Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
The plan is supplementary spending, or spending added in the middle of a fiscal year
The OMB Watcher Online [a nonprofit research and advocacy organization], Vol. 1 No. 3, "Biennial
Budgeting", February 29, 2000 (HEG)
For instance,economic changes could require an adjustment of fiscal policy; normal oversight findings on
various government programs could indicate the need for more or less resources; or epidemics, social
issues, or international crises could arise that weren't contemplated when the budget was prepared. The
budget would then have to be adjusted mid-stream, leading to more, rather than less, careful
deliberation, and more, rather than less, emergency and supplemental appropriations, making for a
messier budget decided in an ad hoc fashion.
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 to
fiscal discipline. At a hearing before the full House Budget Committee, OMB Director Peter Orszag emphasized the need
to 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 Act
of 1990, require that increases in direct spending and decreases in revenue be offset by other spending
cuts or revenue increases. Starting in the late 1990s, when the federal budget was in surplus, Congress began loosening
PAYGO 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 order
to reign in new entitlement spending and new tax cuts.
The absence of political interest 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)
Not surprisingly, candidates tend to avoid the subject of space exploration on the campaign trail, either
through simple disinterest or to avoid giving their opponents an opportunity to accuse them of fiscal
extravagance. Since space exploration is not an important subject on the campaign trail, there is not
much incentive to make it a major issue in Congress. This disastrous political cycle is the main reason
why we were not on Mars two 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 the lack of strong political leadership on space exploration. Politicians must be
made to know that they will gain by supporting space exploration and will suffer if they don’t. Until the
space advocacy movement learns to play political hardball, its efforts will continue to be largely ineffectual. After all, if there
were no such thing as the National Rifle Association, how many politicians would care about gun control?
NASA funding is volatile and under extensive review in the status quo
Stewart M. Powell [reporter], “NASA worried about program’s future”, Copyright 2009 Houston
Chronicle, 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 ordered a wholesale
review of the space program’s future and whether the U.S. can afford to — or even wants to — return to the moon or send
humans hurtling toward Mars. With new leadership poised to take command of NASA, the next few months could be pivotal
to the jobs of thousands of space program employees and contractors who depend on NASA for their livelihoods. As the
shuttle prepares for its future as a museum exhibit and cost projections for a new moon mission rise while the timetable slips,
the space agency’s political future is very much in doubt. Despite President Barack Obama’s repeated expressions of
excitement about space exploration, his administration’s ongoing scrutiny of the manned program is stirring concern among
NASA employees and aerospace contractors that jobs will be lost, multibillion-dollar contracts will be jeopardized and the
planned return to the moon will be delayed or even scrapped.
Even funding NASA for other reasons takes money out of space exploration
Amy Klamper [reporter], “Lawmakers slash NASA budget request”, MSNBC, © 2009 Space.com, June
8, 2009, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31171173/ (HEG)
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 current
funding projections for 2010-2014 as a placeholder, and that he expects the Augustine panel's review to
influence funding for the space agency's exploration programs in the out-year timeframe.
AT: No tradeoff
A. If the plan DOESN’T trade off, it tubes PayGo, destroying fiscal responsibility.
Jonathan DeWald, The Concord Coalition [a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to
balanced federal budgets and generationally responsible fiscal policy. Former U.S. Senators Warren
Rudman (R-NH) and Bob Kerrey (D-NE) serve as Concord's co-chairs and former Secretary of
Commerce Peter Peterson serves as president], “Concord Coalition Supports Statutory Paygo But
Cautions 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 budget
rule, 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 not
made when large deficit financed tax cuts and entitlement expansions were enacted after the old paygo
law expired," said Robert Bixby, executive director of The Concord Coalition. The administration's
proposal builds off the paygo rules put in place during the 1990s. Similar in design, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) would keep a running scorecard for the costs associated with enacted
legislation through 2013 and compare those costs to the established baseline. At the conclusion of each
session of Congress, OMB would be required to subject any resulting difference between the baseline
and enacted legislation to sequestration -- an automatic trigger, which would reduce non-exempt
mandatory programs. "While statutory paygo would be a positive development, its effects should not be
overestimated. At best, paygo is intended to stop the fiscal bleeding and, in this case, the exempted
policies 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 extremely
important and a minimum requirement for fiscal responsibility. However, given that health care
spending is already on an unsustainable path, deficit-neutrality is not a sufficient long-term fiscal goal,"
Bixby said.
Impact: Safety
The more budget-pressed NASA becomes, the more likely accidents become
Amy Klamper [reporter], “Lawmakers slash NASA budget request”, MSNBC, © 2009 Space.com, June
8, 2009, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31171173/ (HEG)
At that time Augustine said manned space exploration offered many 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 opinion an invitation to
disaster. There is a tendency in any can-do organization to believe that it can operate with almost any
budget that is made available. The fact is that trying to do so is a mistake — particularly when safety is a
major consideration."
Impact: Hegemony
(same link as last)
A. 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 Manned
Spaceflight”, 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 despite
NASA's Herculean efforts to implement new and improved safety protocols, the chances of another
shuttle disaster are still significant. The loss of another shuttle, or of another astronaut, could spell the
end of the shuttle program. At that point, NASA would either be forced to temporarily abandon manned
operations, 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 Russians
is a political option that NASA cannot afford to consider.
C. 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 rise
of 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 world
in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global
environment 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 the
world'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 global
rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the
attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more
conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
Space superiority is key
General 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 Superiority is the future of warfare. We cannot win a war without controlling the high ground,
and the high ground is space. In future wars, gaining and maintaining space superior- ity will be equally
as important as air superiority, so we must begin work now to ensure we maintain the high ground. Our
doctrine and strategy for achieving space superiority are critical to realizing the full benefit of our
systems and technology.
B. That places the climate program in jeopardy – means we can’t deal with warming
Patriot News, June 15, 2007 [accessed via LexisNexis] (HEG)
Other questionable decisions include dramatically scaled-back efforts to measure global warming from
space. Technology glitches and a near-doubling in the original $6.5 billion cost, The Associated Press reported, moved the
Defense 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 recent
loss of climate sensors ... places the overall climate program in serious jeopardy." The result is that there
will be a major loss of data that only can be collected by satellite about ice caps and sheets, surface
levels of seas and lakes, sizes of glaciers, surface radiation, water vapor, snow cover and atmospheric
carbon dioxide, according to AP. This comes at a time when both the problem of global warming and
efforts to deal with it are reaching critical mass.
Impact: Economy
A. NASA funding aids 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
their colleagues Monday urging restoration of the funds. Both representatives are from Florida, where
NASA's Kennedy Space Center has a major impact on jobs and the economy. "Tens of thousands of jobs
are at stake in our state and across the nation," they wrote. "In 2008, the U.S. space industry contributed
approximately $100 billion to the U.S. economy and directly employed more than 262,000 people in 41
states at skill levels and pay scales far above national averages according to the Department of Labor."
They said that, in Florida, every NASA job translates into 2.82 more jobs, which, in fiscal year 2008
gave Florida $4.1 billion in output, $2.1 billion of household income, and 40,802 jobs. "With the
second-highest job loss numbers in the nation in 2008, maintaining current jobs in Florida and ensuring
future work at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) represents a road to economic recovery for Florida and our
nation," they said.