Rohrabacher misses the mark

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 *

In article ,
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:

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

Here's a wacky idea: how about we skip the ad-hominem attacks and
address the actual content?

Rohrabacher wants to believe that manned spaceflight is crucial for
America; it just looks bad because the public-sector space program
sucks.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The speech says nothing about
manned spaceflight being crucial for America; in fact, it suggests that
a better alternative to ISS would have been a robot-tended station
visited infrequently by astronauts.

His examples of success: Clementine, Lunar Prospector, and GPS.

Yep, all very successful missions.

Are they manned? Are they private sector?

No, and he didn't say they we "The Clementine mission, brought about
by a group of rebels in the space community, discovered evidence of
water at lunar poles in 1996. The Lunar Prospector project demonstrated
that commercial lunar exploration missions are feasible."

I think his point on Clementine was that the usual NASA beauracracy was
avoided, and a mission that would have died on the vine under as-usual
NASA procedures was very successful at a very low price. As for Lunar
Prospector, it was the first competitively selected Discovery mission;
perhaps that's why it indicates the feasibility of commercial missions
(I'll admit I'm a bit unclear on his point there).

He says that ice on the moon is important for commerce. But did Wall
Street express any interest?

Wall Street is extremely short-sighted; its lack of interest does not
indicate lack of a product, nor does its interest indicate a good market
(as we all saw a few years ago in the dotcom frenzy).

And no, actually, he doesn't say that ice is important for commerce.
The speech doesn't even contain the word "ice." However he does point
out "With evidence of water on the moon, we can make oxygen to breathe
and hydrogen for fuel" which of course is true.

Will the headline "Arecibo radar shows no evidence of thick ice at lunar
poles" ever penetrate the Capitol?

No doubt it has, but hopefully it hasn't done as much damage as it seems
to have done to you. That study only showed that there were no thick
slabs of ice within the radar's view. It does not rule out distributed
ice mixed with regolith, nor does it rule out thick slabs in areas the
radar can't see, nor does it offer any explanation for the large amounts
of hydrogen detected by recent probes.

There is no real point to refuting or even analyzing "arguments"
from Rohrabacher. His real concern is not logic, it's tax favors.

None of this is evident from the speech, as far as I can see. Can you
point to something which supports this view?

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.

As do I. A uniform tax cut certainly isn't needed; our national debt is
greater than it's ever been. But tax incentives are a small but
relatively painless way to encourage new industries, and it would
certainly make sense to apply them here.

But Orville and Wilbur Wright did pay taxes.

Orville and Wilbur were also able to build their craft in their garage,
and test them in the neighboring field. Similar situations apply to
many other inventions, such as computers. But not to space development.
Your analogy is false.

And so do I and so do most people.

Great! Taxes are needed to keep the nation running. But start a
company that produces products or provides services in space, and if
Rohrabacher gets his way, you'll be able to reduce your tax burden, thus
improving the business plan of that company. And I say, great! Go for
it. It's a difficult industry to get started in, and every little bit
helps.

Congressmen who think that the government is too big should first
cut spending.

That's probably what congressmen who think that try to do. How does
this relate to the speech we're discussing?

After that they can look at income tax and FICA rates.

This doesn't seem related to me. How would that help the space industry
develop in any way? (This is the sci.space.policy newsgroup, not the
alt.taxes.griping one.)

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".

Why not? Do you believe that such tax incentives would not help space
industries develop more quickly? Do you think that the amount of time
"wasted" by a tax accountant studying the new rule would offset the
benefits such a company might get? Or what?

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.

I see no content here to reply to, just invective. Do you really have
any complaints with this speech, or are you just desperately grasping
for something to bitch about for some other reason?

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'