Bad science fiction and people who pretend to be making witty observations about an “overly corporate world” love to wax intellectual about how the last frontier will one day be branded by Starbucks and the like. Of course, these people, who feel “trapped” by corporations, turn a blind eye to a bloated government; a government that has a knack for pumping billions of dollars into failing projects.
This discussion is supposed to be particularly about NASA. NASA, as it were, only makes up about half of a percentage point of the government’s budget. So, is the budget for NASA acceptable or is it too low?
Considering the government spends nearly a quarter of its yearly budget on defense, that one-half of a percentage point seems small in comparison. It may seem absurd to argue about the NASA budget at all, in fact.
The budget numbers can be twisted to sound like nothing. It comes out to about 15 cents per person, per day. This number seems awfully small for all the employees and crazy technology that NASA works with.
Not to mention that astronauts are regarded as heroic figures in America. Ask any kid what they want to be when they grow up, and astronaut is probably high on their list. Space travel fascinates people because even just watching a rocket launch on television is mesmerizing.
Certainly, there are people who argue that NASA could and would do more with increased funding, and perhaps NASA could do better work with more money. I, however, would rather the government not concern themselves with space exploration at all.
Why should it be the responsibility of the government to explore space? Many seem to think that it is too important to be left up to the private world to make advancements in space travel. Some think corporations will brand parts of the solar system.
Private corporations are already working on space shuttle missions, so why should space exploration be treated differently than any other industry?
Some argue it is because NASA does research to better the planet. However, private organizations are just as capable of doing important research and profiting from it.
Honestly, neither I nor many reading this knows the day-to-day workings of NASA well enough to know whether they have enough funding to pull off the projects they attempt. My guess is they would say no, while many budget conscious politicians would say yes. Ultimately, this argument is much like the one that takes place about earmarks. Politicians love to argue about it, but it makes up a very small fraction of the budget. Meanwhile, things like defense, Medicare and Social Security make NASA look frugal.
Again, this discussion is supposed to be about how much funding NASA should receive. Since NASA is not essential to the well being of the people of the United States, I do not think people should be taxed in order to fund it. I’m not much for government in any capacity, but at the very least that money could be used for more altruistic purposes.
At the very least, I hope it soon stops being fashionable to talk about how even space is not safe from corporate greed. It is as annoying as it is unoriginal.
Derrick Godfrey is a junior majoring in economics. He can be contacted at [email protected].