11/27/2007
There he goes again, sounding like a Republican — and a big-spending anomaly at that: Albuquerque mayor and senatorial aspirant Martin Chávez, running against Northern New Mexico's Rep. Tom Udall for the Democratic nomination, is painting his opponent as unfriendly to the working stiff.
Why? Because Udall voted for last summer's Energy and Water Appropriations Act. Among its features was a $400 million reduction in Los Alamos National Laboratory's budget. That, says the Chávez campaign, gives Udall the "dubious distinction of being the only member of Congress from New Mexico in history to vote in favor of decreased funding and cutting jobs at LANL" and at Albquerque's Sandia National Laboratories.
But Udall was far from the only member of Congress to approve that budget reduction: A frustrated Republican Sen. Pete Domenici acknowledged to The New Mexican last summer that he was helpless in the face of Capitol Hill's new leadership — many of whom he hardly knew — and the long knives they had out for lab spending. It was evident then that Domenici had lost his stomach for the job. Not long afterward, he announced that he wouldn't seek re-election next year.
Could Udall, newly named to the House Appropriations Committee, that chamber's committee in charge of federal spending, stem the tide of fed-uppedness with largesse to the labs? Not likely, given the vituperative spewing by Republicans and Democrats alike about waste, theft and security lapses at LANL.
And Udall, who has spent much of his nine years on Capitol Hill trying with little success to persuade those scientists on "the Hill" in the Jemez to broaden their nuclear-weapons mission into alternative-energy research and other civilian — or even other military — projects, thought perhaps a reduced allowance would get lab leaders' attention.
The bill in question still sits in Congress — so perhaps the money will be restored.
But in the meantime, Chávez has put a political spin on it: "Throwing people out of work and endangering our national security," said his campaign manager, Mark Fleischer, "is not 'the message' New Mexicans want to hear."
Udall doesn't want folks out of work any more than Chávez does — or Sen. Domenici, who used his leadership on the Budget, then Energy, committees to keep the gravy train chugging onto Pajarito Mesa.
The recent announcement that LANL would cut 500 to 750 jobs, it seems, would place Udall front and center as the villain — until you consider how many Democrats might agree with him, and disagree with pork-barrel spending of an especially warlike kind. Los Alamos likely will remain trigger-maker to the nation for increasingly sophisticated and massively destructive weapons. Yet America has far more nuclear bombs than it would take to destroy enemies of today and tomorrow. What we don't have is the new energy system we and the rest of the world will need as fossil-fuel consumption soars and supplies of the stuff, inevitably, run short.
Can't our national-lab scientists see that — and do something about it? And if they can't, shouldn't Congress invest in operations that can?
Those are the nationally responsible questions Udall and some of his colleagues are asking; Kennedyesque queries in the form of challenges to mobilize our brightest scientific minds. It's time to transform the systems that make America run.
Udall knows it. And he wants New Mexicans gainfully employed in that pursuit.
Mayor Chávez and most Republicans have yet to recognize the grim challenge of "peak oil" and the global warming it promotes. Against such backward thinking, Tom Udall is a profile in courage.
12 comments:
Well said, 7:42.
-Gus
Whatever WFO the lab has (or could have) mustered up is in addition to the nuclear weapons funding provided by Congress. With or without WFO, the cut in NW funding results in people getting laid off.
I stand by my comment: Udall is an idiot.
And I stand by 7:42's. Anybody who cops a victim attitude about LANL's not having diversified already has only himself to blame. You might not be an idiot, 7:53, but you could sure pass for one by blaming Udall for LANL's problems.
-Gus
But..but...we're the best and brightest! But...
This is what this blog is:
Talk, its only talk
Arguments, agreements, advice, answers,
Articulate announcements
Its only talk
Talk, its only talk
Babble, burble, banter, bicker bicker bicker
Brouhaha, boulderdash, ballyhoo
Its only talk
Back talk
Talk talk talk, its only talk
Comments, cliches, commentary, controversy
Chatter, chit-chat, chit-chat, chit-chat,
Conversation, contradiction, criticism
Its only talk
Cheap talk
Talk, talk, its only talk
Debates, discussions
These are words with a d this time
Dialogue, dualogue, diatribe,
Dissention, declamation
Double talk, double talk
Talk, talk, its all talk
Too much talk
Small talk
Talk that trash
Expressions, editorials, expugnations, exclamations, enfadulations
Its all talk
Oh, and Udall IS an idiot.
Woohoo! King Crimson! You left out the "Elephant Talk" lines though.
A recent high level LLNL presentation had vu-graphs that showed LLNL is preparing for aggressive WFO growth.
I've seen nothing similar to that here at LANL. What I hear from LANS management is "We can't do that unless Congress tells us it is OK."
The difference between LLNL and SNL vs. LANL on the matter of project diversification couldn't be more striking.
The reason for that difference, 12:20, is that NNSA does not have plans to do pit production at SNL or LLNL. Pu operations do not mix well with WFO. LANL's mission is in the process of being narrowed to that one work area: making pits. DOE and NNSA don't want LANL to focus on anything besides making pits, and so that is all LANS is interested in.
Regarding the comment made by Anonymous at 11/28/07 2:58 PM, I do not understand why pit production is incompatible with WFO.
Two reasons, 3:36.
1. The Pu work, because of all the expensive facilities, security, etc. required will raise overhead rates for LANL, making staff too expensive for WFO sponsors.
2. DOE and NNSA don't want the distractions of WFO. They want LANL to do pit production, period.
11/28/07 3:43 PM
You are a little off on #2. The reason they do not want WFO work at LANL is that they are short term project typically and make it harder to project the funding picture over the long term for strategic planning reasons. Therefore WFO work is kept to being a small percentage of the overall LANL funding picture.
7:38 is right. Udall is an idiot. Udall should have spent a few of those nine years making deals with funding agencies to help us achieve the diversification he wants. He didn't. He should have cast a dissenting vote just to show the people he "represents" that he is behind them. He didn't.
By Udall's standard, it would be OK if I stole his car just to teach him a lesson that the world needs alternate sources of energy.
What would happen if there actually were a 400M budget cut in one Fiscal year? That is 20%. But there are fixed costs. Maybe that means 30% of the work force have to go. But wait! It couldn't be done right away. Maybe it is done later in the year, and 40% have to go.
My numbers may be wrong. Regardless, Udall's position is not courageous. It is irresponsible. Same goes for the entire House of Representatives.
Not only that, but Gussie says we are all to blame for the lack of diversification. On the face of it, that is ridiculous. We do not all secure funding. Gussie doesn't like complainers who "cop a victim attitude" either. Nice.
Well, Gussie, I have news for you. I am not a victim, because I don't care what happens to me. I do care what happens to LANL and its (believe it or not) hard-working employees. I am complaining because I think a 20% budget cut in one year is absolutely the wrong way to downsize the nuclear weapons complex. And because Udall is an asshole for going along with it.
Post a Comment