CacheGOP Blog

Americans want the national government to spend less money.  Americans want money for Constitutional responsibilities and core functions spent wisely.  The proposed Obama budget does neither.

My family budget must prioritize between needs and wants.  The Obama budget is $3.8 trillion and still doesn’t meet our needs while overfunding wants.  One wonders where all the money is going.

The Administration’s budget proposal includes cancellation of the NASA Constellation program and specifically the Ares rocket, the planned replacement for the Shuttle.  This proposed cut was originally misrepresented by the President as a cost-saving measure.  The truth of the matter is that NASA will actually receive an overall budget increase, with the funds for the Constellation program and Ares rocket merely shifted to other areas.  Indeed, the truth is that no taxpayer dollars have been saved by cancelling this program.

Time magazine named the Ares rocket as the number one invention of the past year.  This replacement for the old Space Shuttle system has been successfully tested and will move the U.S. into the future.  The Administration now contemplates replacing Constellation and Ares with an incomplete scheme considered by experts as naïve, reckless and definitely unproven.

Left in the wreckage of this decision will be the destruction of at least 20,000 private sector jobs.  The Administration - which claims to focus on job creation and urges kids to take more science, math and engineering classes - now gives a pink slip to engineering jobs that require math and science skills.  Some recruitment scheme for more science students!  Some jobs creation program!

It is more than just jobs, though.  It is about the special kinds of jobs and their relationship to our national defense.  The kinds of skills needed to build NASA rockets are the same skills needed to build missiles used in the defense of our nation, and they rely on the same rocket motor technology.  Last year, this Administration cut our missile defense program and jobs were lost.  Subsequently, if the Administration is successful in its efforts to cut the Constellation program this year, the rest of those jobs will be lost.  Missiles don’t build themselves.  An industrial base is needed and, once lost, is difficult and costly to regain.  As the Defense Secretary for Acquisition wrote last September, “The best defense industrial and technology base in the world is not a birthright…(these) skills are not easily replicated in the commercial world and, if allowed to erode, would be difficult to rebuild.”

If we suddenly realize the North Koreans or Iranians are a greater threat to our security than we now guess, and we need more missiles, they can’t be built if the unique and specialized expertise has been fired and essentially lost.  An industrial base is not a spigot that can be turned on and off at will.  In June of last year the Pentagon sent Congress an assessment of this industrial base.  They claimed that a delay in the Ares rocket program would have a “significant negative impact” on our nation’s missile defense capability.  Can we assume that cancelling the Ares rocket program would have a VERY significant negative impact?  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that one.

Without Ares there will be no future American space vehicle.  Common sense tells us we should not turn the space above us over to the Russians and Chinese.  American Astronauts will basically be forced to stand on the edge of space trying to hail a Russian taxi to the space station or back.  It puts us in a second-class status.  Additionally, the Pentagon tells us that cancelling Constellation and the Ares rockets also puts us in jeopardy with our missile defense program.  It makes us more vulnerable to rogue nations. 

In the end, it is partly about special jobs.  Eliminating 20,000 private sector jobs in this economy sure isn’t the way one lowers unemployment rates.  It is also about space exploration.  Most importantly, though, it is absolutely about our Constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense.  In each area, the Obama plan fails Americans.  This should not be America’s future.  Already a bi-partisan Congressional effort is challenging this Administration proposal that harms America’s role in space, hurts our economy, and damages our missile defense and national security.  We must and can do better.

The Party of No?
I recently attended the President’s State of the Union Address.  I admit I was put off when he claimed to “not point fingers” and not “re-litigate the past” while he blamed Bush for every difficulty America faces.  He also claimed to “change the tone” of debate in Washington just before he pitted the Senate against the House, discourteously railed on the Supreme Court and labeled the GOP as the Party of No, with no ideas.
I was also in attendance at the GOP meeting when Obama spoke to us.  I found it interesting that when individual Republican members stood and told the President of alternative bills the GOP had introduced, the President consistently admitted he had read the bill and rejected the idea.  At one point he took the compilation of GOP alternatives presented to him, turned quickly to a page and read a specific quote.  He was obviously familiar with the document.  What I saw was, contrary to allegations, the President indeed knew of our alternative ideas and rejected them out of hand.  Apparently there is a Party of No in Washington, but it is not the one to which I belong.
The President contended in his State of the Union Address, and elsewhere, that his health care agenda was in trouble only because he had not explained it well enough.  He said the issue was “complex” and obviously the people didn’t understand it.  I disagree.  Obama’s plan is unpopular because people DO understand it.  His 29 major speeches last year on the issue were clear, and his proposal is still wrong.  He’s proven he can be a good speaker; he needs to start showing he can be a better listener.
Missile Defense and NASA
The proposed Obama budget was recently presented.  It is a staggering $3.8 trillion.  It carries a deficit of $1.6 trillion.  It raises $2 trillion in new taxes over ten years.  It spends too much and taxes too much.  In every family budget one distinguishes between needs and wants.  Unfortunately, this budget does not distinguish between needs and wants.
One issue of the budget is of particular concern to Northern Utah.  Obama proposes to end NASA’s Constellation program (and the Ares rocket) and replace it with an unclear, “commercial” rocket scheme.  This decision will cost 20,000 private sector jobs.   Coupled with the Administration’s cut in our missile defense system last year, I estimate around 2,000 private sector jobs will be eliminated in Utah.  It will have a profound impact on Utah’s economy.  Were the loss of these jobs the only issue, that would have been enough to energize me to fight the Obama proposal.  It is, however, much more than just about jobs.  These are special jobs that if lost will not only hamper our efforts in space (I don’t want the Russians and Chinese controlling the space above us.  We spent too much time winning the Cold War to concede control of space), but at the same time will destroy our ability to defend America against missile attack.  The industrial base that produces rocket motors to send astronauts to the Space Station, Moon and beyond is the same industrial base that produces rocket motors for missiles to defend this country against rogue nations like North Korea and Iran.  Let me put it in perspective.  To fully fund this Constellation program would require an additional $3 billion annually.  Last year’s Stimulus Bill spent over $800 billion and included almost $5 billion for ACORN.  This year’s proposed budget asks for $450 million from the Defense Budget alone to move prisoners and trials of terrorists from Guantanamo and pay for expanded security in the lucky American city to get the trial venue.  Already New York City has rejected the honor.  Other federal budget areas will also come up with around $500 million for the trials as well as move terrorists from Guantanamo to American jails.  I am sorry, but these are not examples of my priorities. 
The sad part is the cancellation of the NASA rocket program doesn’t save money.  The budget proposal authorized a new $1.5 billion to close the program, and the rest of the money is shuffled around in the budget.
Last summer, a Pentagon report cautioned that delay in the Constellation program would have “significant negative impact” on our defense posture.   It doesn’t take a rocket science to figure out what impact cancellation of the program would have.  Contrary to some naive comments, this is not about jobs; it is about our national security and missile defense capability. 
I have attached an op-ed I wrote about this whole issue which could appear as early as tomorrow in the Ogden Standard Examiner.
History Repeats Itself
Perhaps it is because I taught history, but I see us re-making the same mistakes.  The House and Senate leaders just raised the debt limit to a staggering $1.9 trillion, and justified it by re-establishing Pay-Go requirements.  It sounds great to say we will “pay as we go,” but it is a trick.  Remember when the first President Bush said “read my lips, no new taxes” and then raised taxes?  There had to be some way to justify such an action.  It was Pay-go!  Government can balance a budget by cutting spending or raising taxes.  Guess which one Reid and Pelosi would choose?  Pay-go is only a justification for raising taxes.
During the early days of the Great Depression, investors had money to put into the economy but they sat on it.  Business investment was down because both Hoover and Roosevelt raised taxes and threatened business with fees, fines and legal action.  The current Administration appears to be charting the same strategy and probably with the same result.  The government can not create jobs, although this Administration keeps trying.  Only the private sector creates real and lasting jobs, and the private sector will not expand if there is an anti-business agenda or threat of higher business taxes from the White House and Congressional leadership.  Class conflict does not make the business community feel secure.  Raising taxes on those making over $250,000 sounds great if one is a salaried employee, but this threshold applies to business as well.  Almost all small businesses fall in this category to be taxed.  Where is their incentive to grow, expand and hire?  The anti-business attitude and blame-everything-on-the wealthy approach didn’t work in the 1930’s.  I am afraid we are repeating history.
Thanks for reading this.  I sometimes wish I was not so negative, but I do work in Washington.  We will keep up the fight, though. Thanks for what you do in that regard.