Now with a second Shuttle disaster, the blame game has started and the recriminations have begun. Even on the SDMB, threads are bursting out addressing related issues, including whether we should continue to fund the Shuttle program, even whether NASA should exist at all.
I would like to limit this thread to just the blame game. Should an individual and/or group be held accountable for the disaster, or shall we just dump it all into the “society’s fault” pot?
I think not. I believe that there is plenty of “blame” to go around, to be laid on the doorsteps of individuals and groups of individuas alike. Whle it may be hard to quantify details - this isn’t a perfect world - I believe their is sufficient evidence available by just scratching the surface.
To wit (in no particular order):
-
Sean O’Keefe as the 10th Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Immediately prior to his appointment by Bush, O’Keefe served as the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget and Deputy Assistant to the President, overseeing the preparation, management and administration of the Federal budget and government wide-management initiatives across the Executive Branch. In short, O’Keefe was in charge of the NASA budget-cutting axe.
-
The President (Bush & Clinton) – NASA has more work controlled by contractors than any other federal agency, according to Mark Roth, general counsel of the American Federation of Government Employees. This was started by Clinton in 1996 and continued by Bush. NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel was gutted by Bush just before they were to issue a report criticizing the Administration and the budget cuts. (NBC Nightly News - no cite).
-
Congress - Congress is famous for nitpicking budget items. If an agency requests $1 million for a program, rather than demand details as to the needs for the program, Congress regularly skims off the top. So that $1 million request now becomes $800,000.
-
Agency Heads - But the agency heads, fearing that it could be worse if they lost the total amount, attempt to make do with what they are given. The agency experts are not made part of the decision loop. Instead they are told to build it/maintain it with the $800,000 given and not the $1 million requested.
At the end of the day, the nitpicks are there not be be fiscally responsible but sleight-of-hand techniques to fool the taxpayers their monies are going where needed in efficient ways. The reality is that the taxes are skimmed and changed by the President (through the OMB), changed by Congress and changed by agency heads, all for political appeasement.
Could the Columbia tragedy have been averted had NASA not been forced to make do with limited funds? We may never know.
We can make something as safe as possible only if there is sufficient funding to do so. And if it cannot pass muster, then don’t go through with the program. Scrap it, and tell the taxpayers why the $800,000 is enough. Even then, total protection against risk and catastrophic accidents is not possible.
Unfortunately, the entire budget food chain is coated with CYA grease. Since we are now back under trickle down economic theory, this means one must start at the top.