Anonymously contributed:
Albuquerque Journal
Thursday, January 27, 2011
By Michael Coleman
Journal Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — A budget resolution approved by the U.S. House this week would have devastating consequences for New Mexico's national laboratories, according to two New Mexico lawmakers.
The Republican-controlled House on Tuesday approved a resolution that instructs House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to prepare budget blueprint for 2011 that rolls back spending — except for the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security and Veteran Affairs — to 2008 spending levels.
That would mean a roughly 10 percent reduction for Sandia National Laboratories and an approximately 17 percent budget cut at Los Alamos National Laboratory, according to the office of Rep. Martin Heinrich, a Democrat whose district includes Sandia.
New Mexico's labs, which maintain the nation's nuclear weapons stockpiles and perform cutting-edge civilian science, receive the bulk of their funding through the National Nuclear Security Administration, a part of the Department of Energy.
Republican leaders, aiming to foster a new climate of fiscal conservatism, said the budget resolution is a starting point and can be amended. But Heinrich and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said the resolution is cause for concern in New Mexico. The federal government is operating under a so-called continuing budget resolution. It expires March 4, setting the stage for tense negotiations in the coming weeks.
"Paul Ryan and the Republican leadership are putting a marker down," Heinrich told the Journal on Wednesday. "They need to understand that if NNSA is not going to be considered security spending, what the impacts to our labs are going to be.
"Impeding the work being done at our national labs won't grow our economy and certainly won't create jobs."
Heinrich is a member of the House Armed Services Committee. He said all defense-related budget requests — including the NNSA — must pass muster with the committee and he will use his post on the panel to raise objections to potential cuts at the labs.
Ryan's office did not respond to a request for comment.
Seventy-three percent of Los Alamos National Laboratory's $2.2 billion 2011 Energy Department budget is funded by the National Nuclear Security Administration's nuclear weapons budget. At Sandia, 77 percent of its $1.5 billion Energy Department budget is weapons-related. The labs also receive money from other government agencies, and the potential effect of the budget resolution on that portion of their funding is unclear.
Los Alamos's Department of Energy budget has risen 18 percent in the last two years. Sandia's has increased 14 percent.
Bingaman told the Journal the cuts would stand in stark contrast to Obama's pledge late last year to boost lab funding to support the implementation of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia.
"This House-passed resolution would not only prevent those increases, it would make dramatic cuts to our labs," Bingaman said. "These cuts are irresponsible and could leave us vulnerable."
The resolution was approved 256-165. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., voted for the resolution, and Heinrich and Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., voted against it.
72 comments:
In addition to the 8% drop in salaries due to pension losses, 30% increase in health care premiums, virtually no raises during the last two years, a DOE policy of no raises for the next 2 years, and a GOP thrust to extend that for a period of 5 additional years.... now come the funding cuts (and the resultant RIFs).
And, yes, where did all that money go over the last copule of years at Los Alamos? The LANS executive management team all seem to be driving expensive new cars. Perhaps they know?
Hey good news.... Since the LLNL budget dropped from 2008 thru 2010, LLNL can meet these guidelines. It did lay off 1800 people or 20% of the staff.
Oh wait -- Domenici rule--, to be fair LLNL must suffer for LANL management miscues again.
Is the enemy Al Queda or LANL's stupid management.
And how did Murkowski manage to keep PNNL from joining the DOE idiot's orgy? I know, she's smarter than Domenici and Feinstein.
3+3!
Staff cuts mean separation incentives.Yeah!
Now we will wait to see how truly screwed up the laureated Chu-san can make it.
It seems to me, under Bitch Hazel, LLNL offered a 3+3 and 3 mos severance as a retirement incentive in 1994. One colleague found he could retire at 107% under PERS.
The waiting game begins. How much ya gonna pay to pry people outta here?
Otherwise its freezes and layoffs combined, who the heck is gonna do anything?
Substantially equivalent, huh, to 1994?
And, yes, where did all that money go over the last copule of years at Los Alamos? The LANS executive management team all seem to be driving expensive new cars. Perhaps they know?
January 27, 2011 8:18 PM
Of course they know. And you know too. They are corporate management and you are not. Need any further explanation? Maybe you should suck up to Brett and join the team. Think what benefits it could have for you and your family!
Ha, ha, ha.
The KGB in its prime could not have dreamed of damaging the weapons complex the way that DOE has.
This is up there with Kim Philby's neutering of MI-6, but more important.
Mikey got out just in time.
We all knew this was gonna happen.
It means RIFs at about 10% for LANL, which is not too bad really, since LANL has avoided it so far. Now if LLNL has to go through RIFs again that would be double wammy after the last one. Sandia has been safe so far but I think that is over now. I know it could be worse and we are better off than many.
Scooby keep up the good work.
Many more fun times to come.
hey jan 27 10:23PM: Thank you for the word of encouragement!
I think you're missing the point a bit. The Labs are not perceived as needed by the folks in DC, esp. the DP Labs. At best they're a jobs program for semi-retired scientists.
If you look at what they just got finished doing to the space program, you might see the future for the Labs -- going nowhere, doing nothing, but keeping the money flowing to the districts to help with re-election. They'd be happy to hire broom-pushers -- as long as the money flows.
Bottom line is this. Whatever happens to LANL should happen to LLNL about a year later if not sooner considering the cuts that are to come about across the board throughout the entire government. The problem is, none of these cuts are going to save a dime. It'll just put more people on SS and the pension plans sooner and many on unemployment whereby the 1.2 million homes that are scheduled to be foreclosed on in 2011 should rise well beyond that for 2012, 13, 14 & 15. It's all good folks. I never thought I was going to have to join the ranks of the scumbags who defaulted on their home loans but it looks like I'll be getting on that train very soon. Sad hah!
HEADLINE: Workers saw 2 percent rise in wages and benefits (AP News, Jan 28 2011)
"Wages and benefits increased 2 percent last year after a 1.4 percent increase in 2009, the Labor Department reported Friday."
~
Funny, I don't recall seeing that 2% rise in wages at the NNSA labs? Do you?
From huge funding increases to massive funding cuts -- all in less than a couple of months.
The NNSA weapon labs are becoming very unstable places to work!
Workers saw 2 percent rise in wages and benefits
(AP) – 7 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Workers saw their wages and benefits rise slightly faster in 2010 than 2009 but the gain was still the second lowest increase in nearly three decades.
The Labor Department says wages and benefits increased 2 percent last year, slightly faster than the 1.4 percent increase in 2009. However, both years were the smallest gains on Labor Department records that go back 28 years.
The modest gains reflect a severe recession which pushed millions out of work and depressed the bargaining power of those with jobs. While weak wage gains mean low inflation pressures, it also leaves households with less income to boost consumer spending.
Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Any you want to know the worst part of this? George Miller just gave an all hands talk where he showed the budget doing just fine.
He'll have to spend an hour or two revising that power point presentation. The Horror.
... you want to know the worst part of this? George Miller just gave an all hands talk where he showed the budget doing just fine.
Stuff is happening fast and furious as the tea party types first plop into D.C. Not like George was invited to their war council.
Who knows where this will end up. Maybe they'll introduce an open carry law for DOE facilities.
LLNL should be very worried about all these cuts and the reduction in federal spending over the next 5 years. Once the plutonium is removed from LLNL, DOE could close most of LLNL and transfer activities to LANL; except for NIF. The cost saving through consolidation of nuclear work might preserve critical programs and allow LANL to avoid layoffs. There is no real effort by local groups, community leader, or representatives to keep LLNL open. Of course there would be an initial cost to consolidate the labs, but this would be recovered in a few years. Anyway, these budget woes might be the straw that finally makes this happen. Be ready.
I would expect more layoffs at LLNL in the fall. The budget cutting is not going to spare the lab. Problem is, they are running out of workers to lay off, most everyone is a manager and does nothing. They might have to actually get rid of a manager. I know, hard to believe.
As usual we hear bad news through the newspaper. LLNS and LANS policy.
"January 28, 2011 10:27 PM"
Well before you panic this budget has to go through first. It is likely to be modified to lower numbers. However cuts in the US budget are going to have to happen there is no way around it so it seems likely that we will get some cuts as well. Maybe things will go lighter on LLNL since it had to go through a RIF and as pointed out they already lost people. On the other hand I think at 10-17% cut at LANL there will have be rifs since they have less wiggle room.
I also think all the extra START money is out the door now, the only thing that mattered was that it passed. I try not to let this get to me so much since much of it was out of our hands and even if
Bechtel never took over the labs the economy would still have tanked. It does piss me off that all the change in the lab management did was to make things much worse and a few people richer.
In my view we do less work, less securely and less safely, all for a whole lot more money.
Steady on folks, it's just a play by the House of Representatives. Fortunately, those bozos have adult supervision from the Senate, who are on the hook for a solid nuclear weapon stewardship program to back up the START treaty they just ratified. (One more reason why the Senate ratifies treaties, and not the House.)
Mikey got out just in time.
January 27, 2011 9:46 PM
Not by accident. He just wanted to loot Los Alamos National Laboratory and leave.
January 29, 2011 12:15 PM
Oh yes, they have adult socialist leadership in the senate all under control of the Obamanator and his socialist cartel of anti-gun followers. It's all good. Can wait until the next election when the teat party and the constitutionally correct clean the senate of all the trashy democrats.
Oh yes, they have adult socialist leadership in the senate all under control of the Obamanator and his socialist cartel of anti-gun followers.
Wow, you're hurting Mitch McConnell's feelings. And the only socialism he signs on for is of the corporate variety.
January 30, 2011 9:05 AM
Wow! What are they putting in the water these days?
The rabid left is way scarier than the rabid right. Good thing they don't believe in guns.
"Good thing they don't believe in guns"
Is this like people who don't believe
in God? I believe guns exist and we should make it very hard to get one. How about an IQ test? If you score below 100, no gun, that would
eliminate 95% of the people who want a gun in the first place. ;)
January 31, 2011 6:36 AM
Also 95% of people selling guns.
If an uprising comes in this country, not likely but plausible, the right has nothing to fear from the left. They will scream profanities, and will act really scary, but nothing else. The ones with the guns will control the streets. Screaming, chanting liberals will have to go home. Or at least, stay away from my home. The Second Amendment was designed for that kind of situation. I will enforce order around my family and loved ones. What will you do? Wait for the police?
Or even worse, attempt to subjugate us. Which you eventually ALWAYS DO!
January 31, 2011 8:54 PM
Sorry, you sounded rational until that last bit. I'm sorry you can't get along in the real world, but maybe you should seek some counseling, or maybe your loved ones might insist you get some psychiatric evaluation. Please don't become a Loughner.
I'm a pro-gun conservative, but your kind of craziness is scary. Those of you out there who are of a more liberal bent, please don't paint all conservatives with this guy's insane brush. Or try to restrict my rights in an attempt to restrict his, (which I would support).
"I will enforce order around my family and loved ones. What will you do? Wait for the police?
January 31, 2011 8:40 PM"
I hear you brother!! With my gun I will most likely kill myself first by accident when I am drunk, or by cleaning my gun when I am drunk, kill some family members by mistake or also when I am drunk, high or angry, or be killed by an intruder who takes my gun away from me. Of course when the government does come to get me I will have my gun which will probably just mean that I will end up dead when they shoot me. The sad part is that statistically my family is in much greater danger just by me having a gun in my house than by a government uprising. Of course I am different I will beat the odds, just like how I won the lottery! Ooops I forgot I never did win the lottery.
Ok forget the IQ test how about having to show that you do not have a substance abuse problem before you can have a gun? Come one even the NRA can go agree to this one?
Ted Kaczynski didn't need a gun.
Up 10% one minute and suddenly down 20% the next, the NNSA lab budgets look like a yo-yo on steroids. If the latest cuts hold, RIFs are definitely in the cards by this summer.
With my gun I will most likely kill myself first by accident when I am drunk, or by cleaning my gun when I am drunk, kill some family members by mistake or also when I am drunk...
January 31, 2011 11:14 PM
Wow, looks like you spend a lot of time drunk. You know, you're not REQUIRED to own a gun.
how about having to show that you do not have a substance abuse problem before you can have a gun?
January 31, 2011 11:14 PM
How exactly do you "show" this to a government agency?
It is interesting to see how a discussion on possible budget cuts weaves its way into a spitball contest on gun ownership. I didn't say logical, just interesting.
Oh, by the way, when you purchase a gun in California you sign a document stating that you are not abusing drugs, are not under a restraining order, not under treatment for mental conditions and are not currently angry over someone. The assumption is that you will answer truthfully and that a background check will catch you in your lies. And I can see in your drunken stupor how an intruder would take your gun away and use it on you and your family. The logic is impeccable.
"And I can see in your drunken stupor how an intruder would take your gun away and use it on you and your family."
In most cases an intruder will
take a gun away from most people who think a gun will protect them. How often do you hear abut someone stopping an intruder with a gun, compared about how often you hear about someone being killed by their own gun from an intruder who takes it from them. The odds are not on your side.
Here's the bottom line folks.
The debate over gun control, for or against the private ownership of firearms can go on and on, but it boils down to this: When the government of the United States bans the possession and use of all privately owned firearms and proceeds to confiscate them; there are those who will give in to oppression submissively, and there are those who will resist until they are killed by the government.
When these people are killed, they will be labeled as evil outlaws, but in reality they will be the last true defenders of freedom and civil rights. Those that remain; the national and state police forces, the unarmed peasants, and the true evil outlaws with firearms, will come to believe that only the dead have found the true peace that they all foolishly believed would come after this act of oppression.
Oh and by the way. Gun control has absolutely nothing to do with crime control but has everything to do with people control.
If there is any doubt you may want to view this in its entirity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO0k9SHljCc
How often do you hear abut someone stopping an intruder with a gun, compared about how often you hear about someone being killed by their own gun from an intruder who takes it from them. The odds are not on your side.
February 2, 2011 6:15 AM
Well, some of us like to actually have some facts before spouting off. Might want to check statistics on that.
Sheeze, either get back on track with this post's subject matter or go find another blog dealing with gun control issues.
No wonder the employees at the weapon labs can't seem to accomplish much in terms of improving their employment situation!
February 2, 2011 10:12 AM
Absolutely perfect analogy. The video says all anyone in the world would ever want to know about the anti-gun cartel and it followers.
Spot-On my friend and patriot
"Spot-On my friend and patriot
February 2, 2011 8:44 PM"
How is that the word "patriot" has become code for "psychotic nut case". Now I understand how the word patriot meant something in 1770's but now it just means crazed nut ball. If you use the literal sense of the word than almost everyone who is a US citizen is a US patriot, including those that are anti-gun, anti-war, anti-military, pro-gay marriage, pro drugs, anti religion, and at the same time are pro USA.
I agree. No class, family, gang, race etc... has the monopoly on patriotism. You dont have to be a pro-gun, pro-life, pro-war to be a patriot. The patriot notion has been distorted lately!
Scooby,
One quibble with your comment, with which I mostly agree.
It is hard to imagine a "patriot" who is not proud of his country and what it stands for. Note I didn't say "agrees with everything the government does." Personally, I'm ready to declare that extremists on both ends of the political spectrum are NOT patriots. When ideological talking points replace actual thought and reason, the country is in deep trouble.
"How is that the word "patriot" has become code for "psychotic nut case"..."
Depends on your point of view.
patriot = "psychotic nut case" for some
"psychotic nut case"= abortionist for others
We have to try to get along because the alternative is chaos.
"February 4, 2011 9:30 PM"
So what you are really saying is
"patriot = abortionist"
I guess that makes some sense.
You do bring up a good point that the term "patriot" could mean anyone sense all just a point of view and any point of view is just as correct as any other.
any point of view is just as correct as any other.
February 4, 2011 10:41 PM
Wow, is this what our country has come to? Are you serious?? I guess Hitler's point of view was just as valid as Ghandi's? Morality, ethics, and respect for human life be damned. No right and no wrong. It's all the same to you. How sad for you. Please don't procreate.
"Wow, is this what our country has come to? Are you serious?? I guess Hitler's point of view was just as valid as Ghandi's? Morality, ethics, and respect for human life be damned. No right and no wrong. It's all the same to you. How sad for you. Please don't procreate.
February 5, 2011 11:02 AM"
Right or wrong can be based on reason and logic. Calling someone a patriot does not seem to have any moral implications as whether they are right or wrong or good or evil since anyone can be a patriot of any country no matter what that nations policy is. Saying that someone who is pro-gun is a patriot does not add anything to the persons argument about rightness or wrongness of owning guns. There are logical arguments for or against guns laws and ownership, saying one side or the other is patriotic is not one of them.
Your comment "please don't procreate" is rather revealing. It could mean that you wish certain people with certain points of view should disappear from the planet, which is in line with Hitler's point of view. I guess I misunderstood your point about your comparison of Hitler to Ghandi as thought you where saying
Ghandi's point of view was better.
Your comment "please don't procreate" is rather revealing. It could mean that you wish certain people with certain points of view should disappear from the planet
February 5, 2011 11:37 AM
No, it means I wish people with inability (or unwillingness) to tell good from evil, who have no moral compass, would disappear from the planet. I'm not arguing for religion, but the tendency to not believe in much of anything is, in my view, at the root of the apparent decline of this country. I see it as more dangerous than almost anything else we face as a nation.
"February 5, 2011 12:37 PM"
Why should we trust you to know right from wrong?
Why should we trust you to know right from wrong?
Try reading three books,
C. S. Lewis "Mere Christianity"
Ayn Rand, " Fountainhead"
John Barth, "Floating Opera"
Each approaches the subject from a different point of view.
The Torah, Koran and New Testament Bible cover the topic more completely, where the normal bounds of human behaviour are pretty consistent.
For a wonderfully succint summary,
Read the third canto of Alexander Pope's "Essay on Man".
Topic has been pretty important throughout the ages and covered pretty well.
Why should we trust you to know right from wrong?
February 5, 2011 10:37 PM
The most important thing is that you trust yourself to know right from wrong. Do you?
Why should we trust you to know right from wrong?
February 5, 2011 10:37 PM
I'm much more worried about people who don't believe there IS such a thing as right or wrong.
"The most important thing is that you trust yourself to know right from wrong. Do you?
February 6, 2011 10:19 AM"
Throughout the ages untold millions have died by the hands of people who trusted themselves to know right from wrong.
Perhaps it is better to always have questions about your conceptions of right or wrong and what are your underlying motivations.
"C. S. Lewis "Mere Christianity"
Ayn Rand, " Fountainhead""
These are utterly opposite in terms of defining morality, how on earth can you reconcile this?
Throughout the ages untold millions have died by the hands of people who trusted themselves to know right from wrong.
February 6, 2011 10:46 AM
Nope, you have missed the point completely. The people you speak of knew they were doing wrong, and did it anyway. That is called "evil." You watch way too many Hollywood-produced movies, where there is always an excuse for evil.
"Nope, you have missed the point completely. The people you speak of knew they were doing wrong, and did it anyway. That is called "evil." You watch way too many Hollywood-produced movies, where there is always an excuse for evil."
I would say the exact opposite that they did what they did because they "knew" that they where on the good side. They never thought to themselves that maybe just maybe I could be wrong? The ugliest acts of mankind always came from those who where absolutely certain what they where doing was on the side of "good". Once again what makes you sure that you know who should disappear from the earth?
I can understand anyone who recognizes that there is good and evil (although we may disagree on which is which, maybe violently depending on how threatened I feel). It is those who refuse to recognize either concept as valid whose emergence I fear the most. I perceive that it is today mainly the young people. No moral compass. No belief in anything beyond themselves. No compassion. No soul.
Why in the world you you folks using the "Proposal Cuts Lab Spending" topic to talk about guns? You are on the wrong forum, please find an appropriate forum for that topic.
"Why in the world you you folks using the "Proposal Cuts Lab Spending" topic to talk about guns? You are on the wrong forum, please find an appropriate forum for that topic.
February 6, 2011 9:33 PM"
Actually the topic is now drifted to ethics and morality which does have some relevance at a weapons lab.
"I can understand anyone who recognizes that there is good and evil (although we may disagree on which is which, maybe violently depending on how threatened I feel). It is those who refuse to recognize either concept as valid whose emergence I fear the most. I perceive that it is today mainly the young people. No moral compass. No belief in anything beyond themselves. No compassion. No soul.
February 6, 2011 9:32 PM"
Perhaps you are not seeing the correct picture of the new generation. One could argue what they actually have is a fluid sense of right and wrong which in many ways is much more sophisticated and able to adapt to complicated and subtle ethical issues rather than a brutal black and white picture. I would argue that young people today are the least racist and most tolerant generation yet. I also think you are overstating that "they have no belief in anything beyond themselves". Another way to look at it is that they are thinking for themselves rather than blindly following religious or political
groups. The older generation always says the young generation is on a moral decline.
The older generation always says the young generation is on a moral decline.
February 6, 2011 10:28 PM
The older generation is correct. Our society has been in continuous decline for many decades.
We need a reset for the financial debt crises we are in. Most US States, the Government, citizens, etc are fully broke. The monetary system itself is not working anymore. It has failed us, in our homes, our careers, and our country.
We need a 50 year jubilee, the cancelling of all public and private debt, and a few hundred thousand delivered to each citizen. Full reset. Then you all can stop talking about guns, morality, generational issues, forecloses, etc, and can get back to work.
"February 10, 2011 7:40 PM"
Hell ya brother, sounds good to me.
Of course with my debt wiped out and few hundred grand I am not so sure about the getting back to work part but the rest sounds about right.
a few hundred thousand delivered to each citizen.
February 10, 2011 7:40 PM
Delivered from where? I thought you said everybody was broke.
"Delivered from where? I thought you said everybody was broke.
February 11, 2011 10:04 AM"
Man are you dim, you print it.
"Delivered from where? I thought you said everybody was broke.
February 11, 2011 10:04 AM"
Man are you dim, you print it.
February 11, 2011 10:15 AM
Yeah, that'll work. Print that much money and bread will be $100 a loaf by morning. What a joke.
"Yeah, that'll work. Print that much money and bread will be $100 a loaf by morning. What a joke.
February 11, 2011 7:10 PM"
Man you just do not get it, it is about the psychology of the whole thing, if you get rid of debt and give people 100K's than even if bread cost $100, and this is a big if, people will spend! Right now people are not spending. We need change our mindset, it cannot be about me, me, me, we have to start caring for one another, our lives have to be about caring for others not ourselves. Back to the very original post, lab cuts are good, we do not need the money, the poor need to the money.
we do not need the money, the poor need to the money.
February 11, 2011 8:01 PM
Sorry, why do the "poor" need my money? I worked for it. I made sure I graduated from every level of school I wanted, and got a good job. Why did they not? I make sure I live within my means, why do they not? Why am I expected to provide for people who won't make the life choices that will allow them to provide for themselves? Sorry, no matter what you say in support of these societal losers, I will not pay for them. Losers means you lose. We need to stop supporting people who make the choice to be losers. Stay in school and do your homework. Simple.
Poster 9:21 pm, it appears you obviously don't understand Obama-nomics. You should feel ashamed that you are successful and educated.
Off to the "People's Educational Camp" for you!
I'm so amazed at how the Republican Tea Party seems to want to push religion on the county, yet they seem to have never actually read the bible...
-----------------
Matthew 19:20-22 (King James Version)
20. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21. Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
-------------------
Yeah, so if I sell everything I have and give it to the poor, I will be "great in heaven"?? Yep, I'm looking forward to that. That'll sure make my wife and kids happy! So, if I get it right, having nothing and giving everything you have to the poor is a good thing? When you then become one of the poor? And then you rely on some other wealthy person doing the same for you, et cetera? What happens when we run out of wealthy people?
Post a Comment