Our greatest strength is in allowing for market forces to drive research, anyhow, hence how the US had scientific advantages in the Cold War.

Um. Yeah. Never mind those trillions of dollars the government fed to NASA, the military, university grants, and on and on.

Just gotta love that “free market über alles” thing. Hm, let’s try deregulating the savings and loans, or the financial industry…. Bet that’ll work out fine.

You say it will create jobs; but just how many? I will wager about three. How this is stimulus for our country I am still putting two and two together.

You’re looking at this in a very limited sense. Suppose that such funding creates only 3 astronomer positions (or protects three existing ones from being eliminated). Those three scientists can then hire grad students and lab techs, so there’s a couple more jobs. They need equipment (e.g., computers, software, etc.) so there’s money for the companies making those items, meaning more money for jobs building computers and programming software. Those companies also need to buy parts, so the parts manufacturers can keep or hire people. That’s another couple jobs.

Now, the jobs created or saved (scientists, grad students, lab techs, programmers, computer assemblers, parts manufacturers, and so on) lead to more money in the hands of individuals to spend on stuff. Their spending in turn means that other people keep or find jobs.

So that astronomy funding actually creates or saves more jobs than just 3 astronomers. Look at the bigger picture.

With arguments so unbelievably irrefutable as “best”, “people love…”, and “[it's] important”, it’s a wonder you didn’t study public policy, or the fine art of saying nothing.

Let’s be extra clear: Astronomy does not need to be publicly funded. Private donations work just as well, and are not nearly as economically and democratically immoral. Tax money is not intended for scientific research. Saying such doesn’t make anyone “anti-science”, it makes him someone who has read history and the Constitution, and understands trade offs.

But using your line of thinking: you want tax money to pay for astronomy research, fine. But every dollar to astronomy is a dollar that could’ve brought us closer to a cure for cancer. So every dollar spent in your field is a dollar that could’ve saved a life. So, if you are pro-science, you are anti-saving the lives of children. Oh, and did I mention they are adorable children? Try to sleep at night now, you monster.

Then again, maybe the free market and free people could handle funding scientific research. Astronomy funding came on-line during the Cold War, not because of any curiosity on the part of benefiting mankind’s understanding of the universe, or whatever. With then end of the Cold War, we have no incentive to compete in every scientific field. Our greatest strength is in allowing for market forces to drive research, anyhow, hence how the US had scientific advantages in the Cold War.

John McCain ain’t coming to your telescope opining about your job, but as a public official, you can criticize him. Because his job is public. But his job is not to serve the public, his job is to serve the law. Just because people want something, doesn’t mean they should get it, baby.