Anonymously contributed:
From Global Security Newswire
GOP Bill Eliminates $1B in Nuclear Agency Funds
Friday, Feb. 18, 2011
The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration stands to lose $1.1 billion under a Republican-led budget proposal slated for passage this week in the House of Representatives, potentially affecting the agency's efforts to maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal and prevent acquisition of nuclear weapons by extremists, Foreign Policy magazine reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 17).
The fiscal 2011 budget has not been passed, and federal spending has been largely frozen at fiscal 2010 levels under a continuing resolution approved by Congress in December. Another GOP-backed continuing resolution, intended to cover the remainder of this budget year once the current measure expires on March 4, would strike 10 percent from the $11.2 billion NNSA budget sought by President Obama.
The cuts would eliminate $647 million in funding for NNSA nuclear nonproliferation operations, a 24 percent decrease from the planned $2.7 billion appropriation. The proposed reduction would slow a multinational bid launched by Obama 10 months ago to safeguard all vulnerable atomic materials within four years, a high-level administration insider said.
The measure would also eliminate $312 million, or 4.5 percent, from the agency's $7 billion proposed budget for maintaining the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. The Obama administration last year agreed to spend $85 billion over the next decade to update the complex, in a bid to win Senate GOP backing for a new strategic nuclear arms control treaty with Russia.
Another $103 million would be stripped from the NNSA request for its naval nuclear reactor effort, Foreign Policy reported.
Senate Republicans would seek to reinstate the NNSA dollars, according to a number of congressional staffers.
"The House GOP wasn't a part of any of the [New START]-modernization discussions and there hasn't been time to get them up to speed," a high-level Republican Senate staffer said. The staffer faulted congressional Democrats for not securing approval of a fiscal 2011 budget before last November's midterm elections.
"House Republicans are being penny wise and pound foolish," added John Isaacs, who heads the Washington-based Council for a Livable World.
Nuclear agency funds are not considered "security" spending because the organization is overseen by the Energy Department (see GSN, Jan. 26).
"Part of the problem is the indiscriminate budget cutting by House Republicans that reduces all programs except those strictly labeled defense, even though they are hacking away at the most useful federal program to prevent the gravest threat to the United States, nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists," Isaacs said (Josh Rogin, Foreign Policy, Feb. 17).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days
-
LGBT intolerance problem at Sandia? I was just checking glassdoor.com and noticed several comments suggesting intolerance to LGBT at Sandia...
-
So what do the NNSA labs do under the the 2nd Trump administration ? What are the odds we will have a test?
-
So did you SSVSP and why? Give details.
34 comments:
If this does not spell cutbacks at Nationals Labs in FY 2012, nothing will.
I know this may sound crazy but maybe we should just let the market decide on the NNSA and the military. If we completely privatized the military than we could get a much cheaper and much more effective organization than we have now. I have heard all the arguments against doing this, however if you knew that you would be getting much better protection for your dollar what would you prefer? The same should be true of the NNSA. You can argue all you want but the free market has a great track record.
I can see it now. Who wants to buy stock in nuclear warheads. They will be sold to the highest bidder? You must be kidding me. Haft the problem with todays military is they have some JA civilian who's worried about public / world opinion or their re-election and then to boot knows absolutely nothing about how to fight a war or military tactics standing in the way of the US ever wining a war since WWII. I say get the civilian sector out of the military and let them do what they are trained to do and don't report back until the enemy is terminated completely. Bring me the head of their leader and place it upon my dining table and all will be well.
"You must be kidding me."
Ya 1:22pm is just crazy talk, however you are the voice of pure reason.
We should be worrying about national debt more right now, than investment in the weapons complex. We are more in danger from the runaway spending of a undiciplined Congress than from nuclear attack or proliferation. Our stockpile will still be adequately dangerous 10 years from now. even if a fraction of it falls apart.
Its probably ok to defer complex modernization for a few (5-10) years until we have reduced the deficit as a % of GDP from the dangerous level we now have. Viet Nam era like inflation of 5-6% per year, should increase the GDP vs. debt by about 30% in 5 years. No new value, just everyone possessing devalued debt.
The real question is how do you pass on expertise to those who haven't designed or tested from those who have. I am not sure that it can be done and verified. The fallback of course, is to begin design and testing again in 10 years. Testing will teach the new generation just like it taught the old.
Of course, by then LLNL will be out of the weapons business and withered away, due to lack of local congressional support.
So I hope that you LANL folks can put your house in order, and, for my kids sake, become again the tour-de-force of yore. ORNL, PNNL and other newby pretenders won't be able to pick up the ball, despite what their local cheerleaders profess. They lack the tools.
Hope NNSA doesn't get in the way, it is staffed by folks not up to the task before them.
Best of luck.
You can argue all you want but the free market has a great track record.
February 19, 2011 1:22 PM
Good grief, they never learn.
I am still impressed by the track record of GM, Chrysler, Wachovia, WAMU and all the other great Wall Street titans, not to mention BP. All these shining stars of the free market.
But okay, just for a minute let the market decide. I am sure Iran would be willing to bid for running the complex, probably cheaper than using these expensive US scientists. How would you free market aficionado stop that? Government intervention? That would immediately destroy your free market fantasy, wouldn't it?
"You can argue all you want but the free market has a great track record."
The US of seventy years ago was populated by humble, tougher, self-reliant folks. They took the difficult steps necessary to recover from a major financial disaster.
It is not clear that current decision makers have the moxie or toughness to carry out the steps for us to recover. Nor that the weaker, weepy, demanding, self-indulgent slackers that populate the US today will tolerate it.
"You can argue all you want but the free market has a great track record."
It is foolish to think that the military or DOE for that matter can be run more efficiently by the private or corporate sector. Private companies working for the government under government direction are not efficient. They are efficient when they are allowed to have the freedom to develop the guidelines, processes, and methods used to make whatever they would be task to make; while complying with the same codes and standards is industry. But DOE and DOD have many requirements that that contractors must follow. The only thing that corporations are better at than say the UC is wringing money out of the government.
Now if there were “Nuclear Bombs Are US” or “The Fighter Jets Emporium” companies that were marketing products of their own design and making, then I am sure they could make nuclear bombs and fighter jets cheaper than DOE or DOD.
February 19, 2011 5:04 PM
I see your point, however what if we let the free market completely run everything, in this way everyone will "own" nuclear weapons so nobody will use them, they will be global or earth weapons not controlled by a single or a few countries. The free market means total globalization, no government at all, only private business. The world will be a much better, freer, safer place.
"They are efficient when they are allowed to have the freedom to develop the guidelines, processes, and methods used to make whatever they would be task to make; while complying with the same codes and standards is industry. But DOE and DOD have many requirements that that contractors must follow."
This is an outstanding point you have made. To be a truly free market they must as you say comply with the "free market" not the government.
"But DOE and DOD have many requirements that that contractors must follow."
Aaah yes - but you forget these are all "Best Practices" :)
It is not clear that current decision makers have the moxie or toughness to carry out the steps for us to recover. Nor that the weaker, weepy, demanding, self-indulgent slackers that populate the US today will tolerate it.
February 19, 2011 6:34 PM
Whew, I was beginning to worry that only the crazies were posting here today.
Sounds like layoffs are a coming.
I don't get it. The cognitive dissidence coming from the Republican party is amazing and a bit scary!
Just two months ago you had GOP party leaders Sen. Kyl (R-Az) and Sen. McCain (R-Az) screaming to the press that the big Obama budget increases for NNSA were not enough. Now you have this very same party saying "whack the NNSA's budget!".
This is the definition of insanity. They are all over the place on nuclear policy. Given these extreme changes in sentiment in such a short period of time, how in hell to they ever expect to get the "best and brightest" to stay at our rapidly declining and totally demoralized US nuclear weapons research labs?
Obama, the weak, socialist leaning Democrat, wants to spend far more on our nuclear weapons complex.
The Republicans, long time supporters of a secure defense, suddenly want to hit this same weapons complex with massive budget cuts. This, right after the START II treaty with Russia has been signed and both Iran and North Korea are becoming far more nuclear capable and belligerent.
Have we just been sucked into a black hole and entered Superman's infamous "bizarro world" where everything is backwards?
Entitlements are off the table and defense contracting is big money so they can only cut what little is left over.
Most of the federal budget goes to direct payments to individuals. We've reached the tipping point of no return.
Just two months ago you had GOP party leaders Sen. Kyl (R-Az) and Sen. McCain (R-Az) screaming to the press that the big Obama budget increases for NNSA were not enough. Now you have this very same party saying "whack the NNSA's budget!".
February 20, 2011 2:06 PM
You act as if the Republicans were speaking with one voice in these things. They weren't and you know it. Your disingenuousness is typical of what liberals are trying to do. Trying to paint the right as devious or inconsistent. They are currently fractured, just as the left has always been. Did you forget that "two months ago" a whole lot of new congressmen took office, who do not agree with the mainstream republican party? Of course you didn't - you're just pretending. In pretending to be stupid, you just look stupid.
On a rational note, the NNSA's budget has been out of control for many years. Time to whack!
Have we just been sucked into a black hole and entered Superman's infamous "bizarro world" where everything is backwards?
February 20, 2011 2:06 PM
Yep. Deal with it. It's not going away.
When it was decided that the control of nuclear weapons must remain in the private sector they could never have forseen the political football (pork, treaties) the weapons programs have become. They also could never had foreseen the profiteering by private businesses and the government (LANS/LLNS/NNSA) and the complete lack of REAL peer review of the work we conduct, particularly on nuclear weapon programs. Unfortunately, no one is willing to address these REAL issues. While the DoD has it's share of problems, one has to wonder if it's time to move the nuclear weapon program to them. One major obstacle has been and will be whether the DoD actually wants this problem because that's what it is, a problem.
"February 20, 2011 7:27 PM"
What the heck was that? I think you just being sarcastic but you never know.
February 20, 2011 2:06 PM
25 years at LLNL has taught me to usually stay out of political discussion, but the amount of ignorance when it comes to the beliefs of our current president is both laughable and sad (and a bit frightening too).
He (as I do) believes strongly in the American society and its values, as well as the social compact forged in the 1930/40s under FDR. Read his book - The Audacity of Hope - with your own eyes, instead of listening to the hate speech and misinformation on Fox and Glen Beck, Rush, Savage, et al.
And in case you are unfamiliar with these terms....
===========
Society
–noun
1. an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
social contract
–noun
1. the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.
Quoting from Feb 21 7:08:
"While the DoD has it's share of problems, one has to wonder if it's time to move the nuclear weapon program to them. One major obstacle has been and will be whether the DoD actually wants this problem because that's what it is, a problem."
DOD would not like to have the nuclear weapon complex for two reasons:
First, it's in a sorry state of disrepair needing a massive amount of infusion of money. If the complex were within the DOD, it would directly compete for dollars with standard weapon programs.
Second - nuclear weapons are a political weapon. The are a sign of a country's determination - for better or worse. As such, they don't play a part in the military's day to day planning with conventional weapons, things that are used daily as opposed to nuclear weapons that haven't been used in a combat scenario for 65 years.
Because they are a political weapon the politicians keep them under their control, it's the ultimate trump card.
With the NWC under the civilian rather than military jurisdiction the military can state to their internal programs that "we tried to get some money for you but congress gave it to DOE" as opposed to "We decided a Wxx refurbishment program was needed more than a raise to the troops."
Sometimes it's good to have a scapegoat. DOE fills that role nicely.
"He (as I do) believes strongly in the American society and its values, as well as the social compact forged in the 1930/40s under FDR. Read his book - The Audacity of Hope - with your own eyes, instead of listening to the hate speech and misinformation on Fox and Glen Beck, Rush, Savage, et al."
Hey, Beck, Rush and Savage have been saying just the same thing that Obama is just another FDR, how is this misinformation? Besides these guys are just buying into the lies, the person you should really listen to is Alex Jones.
February 19, 2011 8:30 PM
Pure socialism. NOT! My bets you're are a left wing socialist democrat Obama loving one world order advocate. Poor fellow. I hope the world never see's your dream come true
"Pure socialism. NOT! My bets you're are a left wing socialist democrat Obama loving one world order advocate. Poor fellow. I hope the world never see's your dream come true
Reread 8:30's post again, it says exactly the opposite of what you are saying. It says the the free market should reign supreme in all things and that this will result in pure globalization. It will not be a one world but a many competing corporation run world, where national identity will be lost but individual identity will remain and be the most important thing. I thought this is what the right wingers really want?
February 21, 2011 9:55 PM
I don't know what party you belong to but I'll assure you my right wing republican party doesn't stand for one world order or any form of socialism and does not even want to be part of the United Nations the most dangerous terrorist organization we have on our soil. As a matter of a fact I don't know of a single republican that stands for your perfect ideology.
I don't know what party you belong to but I'll assure you my right wing republican party...
February 22, 2011 10:53 AM
Sorry, "your" Republican Party is not "right wing." Granted there are wing nuts on both sides of the aisle, and you may be one of them, but to claim the entire party is in that camp is to condemn it to defeat in 2012, and to irrelevance. It is known to everyone that the country is overall "center-right" (even Fox News admits this). I am and have been a Republican since Reagan, and neither he nor I am "right wing." I am a reasonable, rational, patriotic American who believes in smaller, less intrusive government and lower spending and taxes. I also believe that compromise with the center-left rational and reasonable people is the only way for our country to survive. Please take your vitriol and irrational ideas elsewhere, or start being part of the realistic solution.
Only 1B to be cut? That is way to small, again with much more privatization in the complex we could save 1-5B in increased effectiveness. Why should the government run these labs? As Reagan said "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
We need to cut, cut, cut, we simply cannot afford this spending. It is time for people to earn their money not have it given to them by government. Now before you say I an some right wing nut, I do agree that we need government funding for the military, non-military defense, and spending powers in case of war and natural disasters, but seriously do we need much more? Take Wisconsin for example, why should I have to pay for teachers? I should not have kids if I cannot afford to send them to private schools or educate them myself, why should I burden the other people with my children. As for the police why not privatize them? I am sure we would get much better service at much lower prices if let private police forces compete for our hard earned dollars.
February 24, 2011 7:23 AM
I have a solution to your problem, job, etc. Let’s make sure no one can have children unless they can prove financial responsibility and even then only two are allowed. If you have more than two children ( YOU ) pay the government $10K a years for each child between age 1 and 21 and forfeit all social benefit of any kind for life. I see a great need for population control.
I see a great need for population control.
February 24, 2011 11:29 AM
The Chinese have got it. They own us. Can no one see the connection? Me? I'm enrolling in a Mandarin course to prepare for the future!
Countries with population control -- either government imposed or freely chosen by their citizens -- are all demographic time bombs waiting to happen.
I have news for all those who predict future China supremacy. They'll never make it to super-power status because of their decades of strictly enforced "one-child" policy and their abortions of Chinese female babies. They are facing a bleak future where they'll soon have 3 young men fighting for the hand of every young Chinese lady. Worse, with no social safety nets, the few young working adults in their Asian society will be tasked with the typical Chinese responsibilities of supporting both their parents and grand parents in old age!
China, Japan, Russia and most of Western Europe are going to economically implode in the next few decades due to their horrible demographics!
The United States, emerging markets and, strangely enough, France (whose government strongly supports child birth with lots of benefits) look to be in much better demographic shape. The future belongs to those nations with a fertile population and lots of babies and young children.
"February 24, 2011 11:29 AM"
I completely disagree, the government has no right to tell you how many children you can have, at the same time it should not be your right to have the government support you and your children. If you can afford 20 kids than that is your right, but you should not get a cent of the taxpayers money for
support and no public schooling. Now before all you bleeding heart people say "oh what will happen to the children", my response is two-fold (1) I do not care, you should be responsible for yourself. (2) When the private citizens control the money and not the government than people will be free to decide what charities and organizations to donate to. These organizations will be much better run privately than by the government. In the end the truly needy will be much better off and taken care of.
The government should have not right to tell you how many kids you can have, how to define marriage, what you eat, drink, drugs you use, what church you go to, how many or what types of guns you can own, what type of sports you like, if you gamble etc. Of course the government and the tax payers are not obliged to bail you out of a single thing if you make bad personal choices.
February 25, 2011 7:11 AM
Libertarianism is a nice philosophy - clean and (mostly) free of contradictions and inconsistencies. Unfortunately it fails the "real-world" test. It can't be implemented unless everyone agrees. Nice to dream about, though.
"February 25, 2011 7:11 AM
Libertarianism is a nice philosophy - clean and (mostly) free of contradictions and inconsistencies. Unfortunately it fails the "real-world" test. It can't be implemented unless everyone agrees. Nice to dream about, though.
February 25, 2011 9:44 AM"
I think you have it about right.
I guess there is always going to be a portion of the people that prefer security over extra freedoms.
Post a Comment