Oklahoma Representative James Bridenstine, a Navy Reserve pilot, was confirmed as NASA's 13th administrator on Thursday.
In a 50-49 vote Thursday, Oklahoma Representative James Bridenstine, a Navy Reserve pilot, was confirmed as NASA's 13th administrator, an agency that usually is kept away from partisanship. His three predecessors — two nominated by Republicans — were all approved unanimously. Before that, one NASA chief served under three presidents, two Republicans and a Democrat.The two days of voting were as tense as a launch countdown.A procedural vote Wednesday initially ended in a 49-49 tie — Vice President Mike Pence, who normally breaks a tie, was at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida — before Arizona Republican Jeff Flake switched from opposition to support, using his vote as leverage to address an unrelated issue.Thursday's vote included the drama of another delayed but approving vote by Flake, a last-minute no vote by Illinois Democrat Tammy Duckworth — who wheeled onto the floor with her 10-day-old baby in tow — and the possibility of a tie-breaker by Pence, who was back in town.
In a 50-49 vote Thursday, Oklahoma Representative James Bridenstine, a Navy Reserve pilot, was confirmed as NASA's 13th administrator, an agency that usually is kept away from partisanship. His three predecessors — two nominated by Republicans — were all approved unanimously. Before that, one NASA chief served under three presidents, two Republicans and a Democrat.
The two days of voting were as tense as a launch countdown.
A procedural vote Wednesday initially ended in a 49-49 tie — Vice President Mike Pence, who normally breaks a tie, was at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida — before Arizona Republican Jeff Flake switched from opposition to support, using his vote as leverage to address an unrelated issue.
Thursday's vote included the drama of another delayed but approving vote by Flake, a last-minute no vote by Illinois Democrat Tammy Duckworth — who wheeled onto the floor with her 10-day-old baby in tow — and the possibility of a tie-breaker by Pence, who was back in town.
Instead of draining the swamp, Trump has drained all of the intelligence and skill out the State Department, EPA, and now NASA.
My expectation as to his plan, which is pretty standard for the Republicans:1. Make government agencies not work properly.2. Balloon the deficit.3. Go to the public and say "These agencies suck, and we have a money problem, so we're going to eliminate them."
Or, the shorter version of this: The Republican Party believes government doesn't work, and whenever they're in office do everything in their power to prove their point.
4. To fix our money problem, we need to cut taxes to get the economy going, and oh, that money problem, it's them damn tax and spend Liberals fault (who are coming for your guns!).
OH NO, YOU MEAN THEY MIGHT WANT LESS GOVERNMENT!?
Gasp. This is incredibly shocking. How can we live our lives without massive bloated inefficient corrupt bureaucracies? It's the stuff of nightmares. Luckily you figured it all out and warned us before it went too far.
> How can we live our lives without massive bloated inefficient corrupt bureaucracies?
Ah, I see we have another commenter here without basic reading comprehension. I'll repeat that, but I'll try to use small words, so you understand me.
First Reds make stuff bad. Then Reds complain stuff bad. Then Reds get rid of stuff. Then all else bad.
Point is, of course stuff bad. They make it bad. Was not so bad before.
There is an alternative narrative for that. Blues make shitty service because feelz. Because it's shitty, it doesn't work right. Blame reds. Go back to step one.
I think the real problem is that most politicians on both sides half ass this stuff rather than do it right, because half assing gets you just as many votes with a lot less effort. I can't tell you how many times I've complained about a broken government program or blowback from a poorly thought out public good and the reply is some pathetic ad hominem along the lines of "So you hate poor people?" or "You're getting paid to say that!" So there are plenty of people out there for which half assing works. The box got checked: poor people helped or abusive government program targeted.
But it seems to me that there's no point to complaining about how the other side does things, if you're not willing to fix what's broken.
Yes, gov't is inefficient, but the alternatives have other problems. Letting people in a jam die is one approach. Obviously, dying is no fun. The private sector is usually more efficient, but also have an incentive to try to trick and trap consumers/users above making a better mouse-trap. The problem is that humans suck, not gov't specifically. Just be glad civilization mostly works: there's no guarantee it will keep working.
Yes, gov't is inefficient, but the alternatives have other problems.
Yes, gov't is inefficient, but the alternatives have other problems.
And I guess we shrug at this point and just continue believing whatever because inertia?
The problem here isn't that humans and their things are imperfect, but rather that a bunch of people are completely ignoring rational sources of disagreement and then blaming dissenters when things don't work as perfectly as expected.
But why aren't the advocates for these programs insuring that any interference isn't so destructive? The "reds" can't operate in a vacuum. They are successful only because they aren't strongly opposed. And why aren't the naysayers just killing the supposedly problematic programs outright? That's the half-assed efforts right there.
Who really believes the people who have made the current political system such a slimy mess would make less of a mess, if they were even less supervised? Some accounting is just being sane. But what makes the current accounting so screwed up is that it keeps track of insignificant details like the disposition of screws and blows off huge details like how much the latest jet fighter costs.
To use the ever-popular car anology:
Let's say you have a disagreement between you and your spouse over whether to get rid of an aging but functional car. You think it's a worthless piece of junk, your spouse thinks it is still useful.
What I'm objecting to is the following tactic: You open up the hood, take a crowbar to the engine block, come back inside and say "Well, I guess it's beyond repair, we'll have to trade it in."
Trade-in == sell and keep 2/3 for you and 1/3 for the wife
The Republicans are responsible for the massive bloat and inefficiencies as much as the Democrats, but are just more fucking hypocritical and deluded.
I'll give you welfare programs as an example. The actual assistance part of it was corrupt as fuck. Now I don't know if the private citizens that got paid for operating the beautician schools where Republican or not, but I sure as fuck know that anybody with two brain cells can figure out that 10,000 young girls trying to cut hair in a city that can only support 4,000 of them is fucking stupid on many levels, most poignantly economically.
It's awfully hard to criticize some of these programs when they were corrupted from the start as a pork barrel project for Senators and their wealthy friends. If we were to actually audit all of our government spending for the last 100 years, you would find that a lot of that government money ended up in the hands of people close the politicians and the wealthy elite. Not only that, but that the projects had most of their cost being the profit for c-suites on up. Two million for the actual labor, two million for materials, and twenty million for the c-suites and share holders.
When we laugh/cry about a hammer being two hundred fucking dollars, and being sold tenpenny nails for 10 dollars a piece, who is ending up with that money?
Republicans can try to lie to us all they want. We've never had a properly operated social program to begin with, everything is horribly mismanaged, and nobody is looking over at the greedy fuckers in the corner that know our problems would go away if they just paid us more.
Living wages reduce the load on social programs dramatically. In part because if the middle class is super strong, they also tend to not be like the avaricious sociopathic elites, but concerned for the welfare of the poor. Tithing, religious organizations, and just plain ol' hospitality and generosity can largely help alleviate the plight of the poor. When America is bereft of the strong union factory jobs that used to put food on the table, and savings in the bank, it's no surprise that we're all struggling to the extent that we can't adequately help each other. Hence, the all of the sudden need for massive social programs, UBI, etc.
I would LOVE smaller government. Tighter, more efficient, more transparent, more effective, you name it. Let's just kill and gut every elite and politician out there, start paying ourselves living wages to create a strong middle class again. Government can get a lot smaller when we don't actually have a need for a larger government.
Ultimately the problem is corrupt human beings. People so faulty by design that they should be put down Spartan style. It's the fact that the majority of us are incapable of dealing with the threat represented by having the sociopathic and deeply avaricious become the scourge of the c-suites, elites, and politicians that keeps us where we are. Our own good nature prevents us from expelling the evil abhorrent filth that the elites represent. We're unable to defend ourselves against it.
"Let's just kill and gut every elite and politician out there"...How, if you don't kill off all their bosses, is that going to do any good Just yesterday, Randall Stephenson CEO of ATT pressured the Justice Department to allow it to swallow up Time Warner. ATT was broken up years ago for monopolistic and unfair business practices yet here is the giant zombie rising from the grave out to destroy all the good from years of somewhat real competition. Wonder just how much ATT has put out to politicians? Not only money, but also golf junkets, fishing trips etc?
Ideally we'd just pass a bill to eliminate a bunch of government agencies, but there is normally opposition. How to you propose to crush that opposition?
That is, lay out a plan to eliminate the EPA or the Department of Education. Politically, how would you accomplish that?
It's easy to complain, but actually getting the job done isn't so easy.
I recall a certain Energy Secretary ran on the platform of eliminating 2, or was it 3, agencies. It didn't attract many votes, if you recall.
Explain your idea, win the votes. THAT is how you have to do things BECAUSE it is slow and difficult.
How else should they get rid of the awful agencies? Lots of those agencies mostly exist for their own benefit, sucking up all the money they can get. What little they get done is mostly harmful to our freedom and to our economy.
If enough people in congress would just vote to kill the agencies, we'd get it done that way. Instead we have to go through an absurd little dance, putting people who despise the agencies in charge of them.
Quit resisting. MAGA. It's good for you. This... it's like trying to get a kid to brush his teeth or to not live on a diet of 100% cinnamon pop tarts. THIS IS GOOD FOR YOU.
"If enough people vote..."
BINGO I think you finally got it :) Congratulations!