|
|
THE LIGHTHOUSE
"Enlightening Ideas for Public Policy..."
Vol. 6, Issue 8
February 23, 2004
Welcome to THE LIGHTHOUSE, the weekly e-mail newsletter of the
Independent Institute, the non-politicized public-policy research
organization. Edited by Carl P. Close, THE LIGHTHOUSE provides you
with updates of the Institute's current research, publications,
events and media programs, plus commentary on current affairs.
-------------------------------------------------------------
IN THIS WEEK'S ISSUE:
1. Will New Federal Space Program Kill Private Space Industry?
2. Iraqi Security Forces Take More Hits as U.S. Forces Retreat
3. Boycott, Don't Ban, Trashy TV
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILL NEW FEDERAL SPACE PROGRAM KILL PRIVATE SPACE INDUSTRY?
In his call for a re-invigorated federal space program last month,
President Bush overlooked an important, worthwhile trend that his
program could endanger: the growth of the private space industry.
Companies such as XCOR Aerospace, Scaled Composites, and SpaceX are
two years away from launching vehicles into space, but a revitalized
government program could make it much harder for them to raise
capital and to earn profits.
A larger federal space program also poses a significant risk to
taxpayers. For decades the National Aeronautic and Space
Administration has been plagued with gargantuan cost overruns, making
it one of the most wasteful agencies in government, according to
Frederick Giarrusso, research fellow at the Independent Institute and
founder of Rotary Rocket, a company instrumental in creating the
current generation of private space entrepreneurs.
"Since the mid-1970s NASA has tried in vain to create a series of
goals and missions that would rekindle the spirit of the early days,"
writes Giarrusso in a new op-ed. "Each attempt has failed."
"Consider the international space station (ISS): it was budgeted to
take 8 years and less than $20 billion, but ended up requiring 20
years and over $100 billion -- and has not accomplished any of its
goals. ISS was slated to house 7 people: 3 crew and 4 researchers.
Instead it houses 3 crew only -- with occasional research performed
when crew members can find the time. It is a testament to how far
NASA has fallen that this blatant failure is cited as one of their
greatest recent achievements."
The private space industry, of course, does more with less. "These
companies expect to dramatically reduce the cost of launching people
and equipment into space -- from NASA's $500+ million per shuttle
flight, to as little as $500,000 per flight." Also, many are
competing to win a $10 million prize -- the "X Prize" -- offered to
"the first company to make it to space without using government
funds." Such a princely sum would be chump change to NASA.
If President Bush wants to help the private space industry flourish,
Giarrusso has three suggestions for him. First, Bush should state
loudly and repeatedly that his goal is to encourage private
companies, not to drive them out of business. Second, he should work
to end the regulatory barriers by the Federal Aviation Administration
that inhibit private space entrepreneurship. Third, he should work to
create tax incentives that would encourage private investment in
space exploration.
"Note that private taxpayers need not spend a dime on this new
endeavor," Giarrusso writes. "Indeed, federal space spending could be
radically cut; our great capitalist system is already picking up the
tab."
See "Our Future in Space," by Frederick Giarrusso (2/17/04)
http://www.independent.org/tii/news/040217Giarrusso.html
For a critique of government funding of scientific research, see
chapters 6, 8, and 9 of the Independent Institute book, THE ACADEMY
IN CRISIS: The Political Economy of Higher Education, ed. by John W.
Sommer.
http://www.independent.org/tii/catalog/cat_academy.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
IRAQI SECURITY FORCES TAKE MORE HITS AS U.S. FORCES RETREAT
The official word about the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq -- that
insurgent attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq have dropped by more than
half of their November peak -- is highly misleading. It suggests that
the insurgency is dwindling, when in fact it is increasingly
targeting Iraqi's emerging, U.S.-supported security forces.
"The major reason that fighting between the U.S. military and the
insurgents has declined is that the American forces have vacated the
field of battle," writes Ivan Eland, director of the Independent
Institute's Center on Peace & Liberty, in his latest op-ed.
U.S. forces have removed themselves from harm's way because, as the
Vietnam War demonstrated, U.S. casualties are bad politics during
election years, Eland argues. Consequently, the ill-equipped,
ill-trained Iraqi security forces have, in recent weeks, suffered
suicide bombings that killed 125 people as well as a bloody jailbreak
that freed insurgent prisoners.
Concludes Eland: "So although the Bush administration's policy may be
achieving its primary goal -- avoiding a sharp escalation in the U.S.
body count before November -- the voting public should not mistakenly
conclude that the United States is winning this war. A reckless Bush
administration -- like the Johnson and Nixon administrations during
the Vietnam War -- has stumbled into a war that it can neither win
nor escape from gracefully."
"Body Count Redux," by Ivan Eland (2/18/04)
http://www.independent.org/tii/news/040218Eland.html
Center on Peace & Liberty
http://www.independent.org/tii/tii_info/centerpeaceliberty.html
War on Terrorism
http://www.independent.org/tii/news/010915Terrorist.html
OnPower.org -- Terrorist War
http://www.onpower.org/history_terrorist.html
PUTTING "DEFENSE" BACK INTO U.S. DEFENSE POLICY: Rethinking U.S.
Security in the Post-Cold War World, by Ivan Eland
http://www.independent.org/tii/catalog/cat_putting_defense.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
BOYCOTT, DON'T BAN, TRASHY TV
If it is passed, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004 --
Congress's response to trash TV and revolting radio -- could have a
chilling effect on the content of the public airwaves.
Maximum penalties for transmitting obscene, indecent, and profane
language would jump ten-fold for single incidents ($275,000) and
climb to $3 million for repeat violations -- small change for the
networks, perhaps, but exorbitant fines for independent television
and radio stations.
Indeed, the enforcement of federal "decency" standards has already
taken a toll on free speech. For example, in 2001, a noncommercial
community radio station in Oregon was fined $7,000 for playing a
feminist rap song that included profanity. Although the fine was
later rescinded, the investigation was closed to the public and took
two long years -- long enough to give independent small broadcasters
pause to reconsider playing anything edgy -- reports Independent
Institute Research Fellow Wendy McElroy in her latest column for
FoxNews.com.
More recently, NBC television decided to delete "the image of an
elderly woman's breast from its popular medical drama, 'ER'" --
hardly the stuff of Super Bowl halftime entertainment, but different
enough to cause the network to reconsider.
If viewers are offended by less-than-traditional offerings on the
airwaves, they should turn not to government penalties but to their
own power as consumers, McElroy argues.
"Those concerned with the moral content of radio and television,"
writes McElroy, "are being provided with more control every day:
rating systems, live-feed delays, constant polls that serve as
feedback to broadcasters, organized boycotts, and tools of parental
control such as cable locks or decoders. Passing a law has the same
appeal as drawing a gun: on the surface, it quickly stops an activity
that annoys you. But drawing a gun does not solve cultural issues: it
only introduces force into them."
See "Censorship Is Not Solution for Trashy TV," by Wendy McElroy (2/18,04)
http://www.independent.org/tii/news/040218McElroy.html
Also see:
"Keep the FCC Out of the Halftime Show," by Anthony Gregory (2/6/04)
http://www.independent.org/tii/news/040206Gregory.html
For more on FCC regulations, see "Rent Seeking Never Stops: An Essay
on Telecommunications Policy," by James A. Montanye (THE INDEPENDENT
REVIEW, Fall 1996)
http://www.independent.org/tii/content/pubs/review/tir12_montanye.html
For a theory of free speech, see "Freedom of Speech: Constitutional
Protection Reconsidered," by James A. Montanye (THE INDEPENDENT
REVIEW, Winter 1999)
http://www.independent.org/tii/content/pubs/review/tir33_montanye.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
THE LIGHTHOUSE, edited by Carl P. Close, is made possible by the
generous contributions of supporters of the Independent Institute. If
you enjoy THE LIGHTHOUSE, please consider making a donation to the
Independent Institute. For details on the Independent Associate
Membership program, see
http://www.independent.org/tii/tii_info/associate.html or contact us
by phone at 510-632-1366, e-mail at
info@independent.org, or snail
mail to: The Independent Institute, 100 Swan Way, Oakland, CA
94621-1428. All contributions are tax-deductible. Thank you!
-------------------------------------------------------------
For previous issues of THE LIGHTHOUSE, see
http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/Lighthouse.html.
-------------------------------------------------------------
For information on books and other publications from The Independent
Institute, see
http://www.independent.org/tii/pubs.html.
-------------------------------------------------------------
For information on The Independent Institute's upcoming Independent
Policy Forums, see
http://www.independent.org/tii/forums/events.html.
-------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe (or unsubscribe) to The Lighthouse, please go to
http://www.independent.org/subscribe.html, choose "subscribe" (or
"unsubscribe"), enter your e-mail address and select "Go."
-------------------------------------------------------------
THE LIGHTHOUSE
ISSN 1526-173X
Copyright © 2004 The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way
Oakland, CA 94621-1428
(510) 632-1366 phone
(510) 568-6040 fax
--
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
|
