New NASA funds would be reallocated from other NASA projects CBO 4 (Congressional Budget Office, Sept, http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5772&type=0&sequence=3, accessed 7-2-11, CH)
CBO assumed in its analysis that funding for farther-term robotic support missions (those envisioned for beyond 2009, for which there is little detailed planning) and activities from the other categories (the space shuttle, the ISS, and aeronautics and other science programs) would not experience cost growth but would remain at their planned levels. NASA's budget projection incorporates the assumption that through 2020, the number and content of those activities will be adjusted to fit within their projected annual funding levels--in the case of the farther-term robotic support missions, funding held constant at the level projected for the missions for 2009, or about $1.9 billion per year. The agency plans to accommodate any increases in the funding required for those longer-term projects by extending schedules or reallocating funds, either within the category or between categories. Alternatively, the number of missions or the content of missions could be scaled back to reduce costs. In some cases, however, NASA's ability to make such adjustments might be limited--in particular, if the knowledge or experience that NASA expects to obtain from the yet-to-be-defined robotic support missions is critical to conducting the human exploration mission. (CBO addresses the possible implications of cost growth in all robotic support missions in the analysis described in Chapter 3.)
R&D is zero-sum within all agencies Raloff 11 (Janet, science reporter, Wired, 2/15, http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/science-obama-budget/ accessed 7-1-11, CH)
To pay for those priorities, Holdren says, agencies were asked to make the painful determination of which programs were underperforming or of lower priority to the president’s national objective “to out-innovate, out-educate and out-build the rest of the world.” “I think it is especially encouraging to have a president who really supports R&D and education,” says Albert Teich, who directs science and policy programs at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. “You wish every president saw things this way. What’s discouraging, of course, is that we face this huge deficit. And not everybody in Congress is going to agree with the president’s priorities. So there’s bound to be fights over it.” How big a tussle? “That’s the question of the hour. And for the answer, I think you should ask the IBM computer on Jeopardy this week,” Teich says. This “zero-sum game” for federal R&D budgeting is novel, Teich notes. It is also virtually impossible to achieve, he adds, since a host of different congressional committees are responsible for eventually drafting the spending bills that will determine how money will be apportioned for individual agencies. And they don’t coordinate their spending plans to allow such a finely balanced ledger.
Tight budgets force trade-offs across agencies Williams 11 (Jesse, columnist, Yale News, 1/20, http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/jan/20/war-of-the-wars/, accessed 7-1-11, CH)
The budget-tightening weeks are a tough time in Washington. After all, our revenues are finite, so budgeting is a zero-sum game: every dollar we spend on education is a dollar we can’t spend on the military; every dime we put into Social Security is one dimethat can’t go to NASA, and so on. So when it comes time to cut, every portion of spending can, in a very real sense, be evaluated against any other portion. Yet, we rarely do that kind of broad evaluating — we stay busy trying to decide whether we’re giving the Marine Corps a new tank instead of a new jet. That’s not a conversation about national priorities, and not the kind of conversation we can and should be having. Why not weigh that tank against, say, $12 billion in federal subsidies for education?
It’s not posted yet on the committee’s web site, but the full House Science Committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday, March 2, on NASA’s FY12 budget request. NASA administrator Charles Bolden is the sole witness scheduled to testify. Last week the Senate Commerce Committee announced the chairs and ranking members of its subcommittees. To no one’s surprise, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) will return as chairman of the science and space subcommittee. The committee’s new ranking member is freshman Sen. John Boozman (R-AR). However, it’s likely that full committee ranking member Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) will continue to play a major role in any space topics during this Congress. Last week the full House approved an amendment to its 2011 continuing resolution to transfer nearly $300 million from NASA to a Justice Department community policing program. The amendment was introduced by a Democrat, but passed thanks to the votes of 70 Republicans, who joined 158 Republicans to approve the amendment. So what was the reaction of Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL)? He blames the Obama Administration: “If the White House had argued for NASA among House Democrats, we would have protected NASA from this cut,” he told the Huntsville Times. Of course, if those 70 Republicans hadn’t voted for it, the amendment wouldn’t have passed regardless of what the Democrats did, as the GOP is now in the majority, but Brooks offers no explanation why 70 of his fellow House Republicans voted for the amendment.
But more broadly, Congress isn't going to go for all of these things. Congress, as you'll talk about later with NASA, is not going to be happy with that reallocation and savings. And the reason that's important to the rest of the science budget is because NASA is funded by the same committee that funds the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce, which has NOAA and NIST. And so if they have a fixed amount of money, the more they give to one agency, the less there is for everybody else. So sometimes Congress makes decisions not because they're opposed to research, but because they have other higher priorities.