THE BILLIONAIRE SPACE RACE: WHAT PRICE EXPLORATION?

Fifty-two summers after America put the first men

on the moon, in 2021 a “space race” again captivated the nation. This one generated not the unity the events of 1969 did, but a variety of views that conjured up longstanding questions about equity and

privilege when juxtaposed against the lure of adventure in space. Our reactions reflected that, ranging from the innately practical, through middle range theories, to the spiritual.

This race involved privately funded space forays that to some seemed like joyrides for the rich.  On

July 11, English entrepreneur Richard Branson flew on his company’s Virgin Galactic spaceplane above the 50-mile altitude the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) recognizes as the beginning of space. 

Nine days later, the anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing, Amazon chairman Jeff Bezos and three

others used his company’s Blue Origin rocket  and spacecraft for a ten-minute suborbital flight to an altitude of 66 miles. Bezos and his crew essentially mimicked NASA’s 1961 suborbital missions by Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom, America’s first men in space.

      

Woodson: First, Pay Your Fair Share of Taxes

Jeff Bezos’s space explorations don’t excite me. I 

view this as I view dead beat dads who drive expensive vehicles but don’t make child support payments.

According to ProPublica, a nonprofit news organization that investigates abuses of power, Bezos’s wealth exploded by $3.8 billion in 2007.  In that year and in 2011, he paid no federal income taxes. Between 2006 and 2018, his wealth increased by $127 billion and he paid a .98 per cent tax rate. During the same period, the median household in the United States earned $70,000 per year and paid a 14 per cent tax rate.

Following his flight, Bezos made unintelligible comments about Americans one day traveling into space when the earth becomes unlivable. A seat on that first flight went to the highest bidder at $28 million. That seems out of reach for most Americans.

Bezos said later, “I want to thank every Amazon employee and every Amazon customer because you guys paid for all this.” Mr. Bezos, Americans paid for “all this.” We held the country together with our tax dollars while you withheld yours for your private project.

Robert Reich, President Clinton’s first labor secretary, responded, “Amazon workers don’t need Bezos to thank them. They need him to stop union busting – and pay them what they deserve.”

Bezos should pay his fair share of taxes and let the American people decide when they want to spend money on space exploration. We need him to help the rest of us strengthen our social safety net, save the planet from greenhouse gases, and rebuild our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools.       

Rob:  A Mixed Bag

Few Americans cared more about space exploration than I did during the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo days. I rose at the crack of dawn for launches, missed school a few times, and could name every

astronaut in NASA’s first four groups. I was into it. I still am. I believe space exploration benefits humankind in general and the United States in particular through technological advancement, national security, and scientific progress.

Space exploration, manned and unmanned, can help us address problems like climate change, energy inefficiency, and manufacturing processes. I do not, therefore, condemn the efforts of billionaires as they vie for a role in space exploration.  As one commentator pointed out after the Bezos flight, many things we take for granted began with a wealthy person experimenting with something that seemed far-fetched and just another pleasure for the idle rich. SCHEDULED commercial air service? Nah, that’ll never work.  

Having said that, I’m not unsympathetic to the arguments of the critics, including my brother Walker. Both those who contend billionaires should spend their resources on other things (like higher

wages for their employees) and those who argue space exploration is a job for government have a point. I thought about that as I watched Bezos take off. But, it was still fun. I’m a sucker for rocket launches. Always have been. Always will be.      

Henry:  Discovery

I don’t find billionaires investing in space exploration difficult. It’s not my focus in this post. I agree with Woodson’s sentiment and  hope those moneyed interests will use their funds to invest in space exploration and in practical and immediate efforts that benefit humankind. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. The issue reminds me of the love I have had, and still have, for flight and space exploration.

As a kid I collected model airplanes and subscribed to every publication I could on flight and space. My

junior high career book detailed a career in the Air Force as a test pilot and space explorer. I sought appointment to the Air Force Academy to further that dream, but my senators weren’t ready.

Today, my cell phone contains Skyview, NASA, Skywalk, and Satellite Tracker apps. I may have

cared more about space exploration than Rob during the early days. I agree with him on the benefits of space exploration. An aspect of the human spirit demands this stretch of the imagination and investigation of the difficult and

seemingly impossible. My longing tugs at philosophical and spiritual components. That we still reach for the stars strengthens my faith in our ability to carve a path toward our destiny. We are a part of all that space contains.

              If in a twinkle lies eternity

               and all we discover is known

               all encompassing must be the Power

               to hold us and time for so long

 

                If I am stretched from boundary to boundary

                and yet can be reduced to less than a single atom

                where lies that in between for all 

                and rushes forth for each of us to complete

 

                If we are but a single thought

                strung throughout Eternity

                of what wonderful thread

                to form us are we sewn 

IMPEACHMENT: LET US COUNT THE WAYS

If, as appears increasingly likely, the House of Representatives moves forward with impeaching President Donald Trump, lawmakers will find themselves working in a target-rich environment. Trump has committed so many wrongs, we should expect several articles of impeachment. Most recent attention has focused on Trump’s July phone call to Ukraine  President Volodymyr Zelevksy, in which Trump reportedly pressured Zelevsky about investigating former Vice President and potential 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and Biden’s son, Hunter, who served on the board of a Ukrainian company. That’s the tip of the iceberg.

We’d remind everyone of the ten likely acts of obstruction of justice outlined in Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller’s report. Oh, and

don't forget the federal campaign fiance issue rasied by hush money payments that apparently bought the silence of two women, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal,concern-

ing affairs they had with Trump before the 2016 election. His former attorney, Michael Cohen, remains in federal prison for his role in that. Trump was named as an unindicted co-conspirator and might also be in prison except for the policy against

prosecuting a sitting president. Today, however, we’ll focus on Trump’s financial transgressions, the ones from which he directly or indirectly profits as a result of being president.

         

Emoluments

Article I, section 9, clause 8 of the United States constitution provides:

“…no person holding any office of profit or trust […] shall without the consent of the Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince, or foreign state.”

                       

This obscure, somewhat awkwardly written section – the emoluments clause – essentially means presidents can’t profit from being president through gifts or financial benefits received from foreign actors. In numerous ways, Trump has flaunted that provision.

The G-7 Suggestion

In late August, at the end of this year’s G-7 meetings in France, Trump suggested holding next year’s G-7 meeting at his Trump Doral resort in Florida. He promoted the location (“near the airport” Trump claimed), the “luxurious rooms,” and the spacious bungalows. He raised the point in a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

         

Others didn’t think much of the idea. Jordan Libowitz, communications director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, called holding such a gathering at Trump’s resort, “a free, giant international promotion” for Trump’s business interests. It also sounds like an emoluments clause violation, since those foreign governments would spend all that money on rooms, food, and whatever else at Trump’s place. He didn’t offer Doral free of charge. 

Trump International Hotel -- Washington

Unlike most presidents who put their business interests in a blind trust or divest them  altogether upon taking office, Trump maintains his real estate and other holdings,

including Trump International Hotel in Washington. The Washington Post reports that hotel generated $80 million for the Trump organization since he took office, one tenth of the company’s revenues. Hotel officials claim they donate to charity all profits realized from foreign visitors. Still, Trump International remains a major attraction for officials of foreign governments. Whether the hotel constitutes a real violation of the emoluments clause, it doesn’t pass the smell test.

Vice President Pence

It’s not just foreigners who’re benefitting Trump. On a recent trip to Ireland, the

Vice President's business took him to Dublin, where he met with leaders of the Irish government. So, where did Pence stay? At Trump’s National Resort in Doonbeg, 180 miles away. Pence said Trump “suggested” he stay there, then claimed the reason was the “footprint” of

his security detail and staff.  Who paid the $600, 000 in ground transpor-tation costs? U.S. taxpayers, of course.  Who profited from the hotel stays? Trump, that’s who.

Air Force Stopovers

Several U.S. news outlets reported earlier this month that in September 2018, a unit of the Maine Air National Guard stopped at Prestwick, a small commercial airport near Trump’s Turnberry resort in Scotland.  An Air Force C-17 crew also stopped there on a trip to Kuwait. The U.S. Air Force has had a contract at that airport for refueling since 2015, but crews staffing those flights made their overnight stays at other area hotels. Only since Trump became president have U.S. military crews stayed at Trump’s property. An investigation is underway by the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee.

In fairness, we must acknowledge some confusion exists about the meaning of the emoluments clause. What’s a violation? Who has standing to sue? The issue hasn’t been litigated, mostly because no president has ever done what Trump has done – retain a vast business enterprise that offers services in just the kinds of things that encourage patronizing of those services by those seeking the president’s favor. Foreign governments wanting influence over U.S. foreign policy, lobbyists seeking government contracts or presidential support for or against legislation, and American government officials looking for favorable treatment of their agencies by the White House all have an incentive for currying favor with this president by patronizing his hotels and resorts.

Cases are now working their way through the lower federal courts, so perhaps we’ll soon have a reading on how the judiciary views the emolu- ments clause. If we’re lucky, those cases will become moot soon because Trump has left office.  We can only hope.