What I don't understand is where even a willing and eager Congress will find the money to fund anything but the most basic programs. We're entering a financial depression which according to some people I trust willl take a national committment on the order of that after Pearl Harbor to get through.

We have wars to finish, veterans benefits to pay, an infrastructure to rebuild and obligations to our own citizens. We've nationalized the debts of the wealthy, placing an incredible burden on those worth less than $5 million while those same people are losing their jobs. The US has consumed 6% more per year than it produces for years, and hs taken to printing money backed not by gold, or silver, or platinum, but by subprime mortages and hedge fund derviatives. Think about that - the dollar is backed by junk.

As I recall the standard answer is that NASA's budget is a miniscule portion of the whole, that each person in the US need only contribute $6 or $8 or $30 per year and they won't even notice it. In my neighborhood there were three budget levies passed and I voted for all three. And all were sold on the basis that they were only $50 or $65 or somesuch per year on the average home. Americans can figure out that all of those inconsequential numbers add up.

When the American Dream is to become a crew leader at McDonalds at $8.75 per hour plus food stamps it seems to me there will be a popular rebellion against spending such as NASA. After all, Joe Sixpack really doesn't care about it except twice a year when he reads a headling, and Joe Sixpack is relatively well off compared to many, many people.

I think America has prioritized it's finances in such a way as to jeopardize basic science and manned space missions. Which wouldn't be all bad - robots are more efficient.

Actions have consequences. The actions of the last 8 years have had the consequence of breaking the country.

And it's all tragic.

Arf