We're not against Tibet
October 16, 2009 | 09:04 AM

Sally, you have misunderstood the criticism. The "howler" is the notion that all we need to do to free Tibet is to spend $300 million a month on it. What's that going to do? It's not about money.

The main problem with Mr. Parson's column, however, is that he sets up a false dichotomy: that somehow we have to choose between solving all the world's problems or exploring outer space. This is false in two ways. First, it is not clear that we even can solve all the world's problems, no matter what we do or how much money we throw at them. Second, there is no reason we can't invest in both at the same time. That's how it works in the real world. Think about your family budget. Most of your money goes toward immediate needs: food, clothing, shelter, transportation. But you put some aside for the future: the kid's college fund, your retirement, saving up to buy a house. You also spend a little on things that are just for fun: movies, cable TV, going out to eat.

The United States spends the great majority of its budget on immediate needs: defense, Social Security, debt service. But a tiny fraction goes for everything from NASA to the National Endowment for the Arts. Even if you zeroed out NASA, the NEA, and all other discretionary spending, it would only make a small difference to what you're able to do on the big ticket items. That's because we spend so little, relatively speaking, on those things to start with. NASA's budget is only about 0.5% of the total federal budget. You may think even that little is not worth the investment, but I see it as a small investment in the future.

Bill Hensley