Skip to main content

Looming funding cuts set to occur in early 2013?

Anonymously contributed: ============================================================================================ From the Weapons Complex Monitor September 17, 2012 ============================================================================================ White House Issues Report Detailing Sequestration Impacts ==================================================================================== The White House late last week issued a Congressionally required report outlining just how much of an impact the looming funding cuts set to occur in early 2013 known as sequestration will have on federal programs, including those overseen by the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management. According to the report, the NNSA’s weapons activities would be cut by 9.4 percent, or $678 million based largely on current funding levels. The NNSA’s nonproliferation activities would also be cut by 9.4 percent, or $216 million. For EM, defense environmental cleanup funding, which largely covers DOE’s main cleanup sites, would be cut by 9.4 percent, or $472 million. Non-defense environmental cleanup funding and uranium enrichment D&D funding would each be cut by 8.2 percent, or $19 million and $39 million, respectively. The sequestration process would involve a total of $1.2 trillion in funding cuts, equally divided between defense and non-defense funding, over 10 years unless Congress passes deficit reduction legislation targeting the same amount before Jan. 2, 2013. “The specter of harmful across-the-board cuts to defense and non-defense programs was intended to drive both sides to compromise. The sequestration itself was never intended to be implemented. The Administration strongly believes that sequestration is bad policy, and that Congress can and should take action to avoid it by passing a comprehensive and balanced deficit reduction package,” the report says, adding, “As the Administration has made clear, no amount of planning can mitigate the effect of these cuts. Sequestration is a blunt and indiscriminate instrument. It is not the responsible way for our nation to achieve deficit reduction.”

Comments

Anonymous said…

Well even if sequestration is avoided there will have to be cuts and NNSA could get well get 5-9% in any case. Sequestration is still very possible since if it goes through the blame goes equally to all sides and since they have to do something so this may just be the easy way out.
Anonymous said…
Because the cuts will come late in the fiscal year but apply to full year spending levels, they will require deep pullbacks in spending and painful layoffs.

Unfortunately, LANS has decided that the staff at LANL will only get a 30 days notice, even though the WARN Act requires defense contractors to give a 60 day warning before layoffs begin:

www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-warn.htm

None of the defense contractors like Lockheed or Raytheon treat their employees the with the total disdain that the new lab LLCs do with their RIF policies.
Anonymous said…
None of the defense contractors like Lockheed or Raytheon treat their employees the with the total disdain that the new lab LLCs do with their RIF policies.

September 17, 2012 11:07 PM

Not only do they treat us with distain with their RIF policy but also during our employment.
Anonymous said…
Does anyone know what the local NNSA office had to say about the 30 day notice for contractors?
In light of the Y-12 security breach, and the documented oversight failures of the local NNSA office, it looks like more and more authority will be removed from these local yokels and pulled into headquarters. Hard to see a headquarters DOE lawyer going along with the 30 day notice.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!