Help Shape the Future of Space Exploration

Join The Planetary Society Now  arrow.png

Join our eNewsletter for updates & action alerts

    Please leave this field empty
Blogs

Jason Callahan

The Competition for Dollars

What is NASA's main competition for funding within the federal budget? It's not what you think.

Posted by Jason Callahan

27-08-2014 1:20 CDT

Topics: Explaining Policy, history, Space Policy

This is the first in a series of posts that will examine NASA and its science budget within a historical context. Jason Callahan will explore what NASA delivers for for the (relatively) small amount of money that it spends, what challenges it faces in securing funding for the future, and how planetary science has fared when it has received robust funding in the past. I hope you enjoy it. --Casey Dreier, Director of Advocacy

Curiosity launches on an Atlas V

Pat Corkery / United Launch Alliance

No Bucks, No Buck Rogers
A launch (in this case, of the Curiosity rover in 2012) is the culmination of years of work on behalf of scientists and engineers, requiring steady funding and support by NASA and the government. Without steady funding, missions suffer.

One of the most common misperceptions about NASA is the amount of money the U.S. government spends on the agency. NASA competes for funding with all of the various entities that make up the federal government, but the agency is now confronting larger economic trends over which the space community has little control.

It’s worth looking into this topic a bit to help understand just what we have received for our investment in NASA over the past fifty years, and why we should continue to invest in space science. In this series of posts, I hope to do so in a way that clearly explains NASA’s position in the federal government and the U.S. economy, and hopefully shed some light on the nature of the budget challenges facing planetary science today.

This installment is divided into two sections: 1) a brief primer on the U.S. economy and the federal budget since NASA’s formation, and 2) NASA’s (and the space science community’s) challenges in the context of changes in the federal budget environment.

The Federal Budget Since NASA’s Formation, in a Nutshell

So, what is the U.S. economy, and just how big is it? For those of you who remember your high school civics classes well, please bear with me.

The economy is the marketplace in which all forms of production (from manufacturing to services to knowledge) are distributed, traded, and consumed, which is a very abstract concept. I’m sure there will be several economists out there slapping their foreheads at this overly simplistic statement, but the economy basically represents all of the ways people do business with each other. The most common way to measure the economy is by calculating the gross domestic product, or GDP. This is essentially (and again, apologies to the economists) a measure of the value of all the goods and services produced in a year. So, looking at the U.S. GDP since the formation of NASA gives us a good idea of the size of the U.S. economy and how it has changed.

United States GDP, Federal Outlays, Federal Debt, and Federal Receipts, 1959-2010

Jason Callahan

United States GDP, Federal Outlays, Federal Debt, and Federal Receipts, 1959-2010
In millions. Adjusted to constant 2010 dollars.

The purple line in the above plot shows that U.S. GDP has grown from just under $4 trillion in 1959 to a little over $14 trillion in 2010. So, the U.S. economy is now three and a half times as large as it was fifty years ago. Many factors account for such rapid growth, including our increasing population, the vast increase in international trade, and the high value placed on U.S. goods and services.

One of the fundamental functions of the federal government is the allocation of resources for public purposes, and most of those resources involve money. This means that whether the government is providing our Social Security payments, helping to fund our schools and universities, or maintaining our military, money is required. We fund the federal government primarily through taxes, measured as receipts, and the government spends those funds on various services, measured as outlays. The green line represents federal outlays, or expenditures, over the last fifty years, while the black line represents receipts, or money coming in to the federal government. Government spending has increased from just under $1 trillion in 1959 to approximately $3.5 trillion in 2010, so the federal government has grown at roughly the same rate as the U.S. economy since 1959.

That is not, unfortunately, the whole story. When we look at the relationship between the economy and federal receipts (the purple and black lines), there is a fairly strong correlation: when the economy grows, so do tax revenues; when the economy shrinks, so do tax revenues (though not always at the same rates).

But when we look at the U.S. economy as it relates to federal spending in the last thirty years (the purple and green lines), there is little correlation between GDP and spending. In times of recession, federal spending goes up. In times of expansion, federal spending goes up.

This leads us to one other trend that places increasing pressure on federal resources: debt. Federal debt is money borrowed by the U.S. government to pay for expenditures exceeding the amount of money raised (primarily) through taxes. Beginning in the late 1970s, government spending exceeded income consistently, and the federal debt grew at a rate matching—and often outpacing—the rate of increase of GDP. The result of this expanding debt is an increasing cost to the federal government each year to pay just the interest on the debt, without bringing down the principal. The cost of the interest on U.S. federal debt in 2010 was $414 billion. I have no desire here to wade into the politics of the debt, I only want to highlight the increasing impact it has on the competition for federal dollars.

Not All Spending is Equal: Discretionary vs. Mandatory

The federal budget can be broken into two categories: mandatory spending and discretionary spending.

  • Mandatory spending is money spent without annual approval by Congress. Major social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare programs are examples of mandatory spending, and the yearly costs of these programs will grow or shrink  according to the demands placed on them. Spending on these programs can only be modified by an act of Congress—a major political undertaking in most cases. Think of the so-called “third rail” of Social Security reform in American politics. Very few politicians will touch it for fear of losing their jobs.
  • Discretionary spending is what most people think of when they think about government spending: defense, education, energy, commerce, justice, agriculture, transportation, health and human services, and NASA (among many others). Funding for of these programs require annual review and approval by Congress. The largest expenditure in the discretionary budget by far is for defense, and it’s common to see budget numbers broken down even further into defense and non-defense discretionary spending.
United States Federal Spending, 1962 - 2010

Jason Callahan

United States Federal Spending, 1962 - 2010
In millions. Adjust to constant 2010 dollars.

The above plot shows total federal expenditures since 1962 in green and total discretionary expenditures in olive. The space between the green and olive lines represents the sum of all mandatory spending programs mentioned earlier. Non-defense discretionary spending is represented by the orange line, so the space between the olive and orange lines indicates defense spending. Note the large difference between total U.S. spending in green and the total non-defense discretionary spending in orange. The vast majority of spending in the United States goes towards these mandatory programs and defense.

Defense spending has increased from about $400 billion in 1962 (or approximately half of the federal budget at the time) to roughly $800 billion in 2010 (accounting for just under a quarter of the federal budget now). Non-defense discretionary spending was about $100 billion in 1962 and $700 billion in 2010, growing from 13 percent to 20 percent of the federal budget. Mandatory spending was about $250 billion in 1962 and roughly $2 trillion in 2010 and now accounts for approximately 60 percent of the federal budget, up from a little over 30 percent in 1962. This growth in mandatory spending accounts for the lion’s share of growth in federal spending.

NASA Is Discretionary and Competes Every Year for Funding

The final plot shows NASA’s budget line in comparison to the non-defense discretionary budget (the one that Congress approves every year). You may have to squint.

United States Discretionary Spending and NASA

Jason Callahan

United States Discretionary Spending and NASA
Discretionary spending is what Congress approves each year. All numbers in millions. Adjusted to constant 2010 dollars.

NASA has averaged between two and 2 ½ percent of the discretionary budget, and roughly 6 ½ percent of the non-defense discretionary budget since the early 1960s. But looking at NASA since the end of the Apollo program, it has averaged less than five percent of non-defense discretionary spending. At the peak of the Apollo program, NASA’s budget accounted for 4 ½ percent of the entire federal budget, but since the mid-1970s, the agency represents less than one half of one percent of all federal expenditures.

NASA has always competed for funds with all of the other entities of the federal government, but as we have seen in the figures above, the agency faces growing, long-term economic trends over which the space community has little control. As mentioned above, in 2010, the interest on the federal debt amounted to $414 billion, roughly twenty three times the NASA budget that year. This is not to suggest that the United States would spend more on NASA if it carried less debt, but it shows that an increasing debt load places a significant burden on limited resources. The United States also faces mandatory spending requirements that are increasing far faster than the growth of the federal budget, leaving the discretionary budget as the only place to find funds. Given the combined pressures of increasing federal debt and mandatory spending, it’s clear that NASA has not had to compete for funds within a budgetary environment quite like this before.

But don’t despair! In my next post, I’ll discuss the unique value of NASA and its planetary science activities, how they contribute to the U.S. economy, and why I think the people in the U.S. planetary science community are the best selling point for taxpayer investment in space science.

Part 2: The Rise and Fall (and Rise and Fall) of Planetary Science Funding >>

 
See other posts from August 2014

 

Or read more blog entries about: Explaining Policy, history, Space Policy

Comments:

Arbitrary: 08/27/2014 03:20 CDT

The text might need proof reading concerning what is millions and what is billions. US government economic outlook is very grim. The dollar will not remain the world currency for ever, it is a relic from 1944 when the US dominated the world economy. And when the FED can't just print trillions of USD out of nothing and find international demand for it, interest rates will increase to about 8% or so which balances savings with borrowing. That will not only multiply interest cost several times over, it will erase what many today believe is real values, such as savings and house prices.

Casey Dreier: 08/27/2014 11:27 CDT

Arbitrary: We've fixed the errant use of "millions," thanks for catching that.

Basti: 08/27/2014 12:20 CDT

oh great another doomsday prophet. Please not here. This is a scientific community. These comments have no place here. Take them somewhere else. Thank you.

Arbitrary: 08/27/2014 12:36 CDT

@Basti Why do you think that the global standard of reserve currency changes? Why did the USD replace the GBP, for example? Without a basis of demand for a currency, it will be terminated as a global reserve currency. And all borrowing is simultaneously saved by someone else (or a temporary illusion of imaginary wealth), and the FED will not be able to borrow the rest of the world's savings for ever. This is all completely logical and scientific. What will happen when the interest rate costs is more than half of the federal budget, in order to balance American's savings with American's borrowing? Writing off the debt, the other side of which is most of all US pension funds? NASA and NSF were the first things which were shut down during the sequester. In a few years NASA will exist no more.

Shaen: 08/27/2014 01:28 CDT

Thanks for this series! Like other readers, I often come to the Planetary Society blog for a reprieve from politics and negative news in general. However, I am also very serious about supporting space exploration, so I want to understand how the federal budget impacts progress. Thanks again.

Jason Callahan: 08/28/2014 02:32 CDT

@Shaen - Thanks for your interest! I recognize that this can be a dull topic, so thank you for reading. I too wish that politics played no role in space exploration, and I totally understand your exhaustion with the news. That said, keep in mind that an email to your congressional representatives every now and again is a powerful thing. :) I hope you enjoy the rest of the series, I hope you stay engaged, and thanks for the support!

Michael Mackowski: 08/28/2014 11:06 CDT

Very good, clear explanation. NASA funding story is not simple.

Handee: 09/03/2014 05:26 CDT

If Hubble's plot is correct, Gross Federal Debt is expanding faster than the distant universe

Handee: 09/15/2014 04:58 CDT

From The Economist Jan 14 2014 What is quantitative easing? To carry out QE central banks create money by buying securities, such as government bonds, from banks, with electronic money that did not exist before. Several rounds of QE in America have increased the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet - the value of the assets it holds - from less than 1 trillion dollars in 2007, to more than 4 trillion now. Why can't the Planetary Society not advocate to use some of that "electronic money that did not exist before" to fund space exploration? Here is my pitch Move the "electronic money that did not exist before" to Mars. The difference between a day and a sol allows time to solve the debt crises. The Deep Space Network would have the keys to the safe, and JPL would be running the Federal Reserve. "Halleluoooooooo-jah" Lenard Cohen

Handee: 09/22/2014 07:56 CDT

If we are going to keep up with the Kardashev's we need science, technology, engineering and money.

Handee: 09/22/2014 08:32 CDT

Astroeconology

Handee: 10/24/2014 07:15 CDT

With time, space, and electronic money that did not exist before, Maxwell's equations can be used to balance the budget. A day at a time

Leave a Comment:

You must be logged in to submit a comment. Log in now.
Facebook Twitter Email RSS AddThis

Blog Search

JOIN THE
PLANETARY SOCIETY

Our Curiosity Knows No Bounds!

Become a member of The Planetary Society and together we will create the future of space exploration.

Join Us

Featured Images

SpaceX autonomous spaceport drone ship

Falcon 9 deployable landing fins
Kepler-22b: Closer to Finding an Earth
LBN 438
More Images

Featured Video

View Larger »

Space in Images

Pretty pictures and
awe-inspiring science.

See More

Join the New Millennium Committee

Let’s invent the future together!

Become a Member

Connect With Us

Facebook! Twitter! Google+ and more…
Continue the conversation with our online community!