APPARENTLY THE NEO-CONNED DO BELIEVE IN SOCIALISM AND CORPORATE WELFARE - JUST NOT ON EARTH.

 April 14, 2010, 3:42PM

Where are the Tea-Bagged when you need them?


Apparently, the Neo-Conned actually do believe in Socialism and corporate welfare - just not on Earth.

This morning I read the Fox News article  entitled  "Armstrong and Obama Spar Over NASA'S Future"

It was about Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell, and Gene Cernan's open letter regarding what is actually a BUDGET INCREASE for NASA, so I half-expected to see Fox's standard Tea-bag screed about more of the on-going government takeover of everything free and wholesome.  I expected Drudge to wail about Obama wanting to control space too.

I expected to see Sarah Palin post a facebook message like this;

To all those Hopey-Changey folks out there whining about the possible cancellation of NASA's Constellation program, the five-year-old effort to replace the aging space shuttle fleet with new rockets I say SHUT UP YOU GOSH DARN COMMIES.

If you want a 'Nationalized' space program GO TO CHINA! 
The Patriots of the USA believe in Capitalism and Free Market economics.  As many people have said recently, the private sector can and already DOES achieve greater results at far cheaper prices than the colossally inefficient 'National' Aeronautics and Space Agency.  National means government-run and that's just not the American way.
Everyone who agrees that the private - for profit - medical industry  is better than any government controlled version, must surely also agree that the private - for profit - space industry is also better than a public one and more in line with the founding principles of this great nation. Right?
Why do taxpayer dollars have to go to help private corporations launch their satellites into orbit?   Do those corporations share their profits with the taxpayers?  NO WAY!

Boy, I couldn't have been more wrong.  But I was left wondering why Sarah's Real Americans aren't outraged that Obama wants to increase spending - AGAIN? 
I mean, the great tea-bagged masses are fuming about everything from health care reform to school lunches. How is this issue any different from any other?
There are those so speak of the discoveries that were reaped in space, and to be sure there are many, like satellite communications, cellular technology, GPS,  weather tracking and forecasting and on and on.  But before we get all Red, White and Blue in the face, let's also remember that we, the taxpayers funded much of the efforts that have yielded untold riches for private enterprise. 
Many of us have GPS in our cars today, thanks to NASA and the US military, but products like Tom Tom and On-Star are making millions of dollars for the corporations that manufacture them.  Sure, I can locate the nearest Starbucks from just about anywhere on Earth with my phone, but I pay hundreds of dollars a year to AT&T for that privilege.  How much of that ever goes back to the taxpayers that pay for NASA to give discount rides into orbit for AT&T's satellites?   Google Maps is great, but without NASA putting those satellites up there, there would be no Google Maps, would there?
I'd like to address the open letter published by Neil Armstrong that the right-wing media are getting their Depends in a bunch over.  Firstly, the suggestion that Armstrong is 'Blasting' the President is a tad overstated to say the least.  But, it gets eyes on the page, and that is the real point, not what Armstrong actually says.
Here is what Armstrong did say;

"When President Obama recently released his budget for NASA, he proposed a slight increase in total funding, substantial research and technology development, an extension of the International Space Station operation until 2020, long range planning for a new but undefined heavy lift rocket and significant funding for the development of commercial access to low earth orbit."

So, to recap, Armstrong is saying that there will be an INCREASE in total funding, albeit, in his opinion a 'slight' increase.   He also states that the new budget contains 'substantial' funding for developing new technologies and the privatization of the space industry while shift MORE dollars to exploration. 
Armstrong is noting that NASA'S budget is INCREASING.  It is, in fact, increasing by NEARLY THE SAME AMOUNT that is was increased during the last years of the Bush Administration.  Moreover, between 2005 and 2006 NASA'S budget was actually reduced by nearly 500 MILLION dollars.   Can you imagine the hysteria if Obama wanted to REDUCE NASA'S budget?  Can anyone recall the right wing media even mentioning the budget cuts in 2005?
Oh, yeah.  That was back when speaking out against a President was treason.
Armstrong also said this;

"Although some of these proposals have merit, the accompanying decision to cancel the Constellation program, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating."

Devastating.  --  That one word is the basis for the Flying Monkeys to say that Armstrong was BLASTING the President.
But on further investigation, is this really a devastating thing to do?  What Armstrong fails to mention here is that a) the Orion spacecraft has NOT been scrapped, and more importantly b) the Constellation project is massively over budget and plagued with technical problems.  There were HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars in budget overruns 2008 and 2009 and those numbers are expected to be much larger, according to space industry trade publication Universe Today.

"The 117-page  (NASA) report shows an $80 million cost overrun this year for just one motor and a dozen different technical problems that the space agency put in the top risk zone, meaning the problems are considered severe. The report put the program's financial performance in that category, as well."

Severe?? How devastating would it be if one of those technical problems caused the loss of the lives of astronauts?
Why doesn't the Neo-Con media highlight this?  Why wouldn't the Flying Monkeys express concern that a dozen technical issues were considered by NASA to be 'top-risk' problems?    Why wouldn't they comment on that?
I'm not trying to discount what Armstrong, Lovell and Cernan said - and they have some valid points, but I am (once again) questioning the highly partisan right wing media machine that grabs hold of anything and everything they can to bash the President.  If the hero, Armstrong BLASTS Obama, then Obama MUST be evil - and that is the REAL point of the article.
I'll even buy the argument that Neil Armstrong can say anything he wants on the issue, as he was the first man on the moon, a national hero and an icon, since that would imply that the second man on the moon, also a national hero, icon and celebrity dancing star can weigh in too.  Here's what Buzz Aldrin said;

"A near-term focus on lowering the cost of access to space and on developing key, cutting-edge technologies to take us further, faster, is just what our nation needs to maintain its position as the leader in space exploration for the rest of this century,"

So, these two traveled to the moon together and have different perspectives on this issue.  But what they do agree on is that what is happening is that the President is INCREASING spending, by investing 'substantial' funding into research on 'cutting-edge technologies.'
But, it's not even about the astronauts, its about the glaring hypocrisy of the right wing media machine that is perpetually hysterical and misleading these days.  I'm certain that if Glenn Beck hasn't sobbed over the impending loss of America's preeminence in space he soon will, and a whole lot of people won't understand what is actually happening. 

MSNY 04.14.10