Dec 12, 2007

Feud May Trigger Lab Cuts

ABQ Journal
Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Feud May Trigger Lab Cuts

By Michael Coleman And John Fleck
Copyright © 2007 Albuquerque Journal; Journal Staff Writers

WASHINGTON— New Mexico's nuclear laboratory budgets remained in limbo Tuesday as congressional leaders haggled over a massive federal spending bill and Sen. Pete Domenici warned that nuclear programs could take a direct hit.

Democrats pulled their $520 billion spending proposal off the table late Monday after President Bush's budget director warned of a veto. Democratic leaders, as well as some House and Senate Republicans, are at odds with the White House over domestic spending and war funding.

The Democratic version contained $11 billion more than President Bush had requested for domestic spending, but half of what Democrats initially asked for. Contained in that spending blueprint is $6.35 billion for the U.S. nuclear weapons program, which funds Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, on Monday proposed stripping the bill of roughly $9.5 million in so-called "earmarks," or regional pet projects favored by lawmakers, as well as carving out all spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obey has not specifically suggested trimming nuclear spending, but his spokeswoman ruled nothing out Tuesday.

"If we are forced to go to the president's (spending) levels then there will be serious cuts to valuable programs across the board," Kirsten Brost told the Journal on Tuesday.

Domenici, the top Republican on the Senate subcommittee that secures money for the labs, said it stands to reason that nuclear programs, which include funding for the labs, would see spending cuts.

Domenici said the reductions likely would be spread across the nuclear weapons budgets as opposed to focused on one or two programs.

If the cuts needed to meet the president's target are made across the board, it would require cutting an additional $180 million from nuclear weapons programs.

"It's hard (to decide on specific programs); it's awful," Domenici told the Journal. "We'll probably just take a trim off of everything."

Domenici said he'll do his best to prevent that from happening.

"We'll just have to stand our ground," Domenici said. "If we could put them in our shoes and have them see what we're trying to do, they might not want to make these nuclear laboratories so weak."

Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said House leaders have given him assurances that funding for Los Alamos, which is in his district, will be "adequate."

"I continue to believe those assurances," Udall said in a statement.

Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a government watchdog group that closely monitors federal spending, said it is possible— even likely— that House Democratic leaders will look to cut nuclear programs since the full House has already voted to slash their budgets.

Domenici and Senate negotiators successfully lobbied earlier this year to replace much of the House cuts to the National Nuclear Security Administration.

"The House Energy and Water Subcommittee has been skeptical of that (nuclear spending), so I would say they might target it," Ellis said.

Domenici said a proposed energy and water spending agreement contained in the spending bill Bush has threatened to veto was a good compromise.

That $6.35 billion included in the bill for the nuclear weapons program would have been $70 million above this year's spending level, according to an analysis provided by Domenici's staff.

"We think we had a very good bill for New Mexico, considering what we started with," Domenici said.

28 comments:

  1. "...roughly $9.5 million in so-called "earmarks,"..."

    That's 9.5 billion, no?

    ReplyDelete
  2. If the cuts needed to meet the president's target are made across the board, it would require cutting an additional $180 million from nuclear weapons programs.

    It's hard (to decide on specific programs); it's awful," Domenici told the Journal. "We'll probably just take a trim off of everything."

    What's the base that he's talking about for cutting the "additional $180 million"?


    Domenici said a proposed energy and water spending agreement contained in the spending bill Bush has threatened to veto was a good compromise.

    That $6.35 billion included in the bill for the nuclear weapons program would have been $70 million above this year's spending level, according to an analysis provided by Domenici's staff.

    "We think we had a very good bill for New Mexico, considering what we started with," Domenici said.

    Assuming this gets signed, it sounds like $70 million more than FY06.


    So assuming the former, the net change from FY06 is +$70 - $180 = -$110?

    ReplyDelete
  3. You are ignoring part of what Domenici said. 'was a good compromise' and "we had a very good bill". Note how he uses the past tense. You might as well assume $70 million falls out of the sky.

    The party is over.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, 7:36, 9.5B, of course. P&TB published the Washington Post version yesterday. The relevant paragraph and the following paragraph are pasted below. (The Post's writer should be advised that the shaved comment is not viewed as cute by at least one reader. But one would have to be impossibly saintly to be a journalist inside the beltway and not possess greater than normal cynicism.)

    "Obey's proposal would ax about 9,500 home-district and home-state projects worth a total of $9.5 billion, according to Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group. Republicans inserted about 40 percent of those projects. Not all of that money could be eliminated, however. The budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is parceled out as home-district projects, and Congress has no intention of eliminating the Army Corps.

    Obey would not specify where the remaining billions would come from to reach Bush's bottom line, beyond saying the money would be shaved from the president's priorities. One possibility would be funding for abstinence education."

    ReplyDelete
  5. It appears that the nuclear weapons budget
    is a PAWN to be used in a political
    squabble.

    Do the Democrats not realize that this
    budget item is for the benefit of the
    Nation and its national security?

    Why has something vital to the security
    of the Nation turned into something to
    "get back" at Bush with?

    Are the Democrats void of concern for
    this great Nation?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is it true that Obey was sighted with an ax at NSSB looking for something to shave?

    ReplyDelete
  7. 9:26,

    I guess you don't realize how foolish you sound in your attempts to characterize the nuke weapons program as being "for the benefit of the Nation and its national security," so let me assure you that you do sound foolish.

    We already have some 20,000 nuclear weapons. We don't need two weapons design labs any more for national security, or any other reason. Likewise, we don't need new pit fabrication plants.

    What we really do need is a cut in the nuclear weapons program.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Instead of saying that he was assured that funding would be "adequate," Udall should have said that he was assured that funding would be, "substancially equivalent."

    ReplyDelete
  9. 9:36

    Evidently YOU are the one that doesn't
    understand! First we DO NEED 2 weapons
    labs. That question has been studied by
    august scientific panels such as the
    National Academy of Sciences, the JASONS..
    and the answer has ALWAYS been the same.
    The two laboratories ARE needed to check
    each other on a vital national mission.

    You also don't understand that weapons
    AGE - just like your car or an airliner.
    You wouldn't fly on an airliner that had
    not recently been checked by a mechanic
    just because Boeing certified it as
    safe 20 years ago when it was built!!

    No - I'll take the INFORMED opinions of
    the National Academies and the JASONS
    over some nameless blogger.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You sound HYSTERICAL. You
    should CALM DOWN.

    No one listens to an
    HYSTERICAL anonymous
    blogger.

    Also, your sentences are
    FORMATTED funny.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Does anyone believe the stockpile would ever not be certified?

    ReplyDelete
  12. 10:07

    Do you only address form rather than
    substance of the posts to which you
    respond?

    ReplyDelete
  13. 10:19

    One can only look to the past for that
    answer. There have been issues in the
    stockpile in the past - and they were
    resolved by nuclear testing.

    We don't want to have to test the weapons
    to answer those questions.

    Suppose you were a nuclear designer, and
    a question arose as to reliability or
    safety of the weapon you designed.
    Additionally, suppose you can't test the
    weapon to discover the true answer.

    Could you, in good conscience; just
    certify the weapon anyway on the
    grounds that it has always been
    certified?

    Would you do your Nation a disservice
    as great as that?

    ReplyDelete
  14. No, 10:20.

    However I do require content in a post before I can respond to it. Hysterical ranting really doesn't qualify as "content".

    ReplyDelete
  15. 10:32,

    OK - so you don't like the words I
    capitalized for emphasis.

    I won't capitalize anymore.

    Now - just imagine those caps to be
    lower case. I asked some very pertinent
    questions - not a rant.

    Demonstrate that you have some "lead in
    your pencil" and try to answer them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yet the stockpile continues to be certified without testing. The possible replacements may rely on aging pits, which were part of the justification for a new warhead in the first place. If this isn't grasping at straws to keep the lights on and the doors open, then what the heck is going on?

    ReplyDelete
  17. The possible replacements may rely on aging pits, which were part of the justification for a new warhead in the first place.
    ========================================
    11:08,

    Evidently you have "fallen for" the the
    first three myths about plutonium aging
    cited in this DOE release:

    http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/docs/factsheets/2006/NA-06-FS-08A.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  18. 10:46,

    Tell you what, old-timer. You expressed your views the best way you know how, and I've disagreed with them. How about if we just kick back and let Darwin decide who was correct.

    ReplyDelete
  19. So, why is a raven like a writing desk?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I see that the URL from my 11:26 post
    has been truncated.

    See the NNSA Newsroom website at:

    http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/newsroom.htm

    Under Fact Sheets in 2nd column dated
    December 2006 is a fact sheet entitled:

    "Myth vs. Fact: The Truth about
    Plutonium Aging"

    ReplyDelete
  21. So, why is a raven like a writing desk?
    ========================================

    "I don't know either"

    -The Mad Hatter from
    "Alice in Wonderland"

    ReplyDelete
  22. Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said House leaders have given him assurances that funding for Los Alamos, which is in his district, will be "adequate."

    "I continue to believe those assurances," Udall said in a statement.

    ----------------
    What a bunch of total bull crap!

    Udall has helped to destroy hundreds, and ultimately, perhaps thousands of high-paying jobs in his own district through his idiotic actions. And now this man wants to become our next US Senator?

    It is going to be payback time for Udall at the polls come November. Anyone laid off with spare time on their hands should put that time to good use working against the Udall campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  23. People,

    Be careful of the Bear-Baiting posts that seem like they come out of Fanta Se.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Gee. Back in 45 we successfully detonated two weapons over Japan. One had been "tested" once. The other had never been tested. They both worked without the benefit of supercomputer simulations nor 50 years of testing.It's astonishing to read that some of you feel we need to continue to test to insure the the reliability of the stockpile for the "safety of this great nation".

    What's wrong, afraid the yield will be less that optimum?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well, the devices dropped on Japan during WWII were quite simple. The devices today are "somewhat" more complex. Believe it or not, the increased complexity does make a difference.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Well, the devices dropped on Japan during WWII were quite simple. The devices today are "somewhat" more complex. Believe it or not, the increased complexity does make a difference."

    1)Proof that anyone can build one

    and...

    2) Simpler is better (cheaper)

    ReplyDelete
  27. 2) Simpler is better (cheaper)
    ==================================
    8:58,

    You just made the case for going forward
    with RRW-1 and RRW-2.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.