In article ,
Steve Dufour wrote:
NASA misses the mark
By Dana Rohrabacher

Thus begins a strange rant by a zero-comprehension Congressman. A good
nickname for Dana Rohrabacher would be "Representative Non Sequitur".

Rohrabacher wants to believe that manned spaceflight is crucial for
America; it just looks bad because the public-sector space program
sucks. His examples of success: Clementine, Lunar Prospector, and GPS.
Are they manned? Are they private sector? He says that ice on the moon
is important for commerce. But did Wall Street express any interest?
Will the headline "Arecibo radar shows no evidence of thick ice at lunar
poles" ever penetrate the Capitol? If Rohrabacher is so annoyed at the
plainly pathetic space shuttle and space station programs, why doesn't
he vote against them in his committee?

There is no real point to refuting or even analyzing "arguments"
from Rohrabacher. His real concern is not logic, it's tax favors.
Evidently Rohrabacher, or some insider speaking through Rohrabacher,
thinks that the tax code is just not complicated enough. Instead of
a uniform tax cut, they want yet another special tax shelter for a few
companies. But Orville and Wilbur Wright did pay taxes. And so do I
and so do most people. Congressmen who think that the government is
too big should first cut spending. After that they can look at income
tax and FICA rates. They should not waste tax accountants' time on a
gross income exclusion for "any product or article which is produced by
the taxpayer in outer space".

It is bizarre that Dana Rohrabacher ever became chair of the House
Science Committee. It was a sad victory of seniority over merit.
Pro is to Con as Progress is to Congress.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *