Yesterday, President Obama released his budget for 2013, which includes huge cuts to NASA that would leave the agency funded at its lowest level in four years, according to the Christian Science Monitor.

In particular, the budget would cut funding for NASA’s planetary science division by 20 percent. This includes a 38.5 percent cut to Mars exploration, virtually destroying long-term flagship missions to Mars.

Obama has always boasted about his commitment to science, regarding scientific advancement as an integral part of the American identity and a crucial component of a new American century. These cuts are stupefying on several levels.

For one thing, the budget has almost no chance of making it through Congress as is. The odds of the House passing the president’s budget would only slightly improve had he called for the complete dismantling of the federal government or a free tanning booth for the Speaker’s office. It’s more of an agenda outline for the campaign. No doubt any negotiations on the budget would include talk of cutting NASA’s budget. Obama had no reason to start the negotiation with such deep cuts.

This also gives credence to the idea that cuts to NASA, and science funding in general, make any bit of difference in the larger budgetary picture. NASA funding makes up far less than 1 percent of the federal budget. Cutting the whole program, much less crippling its funding, does next to nothing to solve our serious budget problems.

As astronomer Phil Plait points out on his Bad Astronomy blog, “Reducing NASA’s budget for Mars exploration frees up 0.01 percent of the federal budget,” which is about what we spend funding 15 hours of the War on Terror. Plait continues: “For the cost of less than a single day on the War on Terror, we could have a robust and far-reaching program to explore Mars, look for signs of life on another planet, increase our overall science knowledge, and inspire a future generation of kids.”

Which leads to the larger point, a point I thought the president and I agree on: NASA funding is a great use of federal dollars. Just economically speaking, NASA funding is stimulus spending. Every rocket, every space suit, every antenna and camera and solar panel is manufactured, sold and taxed in local American communities, creating jobs, wealth and revenue.

But, most importantly, we are the first life on Earth with the capability and scientific inquisitiveness to answer the immense questions whose answers lie beyond the atmosphere. We have the unique opportunity to be the first generation to find life outside our biosphere. The answers to these questions are at our fingertips and it is our existential imperative to reach for them.

I’m a space nerd. I look at space porn-satellite images of deep space, other galaxies, planets, nebulae, etc. I have the Sombrero Galaxy as my desktop background (look it up, it’s wicked).

I grew up watching “Bill Nye the Science Guy.” I got to meet him this summer at a lecture series at Cal Tech. Nye is now the executive director of The Planetary Society, which advocates space research and the exploration of other planets.

In a Planetary Society press release, Nye explained what we have to lose if these cuts are approved. “There is no other country or agency that can do what NASA does-fly extraordinary flagship missions in deep space and land spacecraft on Mars,” Nye said. “If this budget is allowed to stand, the United States will walk away from decades of greatness in space science and exploration. But it will lose more than that. The U.S. will lose expertise, capability, and talent. The nation will lose the ability to compete in one of the few areas in which it is still the undisputed number one.”

With due respect to Mr. Biden, I may start a campaign to get Nye on the 2012 ticket. In the mean time, lovers of space, humanity and America ought contact their president and members of congress and tell them to oppose the cuts.

Dave Balson is a senior journalism major.