|
Author
|
Topic: NASA Administrator as a Cabinet-level position
|
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1586
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 09-05-2011 01:19 PM
   
Should the position of NASA Administrator be elevated to a Cabinet level position? I think this was done with Veterans Affairs in 1989. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3118
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-05-2011 05:26 PM
Far be it from me as a foreigner to tell Americans how to organize their government, but... yes, absolutely. |
Cozmosis22
Member Posts: 968
From: Texas * Earth
Registered: Apr 2011
|
posted 09-05-2011 06:55 PM
One vote for "No thanks."  We already have too many bureaucrats. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-05-2011 07:53 PM
Why should NASA merit special treatment over the other science-related agencies (e.g. NOAA, the National Institute of Health, National Academies of Science)? Or would you propose — as others have in the past — that NASA be folded into a new Department of Science as part of joining the Cabinet? |
KSCartist
Member Posts: 2896
From: Titusville, FL USA
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 09-06-2011 01:00 AM
Lord knows we do NOT need another layer of bureaucracy. Think of the (well-intentioned) creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The goal was to improve communication between government agencies that protect and defend. The goal has still not been met. If a "Department of Science" were to be created, NASA would be lost in another level of government and be fighting just as hard for funding. We need less layers and more efficiency. |
garymilgrom
Member Posts: 1966
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 09-06-2011 07:59 AM
I don't think Fra Mauro is talking about adding more layers of bureaucracy. I think they are saying that if the NASA Administrator was a Cabinet-level position it might have more visibility with the President. I think that's a good idea. As for why NASA might merit special treatment, I believe the space program has the ability to inspire and energize tomorrow's leaders in a way other science programs do not, because I believe our destiny lies off the planet. Of course, I **am** biased as a big supporter of space. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1586
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 09-06-2011 10:51 AM
I proposed the idea for exactly those reasons -- prestige and showing that space exploration is a highly valued national goal. Making it a Cabinet agency doesn't really add to the bureaucracy. Going back to the V.A. example. it was a sign of a commitment to our veterans. I'm not a fan of a Department of Science, to vague and too many agencies would get lost there. |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 1306
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 09-06-2011 01:15 PM
I can see the reasons for doing it AND not doing it.Added prestige, more visibility with the President. But I would also be apprehensive about NASA being lost in a 'Department of Science' having to fight for a buck. NASA does deserve special treatment. |
Cozmosis22
Member Posts: 968
From: Texas * Earth
Registered: Apr 2011
|
posted 09-06-2011 03:36 PM
Once upon a time the country's space ventures were somewhat directed and promoted by the National Aeronautics and Space Council which operated out of the Office of the Vice President. Under JFK/LBJ the space program enjoyed a high priority. It has gone downhill ever since; and am afraid that having a space figurehead (with it's usual attendant bureaucracy) at White House Cabinet Meetings would be of little use at this time. Your desire for "prestige and showing that space exploration is a highly valued national goal" is a noble one nonetheless. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 09-06-2011 04:39 PM
As long as NASA's current charter has it in budget fights with welfare programs for funds, putting the NASA Administrator into a cabinet level position isn't really going to do anything anyway. |
advertisement