capital

Status quo gives Obama the necessary political cover to hold the line on NASAStewart M. Powell [reporter], NASA worried about programs future, Copyright 2009 HoustonChronicle, June 11, 2009 , http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6473816.html (HEG)

Its basic human instinct to wonder and perhaps worry about the future when this type of review isbeing conducted, says Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, whose district includes Johnson Space Center.The best-case scenario for Texas interests is that the independent panel, headed by former LockheedMartin CEO Norm Augustine, will provide Obama political cover to adopt President George W. Bushs


6/32


previous NASA road map. The Bush plan for the Constellation program would unite the Ares rocket system and theOrion crew capsule to reach the orbiting International Space Station beyond 2015 and the moon by 2020.

Obama will push the NASA budget up now

Mark Whittington [reporter], Obama 2010 Budget to Increase NASA Funding, Feb 26, 2009,http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1513884/obama_2010_budget_to_increase_nasa.html (HEG)

President Barack Obama's FY2010budget request contains a generous increase for NASA, from aprojected 2009 level of $17.8 billion to $18.7 billion in FY2010. The 2010 Obamabudget request alsoendorses the return to the Moon program. There are few details as of yet of how the money will be distributed among the various

NASAaccounts in the 2010 Obamabudgetrequests. But there are indications as to what Obama's priorities will be for the space agency. 2010NASAbudgethighlights include, according to the White House: "Provides $18.7 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Combined with the $1

billion provided to the agency in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, his represents a total increase of more than $2.4 billion over the2008 level.

The absence of political makes NASA always an easy target and the first thing to get cut

Jeff Brooks [founder and director of the Committee for the Advocacy of Space Exploration],Introducing the Committee for the Advocacy of Space Exploration, April 14 2008,http://thespacereview.com/article/1102/1 (HEG)

For far too long, space exploration has been an invisible issue on the political campaign trails of America.While the 2008 election cycle has seen more discussion of space issues than we have seen in previousyears, it still ranks very far down the list of priorities when compared to nearly every other issue. Not surprisingly,candidates tend to avoid the subject of space exploration on the campaign trail, either through simpledisinterest or to avoid giving their opponents an opportunity to accuse them of fiscal extravagance. Sincespace exploration is not an important subject on the campaign trail, there is not much incentive to makeit a major issue in Congress. This disastrous political cycle is the main reason why we were not on Marstwo decades ago and why ships with human crews are not voyaging into the outer solar system today.The lack of a fully-empowered political action committee has been a major contributing factor in thelack of strong political leadership on space exploration. Politicians must be made to know that they willgain by supporting space exploration and will suffer if they dont. Until the space advocacy movement learns toplay political hardball, its efforts will continue to be largely ineffectual. After all, if there were no such thing as the NationalRifle Association, how many politicians would care about gun control?

Normal Means

C. NASA is properly funded now budget

2010 budget request is still strong for NASA

Amy Klamper [reporter], Lawmakers slash NASA budget request, MSNBC, 2009 Space.com, June8, 2009, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31171173/ (HEG)

Paul Shawcross, chief of the science and space branch in the White House Office of Management andBudget, said the administration's commitment to NASA was evident in the 2009 stimulus package which included $1 billion for NASA programs as well as in its 2010 budget request.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1405/living_on_a_budget.htmlhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1405/living_on_a_budget.htmlhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/National_Aeronautics_and_Space_Administration.pdfhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/29209/barack_obama.htmlhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1405/living_on_a_budget.htmlhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/8671/nasa.htmlhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/8671/nasa.htmlhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/29209/barack_obama.htmlhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1405/living_on_a_budget.htmlhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1405/living_on_a_budget.htmlhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1405/living_on_a_budget.htmlhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/8671/nasa.htmlhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/8671/nasa.htmlhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/8671/nasa.htmlhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1405/living_on_a_budget.htmlhttp://thespacereview.com/article/1102/1http://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1405/living_on_a_budget.htmlhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/National_Aeronautics_and_Space_Administration.pdfhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/29209/barack_obama.htmlhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1405/living_on_a_budget.htmlhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/8671/nasa.htmlhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/29209/barack_obama.htmlhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1405/living_on_a_budget.htmlhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/8671/nasa.htmlhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/theme/1405/living_on_a_budget.htmlhttp://thespacereview.com/article/1102/1


7/32


NASA funding is going up now but is not completely decided

Niki Doyle [reporter], NASA funding restored to $18.7 billion to support Ares, June 25, 2009,http://blog.al.com/space-news/2009/06/nasa_funding_restored_to_187_b.html (HEG)

A Senate subcommittee has restored hundreds of millions to NASA's proposed 2010 budget that werecut in the House version of a more than $65 billion spending bill, according to Alabama U.S. Sen.Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa. Earlier this month, the House approved a spending bill that movedhundreds of millions out of exploration and support programs in the NASA budget of $18.686 billion requested byPresident Barack Obama.

NASA is properly funded however, new funding risks getting it cut based on shifting priorities

ALLISON CONNOLLY, Sen. Warner tells NASA Langley that hell seek boost in budget, TheVirginian-Pilot, October 4, 2003, http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=60617&ran=212901(HEG)

HAMPTON U.S. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., traveled to NASA Langley Research Center Friday toassure employees that he will try to preserve funding for their programs, despite a bleak budget outlook.The meeting was closed to the public and the media was not allowed to attend or ask employees questions, per NASA Langley rules.However, Warner said afterward that he had announced plans to propose a 10 percent increase infunding for NASA programs, particularly the NASA Engineering and Safety Center that is slated to open at NASA Langley on Nov. 1. Thecenter will be responsible for safety and engineering assessments for the entire agency. Warner said employees voiced concern aboutpotential budget cuts. Theres always a bit of apprehension about job security when theres afluctuation in budgets and a shift in priorities, Warner said.

The 2009 budget gives NASA 18.7 billion

Space.com, Obama Budget Includes Funding Boost for NASA, February 26, 2009,http://www.space.com/news/090226-nasa-obama-2010-budget.html (HEG)

U.S. President Barack Obama has proposed a funding boost for NASA that provides more support for Earth sciences missions and aviation, while keeping

the agency's three space shuttles on target for a 2010 retirement.NASA would receive $18.7 billion for the 2010 fiscal yearunder the budget proposal released by the White House on Thursday. That would be an increase fromthe $17.2 billion NASA received in 2008 and represents an overall boost of more than $2.4 billion for the space agency when coupledwith the additional $1 billion it received in the recent economic stimulus bill.

Normal Means

D. NASAs cut first

Empirically, increased spending proposals are at the expense of NASA

ANDREW TAYLOR [Associated Press writer], The Dalles Chronicle, House approves spending fordomestic agencies, 2001-2007 Eagle Newspapers Inc., AP materials 2006-2007 Associated Press.February 1, 2007, http://www.thedalleschronicle.com/news/2007/02/news02-01-07-03.shtml (HEG)

WASHINGTON The House passed a $463.5 billion spending bill Wednesday that covers about one-sixth of the federal budget as Democrats cleared away the financial mess they inherited fromRepublicans. Before the 286-140 vote, Republicans made modest objections to Democrats spending
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=60617&ran=212901http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=60617&ran=212901http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=60617&ran=212901http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=60617&ran=212901http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=60617&ran=212901


8/32


decisions but protested greatly over how the new majority muscled the measure through theHouse. Democrats said the legislation would increase spending on education, veterans, healthresearch and grants to state and local law enforcement agencies. Among the trade-offs were cuts toPresident Bushs budget requests for NASA, foreign aid, and aid for communities affected by the latestround of military base closings.

NASA is typically cut to fund new programs

The Associated Press, "Budget cuts hurt NASA", Published, July 10, 2003, Re-Published in The TopekaCapital-Journal Online, http://cjonline.com/stories/071003/pag_nasa.shtml (HEG)

"When you start adding up the overall NASA budget picture and the shuttle budget picture over the pastdecade, it's rather clear the shuttle had disproportionately taken budget cuts to fund the space station, tofund Russian participation in the station," Logsdon said. "The shuttle program has served as sort of a

cash cow." Between 1993 and 2000, the space shuttle's operating budget was slashed by more than $1billion a year as a result of policy decisions by NASA, the White House and Congress to cancel twomajor shuttle upgrades and to shift money to help finance construction of the space station and to reducea government-wide budget deficit.

Even funding NASA for other reasons takes money out of space exploration


Oberman said increases in other parts of NASA's budget, including aeronautics and Earth science, came

at the expense of out-year funding for space exploration. Obermann said he sees NASA's currentfunding projections for 2010-2014 as a placeholder, and that he expects the Augustine panel's review toinfluence funding for the space agency's exploration programs in the out-year timeframe. Obermann said hewas encouraged by the choice of Augustine to lead the human spaceflight review, noting testimony Augustine gave beforethe House Science and Technology Committee in 2004, shortly after former President George W. Bush announcedplans toreplace the space shuttle and return astronauts to the Moon. At that time Augustine said manned space exploration offeredmany benefits, but that "it would be a grave mistake to try to pursue a space program on the cheap. To do so is in my opinionan invitation to disaster. There is a tendency in any can-do organization to believe that it can operate with almost any budgetthat is made available. The fact is that trying to do so is a mistake particularly when safety is a major consideration."

Normal Means

D. NASAs cut first

NASA funding is volatile and under extensive review in the status quo

Stewart M. Powell [reporter], NASA worried about programs future, Copyright 2009 HoustonChronicle, June 11, 2009, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6473816.html (HEG)

WASHINGTON For the first time since man set foot on the moon four decades ago, a president has
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31171173/page/2/#http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31171173/page/2/#http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31171173/page/2/#


9/32


ordered a wholesale review of the space programs future and whether the U.S. can afford to or evenwants to return to the moon or send humans hurtling toward Mars. With new leadership poised totake command of NASA, the next few months could be pivotal to the jobs of thousands of spaceprogram employees and contractors who depend on NASA for their livelihoods. As the shuttle preparesfor its future as a museum exhibit and cost projections for a new moon mission rise while the timetable

slips, the space agencys political future is very much in doubt. Despite President Barack Obamasrepeated expressions of excitement about space exploration, his administrations ongoing scrutiny of themanned program is stirring concern among NASA employees and aerospace contractors that jobs will belost, multibillion-dollar contracts will be jeopardized and the planned return to the moon will be delayedor even scrapped.

Space is on the chopping block; any new spending will kill it

Space politics.com, June 25 2009, Senate doesnt follow House lead on exploration cuts,http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/06/25/senate-doesnt-follow-house-lead-on-exploration-cuts/ (HEG)

The Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up

their FY2010 appropriations bill yesterday and appear to have more closely followed the White Housesrequest than the House did earlier this month. According to the summary, the bill provides $18.68billion for NASA overall, equal to the administrations topline request. The summary doesnt give thefull breakout of funds by account so its hard to tell how closely this matches the presidents request(especially if they created a Construction and environmental compliance account like the House did.)Also unclear is the fate of some smaller programs, like Centennial Challenges and related innovationefforts that are feared to be on the chopping block despite their small ($20 million) price tag. However,we do know thanks to the Orlando Sentinel that the bill includes three earmarks for Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) totaling $1.6 million, primarily for facilities at the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral AirForce Station. The full Senate Appropriations Committee is scheduled to take up the bill at 3 pm thisafternoon.

Normal Means

E. A stable budget is key

A stable budget is key to NASA in the long term


Concerns raisedNASA's current human spaceflight plan calls for retiring the space shuttle in 2010 and
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/06/25/senate-doesnt-follow-house-lead-on-exploration-cuts/http://appropriations.senate.gov/http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/06/25/senate-doesnt-follow-house-lead-on-exploration-cuts/http://appropriations.senate.gov/


10/32


replacing it with a crew capsule dubbed Orion that would be launched atop a shuttle-derived rocket, theAres-1, starting in 2015. At the president's request, Augustine's panel is taking a second look at this plan,along with NASA's strategy for returning astronauts to the Moon by 2020, given the likely availablebudgets over the next several years.

Funding is key to American space program overall

Tory Dunnan [reporter], Senator Shelby talks about NASA budget, WAFF48News, 2009 WAFF,July 8, 2009, http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=10496056&nav=0hBEZy2y

While it may be a celebration, many who work in the space industry fear the future. The NASA budgetis still in the works. "I will do everything I can to make sure Marshall is properly funded in the schemeof the whole NASA situation. But we have not marked up yet," said Senator Shelby. It's funding thatwill determine America's role in space, and a mission with roots right here in North Alabama.

Normal Means

AT: Only small cuts

Cutting NASA dooms it to irrelevancy even if it exists, it wont be effective.

Taylor Dinerman [Author and Journalist for Forbes.com Inc, Editor, President and Publisher ofSpaceEquity.com, a Part-time Consultant for the US Dept. of Defense, Writer, Columnist, and SpaceAnalyst for The Space Review], NASA and soft power, again, The Space Review, June 15, 2009,


11/32


http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1396/1 (HEG)

If, however, it is excessively restrictive or, alternatively, if its abandons its leadership role, then NASAwill gradually cease to be a significant national asset and become just another special interest pleadingfor a handout. The new leadership at the space agency has a set of tough decisions ahead of it. Whateverchoices they make, the role of NASA as a creative part of Americas worldwide influence is a powerful

argument for the agency.

Normal Means

AT: No tradeoff

A. If the plan DOESNT trade off, it tubes PayGo, destroying fiscal responsibility.

Jonathan DeWald, The Concord Coalition [a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated tobalanced federal budgets and generationally responsible fiscal policy. Former U.S. Senators WarrenRudman (R-NH) and Bob Kerrey (D-NE) serve as Concord's co-chairs and former Secretary of


12/32


Commerce Peter Peterson serves as president], Concord Coalition Supports Statutory Paygo ButCautions Against Large Exemptions, June 9, 2009, http://www.concordcoalition.org/press-releases/2009/0609/concord-coalition-supports-statutory-paygo-cautions-against-large-exemption (HEG)

"Finding a cure for the nation's dire fiscal outlook will obviously require a lot more than a new budgetrule, but enactment of statutory paygo would send a very positive signal that the federal government is

beginning to take the problem seriously. We have to begin forcing the kind of trade-offs that were notmade when large deficit financed tax cuts and entitlement expansions were enacted after the old paygolaw expired," said Robert Bixby, executive director of The Concord Coalition. The administration'sproposal builds off the paygo rules put in place during the 1990s. Similar in design, the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) would keep a running scorecard for the costs associated with enactedlegislation through 2013 and compare those costs to the established baseline. At the conclusion of eachsession of Congress, OMB would be required to subject any resulting difference between the baselineand enacted legislation to sequestration -- an automatic trigger, which would reduce non-exemptmandatory programs. "While statutory paygo would be a positive development, its effects should not beoverestimated. At best, paygo is intended to stop the fiscal bleeding and, in this case, the exemptedpolicies allow a lot of blood loss before the tourniquet is applied. The most immediate benefit of the new

law would be to reinforce the President's commitment to pay for health care reform. This is extremelyimportant and a minimum requirement for fiscal responsibility. However, given that health carespending is already on an unsustainable path, deficit-neutrality is not a sufficient long-term fiscal goal,"Bixby said.

B. Fiscal irresponsibility is likely to trigger economic collapse

Fred Bergsten [Director of the Peterson Institute of International Economics], The Risks Ahead for theWorld Economy, Published at the PIIE [a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research institution devotedto the study of international economic policy], Institute for International Economics, September 9,2004 , http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=222 (HEG)

Robert Rubin, former secretary of the Treasury, also stresses the psychological importance for financialmarkets of expectations concerning the American budget position. If that deficit is viewed as likely torise substantially, without any correction in sight, confidence in America's financial instruments andcurrency could crack. The dollar could fall sharply as it did in 1971-73, 1978-79, 1985-87, and 1994-95.Market interest rates would rise substantially, and the Federal Reserve would probably have to pushthem still higher to limit the acceleration of inflation. These risks could be intensified by the change inleadership that will presumably take place at the Federal Reserve Board in less than two years,inevitably creating new uncertainties after 25 years of superb stewardship by Mr. Volcker and AlanGreenspan. A very hard landing is not inevitable but neither is it unlikely.

Normal MeansAT: No tradeoff

C. Economic collapse will likely trigger nuclear conflict

Walter Russell Mead [Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations], New Perspective Quarterly,p. 30, Summer 1992 (HEG)


13/32


The failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depression-will open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions-billions-of people around the world have pinnedtheir hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced marketprinciples-and drawn closer to the West-because they believe that our system can work for them. Butwhat if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates, or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new

period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia. China. India-thesecountries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger toworld order than Germany and Japan did in the 1930's.

Backup: Economic collapse would escalate to full-scale nuclear conflict

T. E. Bearden [LTC, U.S. Army (Retired), CEO, CTEC Inc. Director, Association of DistinguishedAmerican Scientists (ADAS), Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study(AIAS)], The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly, June 12, 2000 (HEG)

International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions.Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number

of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessedby some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea{i} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodicsuicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China whose long range nuclear missiles can reach theUnited States attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved insuch scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategicnuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes arelaunched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception ofpreparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin thatis almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is tolaunch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and

massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with agreat percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great Armageddon will destroycivilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

Normal MeansAT: Obama wont follow PayGo

Pelosi will strictly follow PayGo no matter what Obama does

Sentinel & Enterprise [news service], September 13, 2009, Holding Obama Accountable,http://m.sentinelandenterprise.com/Sentinel/db_11582/contentdetail.htm;jsessionid=AA21202399FE38


14/32


B92C40D152E146DEDF?contentguid=PauhCZmP&pn=0&full=true (HEG)

PAYGO is a simple term. It means that Congress can't spend a new dollar without cutting a dollar out ofthe budget somewhere else. On Monday in the White House Obama tried to adopt the mantra as hisown, but actually House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had required the House to budget along PAYGO linesbefore Obama's presidential candidacy was being taken seriously.

Pressure for complete compliance with PayGo is high

Sheryl Gay Stolberg [reporter], The NY Times, June 9, 2009, Obama Aims to Revive Pay as you Go,http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/us/politics/10obama.html (HEG)

Mr. Obama has been under intense pressure from moderate and conservative House Democrats to showmore fiscal restraint, and an administration official said Tuesday that the lawmakers had been urginghim to throw his weight behind reviving the law. Mr. Obama said Tuesday that SpeakerNancy Pelosi,Democrat of California, supported the measure; Ms. Pelosi was at the lectern with him in the EastRoom.

Impact: Hegemony

A. The more budget-pressed NASA becomes, the more the entire program is jeopardized and the

more likely accidents become

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/nancy_pelosi/index.html?inline=nyt-perhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/nancy_pelosi/index.html?inline=nyt-per


15/32


Oberman said increases in other parts of NASA's budget, including aeronautics and Earth science, cameat the expense of out-year funding for space exploration. Obermann said he sees NASA's currentfunding projections for 2010-2014 as a placeholder, and that he expects the Augustine panel's review toinfluence funding for the space agency's exploration programs in the out-year timeframe. Obermann saidhe was encouraged by the choice of Augustine to lead the human spaceflight review, noting testimony

Augustine gave before the House Science and Technology Committee in 2004, shortly after formerPresident George W. Bush announcedplansto replace the space shuttle and return astronauts to theMoon. At that time Augustine said manned space exploration offered many benefits, but that "it wouldbe a grave mistake to try to pursue a space program on the cheap. To do so is in my opinion an invitationto disaster. There is a tendency in any can-do organization to believe that it can operate with almost anybudget that is made available. The fact is that trying to do so is a mistake particularly when safety is amajor consideration."

B. Another accident would destroy competitiveness and space exploration, shutting down NASA

and forcing us to turn to the Russians for space access

John Snider [Editor at Sci Fi Dimensions], John C. Snider 2003, NASA and the Future of MannedSpaceflight, September 2003, http://www.scifidimensions.com/Sep03/shuttle.htm (HEG)

In the aftermath of the recent Columbia tragedy, the shuttle fleet now stands at three, and despiteNASA's Herculean efforts to implement new and improved safety protocols, the chances of anothershuttle disaster are still significant. The loss of another shuttle, or of another astronaut, could spell theend of the shuttle program. At that point, NASA would either be forced to temporarily abandon mannedoperations, or to swallow their pride and "outsource" taxi services to the Russians, whose Soyuz system,despite its rude-and-crude reputation, has a comparatively good safety record. Although the financially-strapped post-Cold War government in Moscow could use the infusion of cash, relying on the Russiansis a political option that NASA cannot afford to consider.

Impact: Hegemony

C. Competitiveness is key to hegemony

Adam Segal [Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on ForeignRelations], Is America Losing Its Edge? Foreign Affairs, November/December 2004,http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31171173/page/2/#http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31171173/page/2/#http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html?mode=printhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31171173/page/2/#http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html?mode=print


16/32


mode=print(HEG)

The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies andindustries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technologicalentrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans whoinvented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other

countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken forgranted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies,increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T)personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations.The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, andTaiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world,developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea hasrapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And evenChina has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in

semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technicaldominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerablepressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways:

it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The UnitedStates will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominantonly by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position inthe world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.

D. Hegemony is key to maintaining democracy, free markets and rule of law, preventing

proliferation, regional threats by renegade states, global rivals, and a global cold or hot war

(including nuclear exchange)

Zalmay Khalilzad [RAND Corporation], Losing The Moment? Washington Quarterly, Vol 18, No 2,p. 84, 1995 (HEG)

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the riseof a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a worldin which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the globalenvironment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets,and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with theworld's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states,and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile globalrival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all theattendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be moreconducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

Hegemony ExtensionsA. Domestic Access

NASA is key to providing domestic access space (and to Floridas economy)

SpaceRef Interactive Inc. [a privately owned and operated company. SpaceRef's 21 news and referenceweb sites are designed to allow both the novice and specialist alike to explore outer space and Earth
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html?mode=printhttp://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html?mode=print


17/32


observation], Kosmas Fights Against Cuts to Human Space Exploration, June 20 2009,http://www.spaceref.ca/news/viewpr.html?pid=28501 (HEG)

(Washington, DC) - Today, Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24) defended NASA's humanspaceflight program and the thousands of Central Florida jobs it supports by voting against drastic cutsto exploration funding. Kosmas voted no on the FY 2010 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations

bill, which provides only $3.3 billion for exploration, $670 million less than the President's budgetrequest. According to preliminary estimates, the funding included in this bill for exploration could causeadditional delays of up to 2 years and increase costs by up to $8 billion due to inefficiencies and loss ofkey skills and core capabilities. "The funding levels in this bill for NASA's human spaceflight programare simply unacceptable," said Congresswoman Kosmas. "These cuts will cause years of delays and putat risk the highly skilled workforce that is critical to Central Florida's economy and that may not beeasily reassembled for future programs. These funding levels could also threaten our national securityinterests by forcing us to rely even more on Russia for access to space and the International SpaceStation, sending billions of our taxpayer dollars overseas. I will keep fighting to restore explorationfunding before this bill becomes law in order to preserve jobs, support our national security interests,and maintain a robust human spaceflight program." Kosmas and a bipartisan group of legislators,

including fellow Space Coast representative, Bill Posey (FL-15), took to the House floor this week tospeak out against the cuts and to urge for restoration of human spaceflight funding before the billbecomes law. Kosmas and Posey had previously sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee urgingthem to reverse the cuts and maintain a robust human spaceflight program.

NASA needs funding or human space travel is gone forever

Judith H Moore [reporter], "Media Mentions", Reporter [the newspaper of Imperial College London],Issue 132, October 8, 2003 (HEG)

The future of space travelProfessor Andre Balogh, physics, has warned the future of space travel

should not be taken for granted. "The only way that a positive future will be guaranteed is to increase theNASA budget to something like twice its present size," Professor Balogh told the British Associationfestival of science. "Going to the moon or going to Mars is really science fiction at the moment until wehave learned to master the safety and the safe operation and exploitation of lower-earth orbit," he added.Reuters (09/09/03)

Hegemony Extensions

A. Domestic Access

A strong space program is key to US hegemony and the economy

Aerospace America [A PUBLICATION OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS ANDASTRONAUTICS], June, 1998 (HEG)


18/32


Space Commercialization: Pushing Ahead in Congress The worldwide commercial space sector hasbeen growing by at least 20 percent annually for the past several years, making it one of the largestindustries in the world. The entire space industry recorded revenues of nearly $ 77 billion in 1996 andemployed an estimated 835,900 people. Clearly, U .S. leadership and increased growth in the boomingglobal market depends on a commitment to enhance the competitiveness of our industry. The federal

government should step up efforts to promote competition and remove obstacles to industry growth andleadership in launch vehicles and space applications such as satellite communications, navigation, andEarth observations as well as in space-related services, information, and other products. For forty years,a strong U.S. civil space program has been a key element in economic competitiveness, internationalprestige, national security, and humanitarian and disaster relief efforts. However, new elements havebeen introduced in national civil space policy, including tighter constraints on federal budgets and anincreasing demand for some form of economic return on federal investments. In short, a cooperativerelationship between the government and industry should be the cornerstone of any policy. Thegovernment invests in science and technology in support of the "public good." On the other hand,industry's main role is to develop and exploit the opportunities for opening new markets generated bythe growth of space activities. When presented with an opportunity to earn a reasonable return on

investment at a reasonable level of risk, industry will provide the capital, manpower, and business,technical, and marketing expertise needed to establish and maintain commercial operations.

Hegemony ExtensionsB. Leadership

Improved space technology is key to U.S. leadership

GlobalSecurity.org [focused on innovative approaches to the emerging security challenges of the newmillennium] A New Space Race Is on the Launch Pad, BY PETER PAE, Copyright 2002 / LosAngeles Times, Los Angeles Times, August 17, 2002,


19/32


http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020817-eelv1.htm (HEG)

A powerful new rocket that produces more than 12 times the energy of Hoover Dam's generators isslated to blast off from Cape Canaveral next week, launching a battle for the supremacy of space. In acompetition worth as much as $40 billion over the next 20 years, archrivals Boeing Co. and LockheedMartin Corp. have developed rockets intended to dominate the launch business for satellites and other

payloads. The new rocket designs are leading to the most significant overhaul of the U.S. launch systemsince the 1950s, when aerospace companies began designing ballistic missiles to deliver nuclearwarheads. The continued reliance on the old rocket technology has cost the U.S. leadership in thecommercial launch business in the last decade, as Western European nations, China and Russia havemoved aggressively into the market. In recent decades, the Pentagon and NASA have faltered in effortsto create advanced-technology space launchers that would dramatically reduce costs. Former NASAchief Dan Goldin lamented to Congress in 1996 that the space community "should hang its head inshame" over its failure to protect U.S. leadership in space. After many false starts, the U.S. finally hastwo new rocket models, both boasting more power than any rocket developed since the Saturn Vlaunched three men to the moon more than three decades ago. The rockets' launch costs would rangefrom $100 million to $150 million, significantly less than the current generation of vehicles. The Air

Force would use the new rockets to launch satellites for spying, weather forecasting, communications,navigation and other experimental purposes. Although the rockets are funded by the military for its ownmissions, commercial versions could help the U.S. recover business that has been lost to Arianespace, aEuropean aerospace company.

NASA is the lynchpin of U.S. soft power budget support is key.

Taylor Dinerman [Author and Journalist for Forbes.com Inc, Editor, President and Publisher ofSpaceEquity.com, a Part-time Consultant for the US Dept. of Defense, Writer, Columnist, and SpaceAnalyst for The Space Review], NASA and soft power, again, The Space Review, June 15, 2009,http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1396/1 (HEG)

As we embark on yet another NASA budgetary roller coaster ride, courtesy of our political masters inWashington, it may be time to step back and examine why NASA is such an important part ofAmericas image at home and abroad. It is not simply the memories of what the space agencyaccomplished 40 years ago, and the still-haunting black and white film of John F. Kennedy telling usthat We choose to go to the Moon. It is more than that. The human spaceflight program is a symbol ofthe idea that America represents a technologically advanced and optimistic future. Its easy to belittlethis as just PR fluff. What is often misunderstood is the source of soft power. It is more than just prestigethough that is a part of itbut it flows naturally from real achievements. It is built on a foundation ofhard power, the ability of a nation to set ambitious goals and then to realize them.

Hegemony ExtensionsB. Leadership

Soft power is key to hegemony

Sankar Sen [Former Director for the Indian National Police Academy], AMERICAN POWER: HowLong Will It Last? The Statesman, April 5, 2005 (HEG)


20/32


Indeed anti-American sentiment is sweeping the world after the Iraq war. It has, of course, beenaggravated by the aggressive style of the present American President. Under George Bush, anti-Americanism is widely thought to have reached new heights. In the coming years the USA will losemore of its ability to lead others if it decides to act unilaterally. If other states step aside and question theUSA's policies and objectives and seek to de-legitimise them, the problems of the USA will increase

manifold. American success will lie in melding power and cooperation and generating a belief in othercountries that their interests will be served by working with instead of opposing the United States. It isaptly said that use of power without cooperation becomes dictatorial and breeds resistance andresentment. But cooperation without power produces posturing and no concrete progress. There is alsoanother disquieting development. It seems American soft power is waning and it is losing its allure as amodel society. Much of the rest of the world is no longer looking up to the USA as a beacon. Risingreligiosity, rank hostility to the UN, Bush's doctrine of preventive war, Guantanamo Bay etc are creatingdisquiet in the minds of many and turning them off America. This diminution of America's soft powerwill also create disenchantment and may gradually affect American pre-eminence.

Space superiority is key to military hegemonyGeneral Lance W. Lord [Commander of Air Force Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base,Colorado], Published in High Frontier [The Journal for Space & Missile Professionals], Volume 1,Number 3, "Space Superiority", Page 5, United States Air Force Space Command, Winter 2005 (HEG)

Space power today is at a similar point as airpower was im- mediately following World War I. We haveemployed space in combat and there is no doubt as to its importance. Just as the fathers of airpowerdevoted great effort to developing doctrine and theory to take full advantage of the air medium, we mustcontinue to develop doctrine for space power. We have learned many lessons from recent operations, butthe work has just be- gun. We must develop the most effective means of providing command and controlfor our Space Control systems. The intel- ligence infrastructure to support the how and why piecesof Space Situation Awareness must be fully developed. We must continue to instill the Defensive

Counterspace mindset in every operator as well as develop and refine tactics, techniques and proceduresto more effectively employ our space capabilities. Space Superiority is the future of warfare. We cannotwin a war without controlling the high ground, and the high ground is space. In future wars, gaining andmaintaining space superiority will be equally as important as air superiority, so we must begin worknow to ensure we maintain the high ground. Our doctrine and strategy for achieving space superiorityare critical to realizing the full benefit of our systems and technology.

Impact: Global Warming

A. NASA funding key to weather research in the atmosphere

Statement of Bruce Carmichael [Ph.D. Director, Aviation Applications Program Research ApplicationsLaboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research] Before the U.S. House of RepresentativesSubcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Committee on Science and Technology, 29 March 2007,


21/32


Hearing on JDPO and the Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status and Issues, Pages 7-8,http://www.ucar.edu/oga/pdf/carmichael_testimony%203-07.pdf (HEG)

The FAA is requesting substantial funding to support wake turbulence research to help increase capacity while maintainingsafety. This will help us to safely reduce separation distances between aircraft, support the efficient use of closely spacedparallel runways, and allow airports to operate closer to their design capacity. NASA has a long track record of partnershipwith the FAA in this research area. Wake turbulence is viewed by the JPDO as a weather issue, and is part of the planningprocess for the weather team. In large part, this is because of the critical importance of the weather connection whenpredicting wake turbulence behavior. Wake turbulence is a research activity that is in need of significant JPDO attention to

rationalize the activities of the various agencies. Uncertainty of NASA's funding and lack of integration with the rest ofthe weather community in this area is creating difficulty in coordinated weather research planning. Researchin use of unmanned aircraft systems as platforms for targeted observations of the atmosphere offersconsiderable promise to improve forecasts in high value areas with sparse observations.NextGen needs toexplore the integration of unmanned aircraft observing systems into the National Airspace System. This research is anatural fit for NASA, but programs in this area have disappeared. In conclusion, aviation weather research isvital to the successful development and implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Mostof the technology needed to implement NextGen is already relatively mature. Weather remains an area with significant issuesthat need to be addressed if the nation is to successfully integrate aviation weather into the Next Generation AirTransportation System. All relevant agencies and laboratories must be brought to bear on these difficult problems if we are to

achieve success. Current changes to NASA's aeronautics program are having a significant negative impact on theeffectiveness of the aviation weather integration initiative.

B. That places the climate program in jeopardy means we cant deal with warming

Patriot News, June 15, 2007 [accessed via LexisNexis] (HEG)

Other questionable decisions include dramatically scaled-back efforts to measure global warming fromspace. Technology glitches and a near-doubling in the original $6.5 billion cost, The Associated Press reported, moved theDefense Department to reduce the number and delay the launch of satellites collecting weather and climate data.Consequently, the new satellites will be used primarily for weather forecasting and the U.S. will rely on European satellites

for climate-related information. NOAA and NASA scientists told the White House in December that "the recentloss of climate sensors ... places the overall climate program in serious jeopardy." The result is that therewill be a major loss of data that only can be collected by satellite about ice caps and sheets, surfacelevels of seas and lakes, sizes of glaciers, surface radiation, water vapor, snow cover and atmosphericcarbon dioxide, according to AP. This comes at a time when both the problem of global warming andefforts to deal with it are reaching critical mass. The administration and Congress need to find a way to fund thesevital scientific-information-gathering satellites, recognizing that avoiding unnecessary spending and eliminating deficitspending are major priorities in their own right. Indeed, the government has few expenses greater than paying the interest on

the national debt -- $406 billion last year. By comparison, NASA's entire budget amounts to $15 billion andspending on global warming in recent years has averaged about $5 billion annually. Obviously, thegovernment needs to set priorities. But if protecting people and property from hurricanes, and learning all we canabout what is potentially one of the greatest changes to affect the planet in recorded history, doesn't fall in the category of

highest priority, then we all are in trouble. And we all eventually are going to pay for this misplaced frugality.Impact: Global Warming

C. Global warming rips the fabric of our biosphere apart, destroying nature and our very race

John J. Berger[helped launch the environmental restoration movement in 1985 with his book Restoring the Earth: HowAmericans Are Working to Renew Our Damaged Environment. He also founded and directed the nonprofit Restoring the

Earth, Inc., which worked to advance the cause of environmental restoration via public education and environmental policy


22/32


development. Dr. Berger has authored and edited eight books on energy and environmental issues and is a long-time

supporter of alternative energy solutions to global environmental problems. Former scientific consultant to the National

Research Council: he helped to design, write, and edit the Council's highly acclaimed national study, The Restoration of

Aquatic Ecosystem: Science, Technology, and Public Policy (1990) that put aquatic ecosystem restoration more prominently

in the public eye and higher on the U.S. Department of the Interior's agenda. Member of the American Association of

Journalists and Authors. His magazine articles have appeared in: Audubon, Omni, The Boston Globe, The Village Voice,

The Los Angeles Times Magazine, The Christian Science Monitor, The San Francisco Examiner, The San Francisco

Chronicle, The Seattle Times, in anthologies, book club selections, foreign editions, and via news service syndication. He has

edited books for the University of California Press and for Straight Arrow Books and has been a scientific and technicaleditor at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the head of an editorial group at the Far West Laboratory for

Educational Research and Development. He has also been a newspaper and press service editor and edited Environmental

Restoration: Science and Strategies for Restoring the Earth (Island Press, 1990). Former visiting Associate Professorof Environmental Policy at the Graduate School of Public Affairs of the University of Maryland andAdjunct Professor of Environmental Science at the University of San Francisco. He has a Ph.D. inecology from the University of California, Davis, a M.S. in Energy and Natural Resources from theUniversity of California, Berkeley, and a B.A. in political science from Stanford University. Awards: He was chosento participate in a summer study program at the Roscoe B. Jackson Memorial Laboratory for Genetic Research; he was the

recipient of a Switzer Foundation Environmental Fellowship for graduate study, he received a year-long fellowship forgraduate study at the University of Tunis, Tunisia, and was awarded a summer writing fellowship at the Blue Mountain

Center in the Adirondacks], Beating the Heat Why and How We Must Combat Global Warming, Pages 10-11, Publisher:

Berkeley Hills Books; 1st edition (May 15, 2000),ISBN-10: 1893163059, ISBN-13: 978-1893163058

Although unable to make exact predictions, scientists believe that our atmospheres carbon dioxidelevelis likely to double over the next hundred years. With that doubling, the worlds average temperatureis likely to increase 2- 6 degrees F. Then again, without corrective action, carbon dioxide levels mighteven triple by the year 2100. That could raise the worlds temperature by 8 or 90F. While that may notsound like muchafter all, temperature can easily swing 300F in a dayan average world temperaturechange of 90F is all that separates todays benign climate from an Ice Age, when the place you now livemay have been buried under two miles of ice. Even if our production of airborne carbon is significantlyreduced between now and 2100, global warming will not halt on January 1, 2101. Once disrupted,climate processes remain disturbed for hundreds of years. The oceans, for example, take centuries torelease accumulated heat, and carbon we put in the air today remains there for up to 200 years,continuing to warm the planet. As the Earths temperature rises, its living systems will inevitably bedisrupted. If you are not sure why we should care if a few more species go extinct, remember that natureis an interconnected fabric. Poke enough holes in it, tear it, yank on it hard enough, and it will rip. Oncein ruins, it is very difficult and costly to mend, and the services it was unobtrusively providing aresuddenly in jeopardy or gone. These include services like purifying our air, cleaning our water,maintaining our soil, keeping pests in check, pollinating our crops, and providing us with thebiodiversity from which medicines come. Of course, nature also offers us knowledge and insights aboutourselves as an integral part of creation. If we destroy nature, we eventually destroy ourselves.

Impact: Soft Power

A. NASA is the lynchpin of U.S. soft power budget support is key.

Taylor Dinerman [Author and Journalist for Forbes.com Inc, Editor, President and Publisher ofSpaceEquity.com, a Part-time Consultant for the US Dept. of Defense, Writer, Columnist, and SpaceAnalyst for The Space Review], NASA and soft power, again, The Space Review, June 15, 2009,


23/32


http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1396/1 (HEG)

As we embark on yet another NASA budgetary roller coaster ride, courtesy of our political masters inWashington, it may be time to step back and examine why NASA is such an important part of Americasimage at home and abroad. It is not simply the memories of what the space agency accomplished 40years ago, and the still-haunting black and white film of John F. Kennedy telling us that We choose to go to the Moon. It

is more than that. The human spaceflight program is a symbol of the idea that America represents atechnologically advanced and optimistic future. Its easy to belittle this as just PR fluff. What is oftenmisunderstood is the source of soft power. It is more than just prestigethough that is a part of itbutit flows naturally from real achievements. It is built on a foundation of hard power, the ability of anation to set ambitious goals and then to realize them.

B. Soft Power is key to providing foreign talent, preventing anti-Americanism and terrorism,

maintaining international influence, reducing proliferation, disease, human and drug trafficking

JOSHUA KURLANTZICK [Current History contributing editor. Special correspondent for The NewRepublic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment], CURRENT HISTORY, The Decline ofAmerican Soft Power, Vol. 104, Issue 686, Pages 423-424, December 2005 (HEG)

A broad decline in soft power has many practical implications. These include the drain in foreign tal- entcoming to the United States, the potential back- lash against American companies, the growing attractivenessof China and Europe, and the possibility that anti-US sentiment will make it easier for terrorist groups torecruit. In addition, with a decline in soft power, Washington is simply less able to persuade others. Inthe run-up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration could not convince Turkey, a longtime US ally, to play a major stagingrole, in part because Americas image in Turkey was so poor. During the war itself, the United States has failed to obtainsignificant participation from all but a hand- ful of major nations, again in part because of Amer- icas negative image incountries ranging from India to Germany. In attempts to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons, Washingtonhas had to allow China to play a central role, partly because few Asian states view the United States as a neutral, legitimatebroker in the talks. Instead, Washington must increasingly resort to the other option Nye discussesforce, or the threat of

force. With foreign governments and publics sus- picious of American policy, the White House has beenunable to lead a multinational effort to halt Irans nuclear program, and instead has had to resort tothreatening sanctions at the United Nations or even the possibility of strikes against Iran. WithAmericas image declining in nations like Thailand and Pakistan, it is harder for leaders in thesecountries to openly embrace counterterrorism cooperation with the United States, so Washington resorts toquiet arm-twisting and blandishments to obtain counterterror concessions. Force is not a long-term solution. Newer,non- traditional security threats such as disease, human trafficking, and drug trafficking can only beman- aged through forms of multilateral cooperation that depend on Americas ability to persuade othernations. Terrorism itself cannot be defeated by force alone, a fact that even the White House recognizes. The 2002 NationalSecurity Strategy emphasizes that winning the war on terror requires the United States to lead a battle of ideas against theideologi- cal roots of terrorism, in addition to rooting out and destroying individual militant cells.

Impact: Economy

A. NASA funding is key to the economy

K.C. Jones, Proposed NASA Cuts Draw Fire, InformationWeek, June 8, 2009,http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/federal/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=217800116(HEG)

Democratic Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas and Republican Congressman Bill Posey sent a letter to


24/32


25/32


Space Commercialization: Pushing Ahead in Congress The worldwide commercial space sector hasbeen growing by at least 20 percent annually for the past several years, making it one of the largestindustries in the world. The entire space industry recorded revenues of nearly $ 77 billion in 1996 andemployed an estimated 835,900 people. Clearly, U .S. leadership and increased growth in the boomingglobal market depends on a commitment to enhance the competitiveness of our industry. The federal

government should step up efforts to promote competition and remove obstacles to industry growth andleadership in launch vehicles and space applications such as satellite communications, navigation, andEarth observations as well as in space-related services, information, and other products. For forty years,a strong U.S. civil space program has been a key element in economic competitiveness, internationalprestige, national security, and humanitarian and disaster relief efforts. However, new elements havebeen introduced in national civil space policy, including tighter constraints on federal budgets and anincreasing demand for some form of economic return on federal investments. In short, a cooperativerelationship between the government and industry should be the cornerstone of any policy. Thegovernment invests in science and technology in support of the "public good." On the other hand,industry's main role is to develop and exploit the opportunities for opening new markets generated bythe growth of space activities. When presented with an opportunity to earn a reasonable return on

investment at a reasonable level of risk, industry will provide the capital, manpower, and business,technical, and marketing expertise needed to establish and maintain commercial operations.

Economy ExtensionsB. Impact

Economic collapse would escalate to full-scale nuclear conflict

T. E. Bearden [LTC, U.S. Army (Retired), CEO, CTEC Inc. Director, Association of DistinguishedAmerican Scientists (ADAS), Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study(AIAS)], The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly, June 12, 2000 (HEG)


26/32


International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions.Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and numberof their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessedby some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea{i} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic

suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China whose long range nuclear missiles can reach theUnited States attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved insuch scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategicnuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes arelaunched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception ofpreparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin thatis almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is tolaunch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly andmassively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with agreat percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great Armageddon will destroycivilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

Impact: No Mo Space Colonization

A. NASA is key to accessing international cooperation on space colonization and the space market

Canwest Global Communications Corp. [Canada's largest media company], "Tourism, mining out ofthis world", (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc., June 1, 2007,http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=a903ff6c-e58c-400b-b492-72a29c9bbc40 (HEG)

The Global Exploration Strategy, released Thursday by the Canadian Space Agency and 13 other


27/32


28/32


Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health. He received a BA from the University of Chicago,an MPH from Johns Hopkins University, and an MBA from Duke University. He has published onhealth economics, risk analysis, biotechnology, and bioethics], "Reducing the Risk of HumanExtinction", Risk Analysis, Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages 1335 - 1344, Published Online: 7 Dec 2007 ,2009 Society for Risk Analysis [An international journal; an official publication of the Society for Risk

Analysis], DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00960.x (HEG)2. HUMANITY'S LIFE EXPECTANCY We have some influence over how long we can delay humanextinction. Cosmology dictates the upper limit but leaves a large field of play. At its lower limit,humanity could be extinguished as soon as this century by succumbing to near-term extinction risks:nuclear detonations, asteroid or comet impacts, or volcanic eruptions could generate enough atmosphericdebris to terminate food production; a nearby supernova or gamma ray burst could sterilize Earth withdeadly radiation; greenhouse gas emissions could trigger a positive feedback loop, causing a radicalchange in climate; a genetically engineered microbe could be unleashed, causing a global plague; or ahigh-energy physics experiment could go awry, creating a "true vacuum" or strangelets that destroy theplanet (Bostrom, 2002 ; Bostrom & Cirkovic, 2007 ; Leslie, 1996 ; Posner, 2004 ; Rees, 2003 ). Fartherout in time are risks from technologies that remain theoretical but might be developed in the next

century or centuries. For instance, self-replicating nanotechnologies could destroy the ecosystem; andcognitive enhancements or recursively self-improving computers could exceed normal human ingenuityto create uniquely powerful weapons (Bostrom, 2002 ; Bostrom & Cirkovic, 2007 ; Ikle, 2006 ; Joy,2000 ; Leslie, 1996 ; Posner, 2004 ; Rees, 2003 ). Farthest out in time are astronomical risks. In onebillion years, the sun will begin its red giant stage, increasing terrestrial temperatures above 1,000degrees, boiling off our atmosphere, and eventually forming a planetary nebula, making Earthinhospitable to life (Sackmann, Boothroyd, & Kraemer, 1993 ; Ward & Brownlee, 2002 ). If wecolonize other solar systems, we could survive longer than our sun, perhaps another 100 trillion years,when all stars begin burning out (Adams & Laughlin, 1997 ). We might survive even longer if weexploit nonstellar energy sources. But it is hard to imagine how humanity will survive beyond the decayof nuclear matter expected in 1032 to 1041 years (Adams & Laughlin, 1997 ).3 Physics seems to support

Kafka's remark that "[t]here is infinite hope, but not for us." While it may be physically possible forhumanity or its descendents to flourish for 1041 years, it seems unlikely that humanity will live so long.Homo sapiens have existed for 200,000 years. Our closest relative, homo erectus, existed for around 1.8million years (Anton, 2003 ). The median duration of mammalian species is around 2.2 million years(Avise et al., 1998 ).

Space Colonization Extensions

Space colonization solves extinction

Gregg Maryniak [former Vice President of the Space Studies Institute, Chief Operating Officer for theXPRIZE Foundation, Juris Doctor from Northwestern, winner of the Tsiolkovsky Medal] ChristianScience Monitor, How Space Colonies Could Benefit From Earth, 1992 (HEG)

Space colonization means much more than Antarctic-style research habitats on the moon or other planetsfor an elite group of astronauts. Space can be colonized and provide Earth with the equivalent of the
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118486538/issuehttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118486538/issue


29/32


New World that Columbus "discovered" in the 15th century. Space colonies can supply clean energynecessary for human survival in the 21st century. In addition, they can provide new homelands and anexpanded ecological niche for our species. For many people, the term "space colony" brings to mindvisions of domed cities on the moon or the surface of a hostile planet. Since September 1974, however,the words have had a very different meaning. That month's issue of Physics Today contained an article

by Princeton University professor and nuclear physicist Gerard K. O'Neill entitled, "The Colonization ofSpace." Dr. O'Neill proposed construction of large-scale habitats built in free space rather than on thesurface of planets. (See interview, Page 17.) Building the structures in space would allow the inhabitantsto select whatever gravity level they desired by controlling the rate of rotation of the habita

nasa funding tradeoff (politics) (.doc version)

Documents