By the end of today, NASA’s workforce will be about 10 percent smaller

A dark and painful day at a space agency that brings so much light and joy to the world.

See full article...

 

[randomuser42]

don't think that reducing the debt is really in discussion. I'm just talking about reducing the deficit, not the debt.

I actually think the deficit is out of the question too, maybe not in the next few years (although they're going to increase the deficit so this discussion is moot) but the increases in SS/etc. go up fast.

You might want to recheck that statement.

Yes you're right, in 2024 it's over the defense spending, I had grabbed 2023.

 

[numerobis]

I don't think that reducing the debt is really in discussion. I'm just talking about reducing the deficit, not the debt.

You might want to recheck that statement.

All discretionary spending adds up to less than the current deficit. Without tax increases it's basically impossible to balance the books.

 

[GrumpyExSpaceDude]

I object to the statement that there is bloat in NASA.

How much experience do you have working with NASA? I was a JSC contractor for 30 years.

What the Trump admin is doing is stupid because the new hires are not the ones to cut. It's the retired-in-place folks left over from the shuttle program, who in the immortal words of Paul Hill (NASA head of Mission Operations when the shuttle was shut down) have been "counting the holes in the ceiling tiles".

 

[Selethorme]

The US government has to pay for stuff it takes. Congress and the President can't change that.

It does, to the extent prescribed in law. Takings are governed in part by the Fifth Amendment "just compensation," defined as fair market value, but also by the ruling in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v Sawyer. Essentially, the Court ruled that the President alone can't seize private property, but implied that they absolutely can when acting in concert with Congressional authorization, and that fair-market valuation may dramatically be impacted. Musk values it at $350 billion. That doesn't mean it is.

And there are no laws that could stop Musk from starting a new company and hiring most of his employees back.

Nothing necessarily against him trying to poach employees (though that too can be governed by some national security statues depending on how SpaceX is nationalized), but plenty against him taking trade secrets, and more importantly getting license to build infrastructure and fly.

 

[deadman12-4]

It's politically impossible to raise taxes to the point of balancing the books. Americans have never paid that level of taxes, and aren't about to vote for someone who will make them do so.

Fortunately, we can live with a deficit. It just needs to be a bit smaller than the last 5 years.

Ahh yes, more of the standard "WE MUST BALANCE THE BUDGET" but cannot do anything to balance it. This is learned helplessness, or just parroting the republikkkan propaganda. They never cared about the budget (considering how they make it worse every time). You parrot the standard false dichotomies and bs talking points of the gop - which are all excuses to dismantle the government so that the rich are not taxed or regulated. Everything else is a smoke screen. Effective government is GOOD for the people, but bad for billionaire and nazis.

The federal workforce is not and never has been the issue (though firing them will tank the economy). The GOP and their nazi owners hate the regulations, laws telling them what they can and cannot do. This is about destroying government (And ending democracy). Deficit and debt are just code they use as excuses to destroy a government nominally for the people. However your king leon and his orange puppet are quickly changing that.

 

[NewCrow]

This is a joke, right? Are you not paying attention, Mr. Berger? There is and has been absolutely nothing legal about any of Trump's cuts to date, yet he does them and the Republicans in Congress stand idly by. Exactly what negotiation do you think is going to take place? There is currently a massive gulf between how things are supposed to work, and what Republicans are actually doing.

A massive gulf? The size of America or the size of Mexico?

 

[beb01]

This article seems unusually biased and complying in advance.

 

[RZetopan]

I understand that you, and the Ars commentariat are unhappy, but Trump is doing exactly what the majority of voters asked him to do.

Emphasis mine. That word does not mean what you imagine.

 

[blackhawk887]

Ahh yes, more of the standard "WE MUST BALANCE THE BUDGET"

I said

Fortunately, we can live with a deficit.

Try reading harder. That's not saying we must balance the budget. In fact, it's the exact opposite.

 

[numerobis]

It's politically impossible to raise taxes to the point of balancing the books. Americans have never paid that level of taxes, and aren't about to vote for someone who will make them do so.

Fortunately, we can live with a deficit. It just needs to be a bit smaller than the last 5 years.

Americans re-elected both Obama and Clinton, who each had taxes at levels that allowed for budgetary stability. The one time a president didn't get re-elected, he had slashed taxes.

 

[deadman12-4]

This article seems unusually biased and complying in advance.

While he has great sources and lots of info, berger has always been a water carrier. Its just becoming more obvious lately.

 

[deadman12-4]

I said

Try reading harder. That's not saying we must balance the budget. In fact, it's the exact opposite.

Oh look, you wanna play word games. Thats too bad, I won't play games parsing words designed to distract and disguise your point. We all know what you said.

 

[planetary]

Though not practical, it would be poetic justice is every federal employee just walked off the job saying in effect "We get it, you hate federal workers. Message received. It's your country, you make it all work." I mean every non political appointee at the DOD, DOE, FAA, FBI, NASA, NSA, CIA, CDC, FDA, NSF, IRS and so on an so on. Just walk off. Ships at sea drop anchor, all USAF craft land, etc. Then see how well the country runs.

Sure many contractors who still have pay though the end of their current allocation period could keep going... for a little while. Sure state governments would still run, to a degree. But many, many things I don't even know about would grind to a halt.

 

[el_oscuro]

Sharing a letter from within these circles for insight:

“As I am sure most of you have heard by now, this week brought an unforeseen air raid upon many of our engineering comrades with sirens sure to go off on others in the coming weeks and months. The assault was indiscriminate, claiming numerous high performing, exceptionally talented individuals. The rationale given was in line with the fashionable corporate word salad that seems to have set in across industry that accompanies the change in tone across our country. Since the raid, I have spent many hours talking with colleagues who were well and truly shell shocked by what happened. Many of these folks were reaching out to express their frustrations with recent events across our industry. I would like to share what I have heard, and hopefully use these events as a spark to ignite some, maybe only one of you, to consider the value of organized labor.

We are often told and exist in a structured environment that would lead us to believe that if you work hard and do good work, you will be rewarded. That is a lie, which much like a broken clock happens to be right some of the time. You, as a working class laborer are a means of value extraction. The contract you have signed is toothless. Don’t believe me? Please, allow me to put you in touch with individuals who have had the terms of their contracts revoked without an opportunity to renegotiate. If you think that it’s fine for a company to unilaterally levy new contractual terms on labor without negotiating then it’s likely that either 1) your salary depends on believing that is righteous or 2) you are deeply institutionalized and there is a long winding road ahead for you on this topic.

Why do I bring this up? The single most common thing I heard from my conversations was the shattered belief in meritocracy. Over 50% of those I spoke with had never seen high performing engineers kicked to the curb without notice. The minimum years of experience of those I spoke to was 8 with the most being 25. Most had been through RIF’s, but had not experienced this form of savagery. As I used to hold true, these folks were of the conviction that a highly productive, intelligent, and pleasant to work with person would be held onto - when layoffs occur it’s really just "trimming the fat”, as we are told. Wrong. It is more likely that the man who plays golf with and laughs at the senior directors jokes will be retained than the working level engineer who saves the company an incalculable amount of money through their labor. Our labor and contributions can be very hard for senior leaders to understand or quantify - laughs and time on the links? Priceless!

This brings me to the second and perhaps most disappointing observation I encountered during my conversations - indifference and/or aversion to the idea of organized labor. It is a real feat of the human condition to be treading water in the middle of the ocean, watching your peers go under and still refuse a life jacket. However, that is what we are faced with as working class labor. Instead of cooperating and looking out for one another we cling to the idea that if we are just fast enough we can outrun the other sucker and the corporate bear will eat them instead. This plays extremely well into the hands of business interests. We, as fools, undermine our own collective interests and willingly fuck each other over on their behalf! I can only imagine that for businesses it feels like running the hunger games and having an overflow of applicants on a volunteer basis.

Unions are not perfect. There will be corruption. In case you haven’t come to terms with it yet, it is a fact that humans are not perfect. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t do better. Our standard of work life in America is only where it is because it stands on the shoulders of those who fought for our rights in the past. While some folks would like to return to having children toil in the meat processing plants because they fit nicely in the sausage machines to clean them - most of us with a soul have agreed to protect children from this. That type of thing stems from organizing and looking out for one another.

Things are likely to get worse for us working class engineers going forward. The current climate is not favorable to labor. I realize that many of you will not change your mind on this topic and that is fine - just don’t expect a life vest. If we continue to fuck around we, as labor, will find out.”

Well, for the first time in in my 40 year career, there are now IT workers unionizing. This is something that was completely unheard of even 5 years ago.

https://www.ign.com/articles/bethesda-game-studios-microsoft-game-studios

That was the spark. Musk and the rest are providing the kindling.

 

[Dachshund]

These cuts are are seriously fucked up, but unions are not the answer. Both are the opposite of meritocratic. These cuts are getting rid of people regardless of merit, and unions fight to keep everyone regardless of merit. There are sensible ways of "trimming the fat" if/when it needs to be done, and most companies are far more meritocratic about it than this, because of course it's better to get rid of lower performers (I know there are exceptions when large numbers are let go, like entire departments, or forced RTO to encourage resignations, etc.).

Unions typically try to prevent downsizing at all, and when it happens, insist that it be based on seniority or some other non-merit based measure. Higher performing engineers, especially early in their career when they have less seniority, are right to be wary of unions. Perhaps by "working class engineers" you are referring to lower skilled ones that have more to worry about when cuts are made? And of course public sector unions are not in the best interest of taxpayers, nor are private sector unions in the interest of companies or their customers.

These cuts are are seriously fucked up, but unions are not the answer. Both are the opposite of meritocratic. These cuts are getting rid of people regardless of merit, and unions fight to keep everyone regardless of merit. There are sensible ways of "trimming the fat" if/when it needs to be done, and most companies are far more meritocratic about it than this, because of course it's better to get rid of lower performers (I know there are exceptions when large numbers are let go, like entire departments, or forced RTO to encourage resignations, etc.).

Unions typically try to prevent downsizing at all, and when it happens, insist that it be based on seniority or some other non-merit based measure. Higher performing engineers, especially early in their career when they have less seniority, are right to be wary of unions. Perhaps by "working class engineers" you are referring to lower skilled ones that have more to worry about when cuts are made? And of course public sector unions are not in the best interest of taxpayers, nor are private sector unions in the interest of companies or their customers.

You appear to be in the group with the long winding road ahead. I’ve talked with enough folks with arguments similar to those you posed to know that I will not sway you in a comments section of a website.

In person conversations are better suited to folks in your camp. I hope that those conversations find you.

 

[The Dark]

It's politically impossible to raise taxes to the point of balancing the books. Americans have never paid that level of taxes, and aren't about to vote for someone who will make them do so.

Fortunately, we can live with a deficit. It just needs to be a bit smaller than the last 5 years.

The current top marginal tax rate is 37.00%. Since 1913, the years with a lower top marginal tax rate:
1913-1916
1925-1931
1988-1992
2003-2012

Even Saint Ronnie Raygun had a 50% top marginal rate until the very end of his administration. From 1936 to 1980 it was never below 70%.

Of course, that's just looking at personal income taxes. For corporate taxes, we're down at 21% currently, the lowest it has been since 1939. We probably don't need to go back to the 52.8% corporate tax rate of the late 1960s, but from 1951 to 1986 the top corporate tax rate was never less than 46%, and that top rate cut in at fairly modest amounts ($100,000 in 1983, equivalent to about $325,000 today).

 

[theradicalmoderate]

Here's one exercise to answer that question. A couple of years ago Boeing and Northrop attempted to 'privatize' parts of the SLS rocket program in order to lower recurring costs and make the rocket slightly more competitive on price. This was known as Deep Space Transport LLC. The plan was ultimately shut down by Marshal because of potential job losses for NASA employees. In other words, the bureaucracy was acting to protect itself.

Does this mean that EPOC¹ is already dead? I thought its finalization had merely been pushed back to NET 2026.

If SLS is really going to be canceled, then EPOC is obviously dead. But I've always viewed it as an important canary in the coal mine: EPOC can't be executed without committing long-term to SLS. Similarly, if EPOC isn't executed, then SLS can simply run out of missions whenever NASA stops ordering new cores.

________
¹Exploration Production and Operations Contract. This is the contract that Deep Space Transport would have gotten as a block buy for Artemis VI through XII. In theory, it "commercializes" a lot of the workflow for SLS. There's a similar contract for Orion, which has already been executed, called OPOC.

 

[Citizenkain]

And there are no laws that could stop Musk from starting a new company and hiring most of his employees back.

Hard to do that while plummeting from the back a C-130 over the Atlantic.

 

[planetary]

It's politically impossible to raise taxes to the point of balancing the books. Americans have never paid that level of taxes, and aren't about to vote for someone who will make them do so.

I find that statement implausible, but like many others, this is a assertion that can be verified with arithmetic. I'm sure someone has done that. A quick google search didn't turn up a concrete answer but this publication looks topical: Options for reducing the Deficit.

If any ars reader knows what tax rates we would need in order balance the budget given our aging population and current debt service obligations I'd be interested in seeing the figures. I mean, it happened in 1998 and I don't remember tax rates being extreme at that time.

 

[original_mds]

Other than the 5 things we by law can't cut, as they're entitlements? It's entirely reasonable to exclude them.

If the law changes, even those entitlements can be cut. Even without changing the law, they effectively cut the value of those entitlements by printing more money (inflation) and making the existing payments have less purchasing power.

 

[blackhawk887]

Americans re-elected both Obama and Clinton, who each had taxes at levels that allowed for budgetary stability. The one time a president didn't get re-elected, he had slashed taxes.

Obama had $1T+ deficits his first 4 years and much lower federal receipts (which is mostly taxes, and was 14-15% of GDP) than today. The deficit dropped and receipts rose his last 4 years... and lead right to an R trifecta in 2016.

Clinton had similar federal receipts (17-18% of GDP) his first 4 years as we have now. Receipts went up to 20% of GDP only during his last 4 years. He had a deficit every year before reelection.

 

[numerobis]

Emphasis mine. That word does not mean what you imagine.

49.8% after all was counted is pretty darn close to a majority, it's clearly larger than the runner-up for once, and Trump did, in fact, promise to destroy the US government (as GOP candidates have been promising to do since Reagan).

Destroying the government is completely insane but it is popular.

 

[blackhawk887]

I find that statement implausible, but like many others, this is a assertion that can be verified with arithmetic. I'm sure someone has done that. A quick google search didn't turn up a concrete answer but this publication looks topical: Options for reducing the Deficit.

If any ars reader knows what tax rates we would need in order balance the budget given our aging population and current debt service obligations I'd be interested in seeing the figures. I mean, it happened in 1998 and I don't remember tax rates being extreme at that time.

The federal government currently spends 23% of GDP but only has ever had receipts at a maximum of 20% of GDP. Taxing enough to raise federal revenues to 23% of GDP would be breaking new ground for the US.

You could try to make the case that anyone raising taxes higher than they have ever been would actually do fine politically. I'm rather skeptical of that assertion.

Or you could say that we could reach a sustainable deficit with a combination of higher taxes and less spending, which I would certainly agree with.

 

[theradicalmoderate]

Of course, that's just looking at personal income taxes. For corporate taxes, we're down at 21% currently, the lowest it has been since 1939. We probably don't need to go back to the 52.8% corporate tax rate of the late 1960s, but from 1951 to 1986 the top corporate tax rate was never less than 46%, and that top rate cut in at fairly modest amounts ($100,000 in 1983, equivalent to about $325,000 today).

I've thought for a while that we ought to get rid of corporate income taxes entirely and treat all US corporations as if they were S corporations: Each stockholder's share of the annual profits is treated as ordinary income. If they sell their shares, they get a step-up in basis by the amount of the profits they've received while owning the shares.

This could be the more effective version of a wealth tax: it's easy to game valuations, but it's harder to do so with profits. No doubt it would incentivize corporations to find fun accounting tricks to plow most profits back into reinvestment, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I have no illusions about this happening.

 

[blackhawk887]

The current top marginal tax rate is 37.00%. Since 1913, the years with a lower top marginal tax rate:
1913-1916
1925-1931
1988-1992
2003-2012

Even Saint Ronnie Raygun had a 50% top marginal rate until the very end of his administration. From 1936 to 1980 it was never below 70%.

Of course, that's just looking at personal income taxes. For corporate taxes, we're down at 21% currently, the lowest it has been since 1939. We probably don't need to go back to the 52.8% corporate tax rate of the late 1960s, but from 1951 to 1986 the top corporate tax rate was never less than 46%, and that top rate cut in at fairly modest amounts ($100,000 in 1983, equivalent to about $325,000 today).

Top marginal rate doesn't directly equate to money in the door. What you're looking for is federal receipts as percentage of GDP. That's the actual value that the USG is extracting from the economy.

Reagan had pretty average receipts at about 17%. Basically what we're at today.

 

[blackhawk887]

Other than the 5 things we by law can't cut, as they're entitlements? It's entirely reasonable to exclude them.

The list was

social security, medicare, medicaid, veteran's benefits like the VA, and defense.

Only 3 of those are mandatory spending.

 

[k h]

I can't wait until you explain to us that grandma deserves to be unplugged from the ventilator.

The essential and high value grandmas can then be identified and plugged back in. /s

 

[The Dark]

The federal government currently spends 23% of GDP but only has ever had receipts at a maximum of 20% of GDP. Taxing enough to raise federal revenues to 23% of GDP would be breaking new ground for the US.

You could try to make the case that anyone raising taxes higher than they have ever been would actually do fine politically. I'm rather skeptical of that assertion.

23% is also anomalously high from a historical perspective. After the 2008 recession, it hovered around 20% from 2013-2019 before getting spiked to 30% in 2020 and then slowly declining again. Before the 2008 recession, it was between roughly 17.5% and 20% through the 1990s and 2000s. Post-1945, the years with spending of 23% or above:
2009
2010*
2011
2020
2021
2022
2024

Maybe it's a new normal, particularly with the party of spend-and-spend in office, but it's entirely plausible that those numbers could come back down.

*Sort of. 2010 was 22.97%, and it didn't feel right to leave off a number that close to 23% on a technicality.

 

[jjduru]

What do we need NASA for, period? At some point the question has to be really asked, not just shrugged off as irrelevant because it's outside an Overton window.

Assuming that you're serious (there's no "/s" at the end of your comment), you need to be pointed out how dim your point of view is. By the same measure, what do we need NOAA and NIH for anyway? Why do we need science at all?!
Unbelievable.

 

[blackhawk887]

23% is also anomalously high from a historical perspective. After the 2008 recession, it hovered around 20% from 2013-2019 before getting spiked to 30% in 2020 and then slowly declining again. Before the 2008 recession, it was between roughly 17.5% and 20% through the 1990s and 2000s. Post-1945, the years with spending of 23% or above:
2009
2010*
2011
2020
2021
2022
2024

Maybe it's a new normal, particularly with the party of spend-and-spend in office, but it's entirely plausible that those numbers could come back down.

*Sort of. 2010 was 22.97%, and it didn't feel right to leave off a number that close to 23% on a technicality.

The average since 2008 is 22.53%, so I think 23% might be close to the new normal. Of course the 2012-2019 average was 20.45%, which is quite a bit lower... but I think you have to take the good years with the bad. It's definitely possible to get back to 20%, but it won't be easy. Nor will it be easy to avoid more big deficits the next time an emergency comes along.

I think 18% receipts, 20% outlays is sustainable for quite a while. The other 2% will be slightly outpaced by inflation, reducing the real value of the total debt over time.

 

[arsisloam]

It's politically impossible to raise taxes to the point of balancing the books. Americans have never paid that level of taxes, and aren't about to vote for someone who will make them do so.

Fortunately, we can live with a deficit. It just needs to be a bit smaller than the last 5 years.

Bill Clinton balanced the budget. It wasn't that long ago. Surely you remember it?

 

[planetary]

The federal government currently spends 23% of GDP but only has ever had receipts at a maximum of 20% of GDP. Taxing enough to raise federal revenues to 23% of GDP would be breaking new ground for the US.

Useful info, thanks.

You could try to make the case that anyone raising taxes higher than they have ever been would actually do fine politically. I'm rather skeptical of that assertion.

Oh I'm not considering politics, mostly just curious about what's technically possible. We all know that politicians promise the world and claim it will cost nothing.

Considering politics for a minute, since culture carries so much weight I think it's possible that a culturally appealing leader could suggest that taxes go from, say $10,000 per year to $11,500, in order to stop adding to our children's debt and I bet a lot of folks would be on board. Would it be enough, I doubt it. Voters are just too prone to magical thinking.

 

[cvanaver]

It's not luck. Our adversaries spent a lot of money and time to achieve the destabilization of the US. They are now beginning to reap their rewards. Make no mistake, we lost the Cold War.

China and Russia can't believe their luck.

Also, for those wondering why you need NASA, they kept SpaceX alive for long enough to deliver something good. Of course fElon Muskow will target anything that could provide competition in the future. Anything NASA/space would compete with SpaceX, anything EV/charging networks would compete with Tesla.

Oligarchy is a cruel mistress and USians learn now that the US is not in fact immune to the same problems every other (including has been) superpower seems to face.It's not luck.

 

[IncrHulk]

Xi and Putin couldn't do this much damage to the US if they wanted to.

The only way either of them could do more damage to the USA would be:

Would you like to play a game?

 

[MedicalGeek]

It's all about ensuring that money gets funnelled to Musk and his cronies. It's a raid on the government, and it's nothing to do with efficiency. It's a fucking coup. Call it what it is.

"Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced."
-HL Mencken