Because the alternatives aren’t looking any better:

WASHINGTON D.C. The House Appropriations Subcommittee on NASA Oversight, in another effort to reduce the NASA budget, passed a resolution today to downsize the solar system. According to an unnamed congressional staffer, House Republicans felt there has been “too much redundancy in the solar system: and that streamlining the 4.5 billion year old planetary system is long overdue. Such action would give NASA fewer places to go and this would allow the agency to carry out its space exploration goals within the funding profile that the House proposed recently.

“Look, we have three terrestrial planets” said Congressman Hugh C. Doothatt (Rep., OH), “and only one of them really works! So why not get rid of the other two and clean up the neighborhood?”
Most subcommittee members felt that, while downsizing was definitely in the cards, eliminating both Mars and Venus was going too far. “We have too many international commitments to Mars”, said Rush N. Hater (Rep., AZ.). “So I think we should keep Mars and dump Venus. It’s too hot to live on, and liberal Democrats keep using it as an example of what global warming can do. So, from a political and practical point of view, Venus has got to go.”

Also at risk is the planet Mercury, which lacks support because of its small size and poor visibility from Earth. “Who needs it?” asked Rep. Newt Onian (Rep., LA). “Have you ever seen it? We just don’t need useless planets. And speaking of useless planets, what about the asteroids? If you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all. So I say we ought to get rid of the little boogers once and for all.”

However, the downsizing recommendations do not stop with the terrestrial planets. The resolution also calls for a reduction in the number of gas giants which contain most of the planetary mass in the solar system. Most subcommittee members favor retaining Jupiter and Saturn, and eliminating Uranus and Neptune. “Jupiter employs the most molecules, and Saturn has those pretty little rings everyone likes,” said Rep. Conn Mann (Rep., FL). On the other hand Uranus is a bore and its rings are dirty. And Neptune, for god’s sake, is just too far away. So be gone with those ugly bruisers.”

But, the influential Michele Batchick from Minnesota has publicly announced she will fight to eliminate Saturn. Batshick is especially miffed by NASA’s success thus far in keeping the Mir spacestation alive. She feels that space exploration, and science in general is a waste of taxpayer money. “If there ain’t any Mir, then there ain’t any exploration of Saturn” she exclaimed. The congresswoman also expressed concern about sending back-to-back spacecraft bearing Italian surnames to the outer planets (the Cassini and the Galileo). The subcommittee was unanimous in its views towards Pluto, which they deemed a moral misfit. “Now here’s a planet we can definitely do without.” Continued Batchick. “A few years ago, it was farthest from the sun. Now it’s not. It’s just too confusing. And now they tell me it’s really two planets instead of one. What the hell is going on here?!”

The resolution must now be presented to the entire House, where it is expected to pass easily since only a minority of Reps. have corporate donors on the affected planets. The NASA Administrator has vowed to resist any further reductions to the solar system, saying the “NASA has expended considerable effort to make the planets cheaper, faster, and better. Much of this work would be wasted if the solar system were downsized.”

Critics say, however, that reducing the number of planets will not produce the expected savings to taxpayers. Textbooks, they note, would have to be revised to reflect the new arrangement, and facilities would need to be constructed to remove the planets themselves. The resolution is also likely to draw strong opposition from religious fundamentalists who have opposed the elimination of any of the biblical planets.

Thus, the matter is far from resolved.

Washington, D.C.  – From the moment President Obama announced his pick for the soon-to-be vacant seat on the Supreme Court, both house and senate republicans convened behind closed doors to evaluate their collective position, or rather opposition, of nominee Elena Kagan.

The Anti-Kagan Talking Point Committee has since meet on four separate occasions, each time discussing various buzzwords and key phrases they could possibly use while discussing their displeasure for the president’s selection of someone that is not of their mindset and ideology while they appear on television or talk with online and print reporters. “It’s too early to unveil our current buzzword media flood strategy, but we can say that the accusations being discussed are classic republican over-reaction and hyperbole,” said Senator Mitch McConnell, “some of the old mainstays like ‘Socialist’ and ‘Marxist’ are certainly on the table.”

Anonymous sources with close ties to the Republican Party and the clandestine meetings tell Apolitucs that republicans are working their hardest to deliver a fresh take on the old school idea of stanchly protesting a Supreme Court candidate before the candidate’s inevitable approval. Such words and phrases as “Doo-Doo Head” and “Fatty McFatterson” are being mulled over by the committee, but are in no way indicative of the final set of 2 to 3 terrifying buzzwords the committee will settle on; that they are merely a few off-the-top-of-the-head suggestions in an ever growing stew of apocalyptic-level fear -mongering verbiage.

“There are no bad ideas in talking point brainstorming,” said McConnell, “just bad ideas from the people our voter base has trained us to oppose, regardless of their merit.”