Print Print this article Email Email this article Link Trackback

On Tubes and Budget Games

Travis | Aug 05, 2010 | there are 1 comments 1
NOH response to vacuum tubes

NOH response to vacuum tubes

Reuters today explains how New START negotiations have devolved into (dis)armed robbery. Money grubbing for nuclear modernization funds is fair, if unbecoming, as part and parcel of congressional sausage production. But not this s*** again:

Corker who along with Kyl and other senators recently visited three national laboratories, called the state of the facilities and weapons, “pretty alarming.” Kyl was struck by the way that Sandia National Lab showed him a plastic container with 1950s-era vacuum tubes that are being replaced with new circuit boards. “They’ve got to get on with this,” Kyl said.

Kingston is going to pop a blood vessel in his eyeball (read his previous diatribes on vacuum tubes).

While horse trading is part of the game, potential treaty skeptics’ funding demands at this point have become rather trifling. Increased nuke money is in the FY 2011 request. It’s in the 10-year plan. It’s in the 20-year plan. Senior administration officials have publicly reiterated their commitment to it. But some senators are unhappy because the planned investment will come from “savings the government hopes to get from interest rates”? Put the nation on a more sound fiscal footing and you won’t have to worry about it, for chrissakes!

Future year budget plans are not set in stone. (Remember when the Bush administration used to project decreased defense spending? Ha! How’d that turn out?) Senators of course understand this variability. They know the administration can’t guarantee future funding streams, as doing so would infringe on Congress’s power of the purse and neuter the U.S. government’s ability to adjust future funding to meet shifting priorities. Congress fights tooth and nail to preserve such flexibility, which is why appropriators are always hesitant to approve multiyear procurement of major weapon systems.

But senators are still objecting on this basis when it comes to nuke modernization. In other words, senators are asking President Obama to guarantee something (modernization funding) that only they themselves can constitutionally guarantee.

The administration has done its part to integrate the modernization program into its future planning, but all it can do is ask for the money. It is up to Congress, including New START skeptics, to provide the funds. Senators: this is ultimately your responsibility, not that of the executive branch. Stop trying to pass the buck.

tags Nukes on a Blog, New START, Senate, Congress, Defense Spending, FY 2011 Budget Request, Modernization (all tags)


Display:

Yep, and...

A key additional point to add here is that the House and Senate Energy and Water Committees have adopted the $624 million increase for NNSA in FY2011.  This is significant for three reasons.

First, the House Energy and Water Subcommittee has traditionally not been kind to NNSA's budget requests.  The fact that they've bought into it this year is an important step.  Second, the adoption of the increases by the the subcommittees was due in no small part to administration's dedication to pushing for its budget with Congress.  Third, a big reason the House adopted the requested increase is that this administration has actually put forth a credible plan to maintain, refurbish, and modernize the stockpile, something that certainly couldn't be said of the Bush administration's wild goose chases for things like RNEP, low-yield weapons, and the RRW.  

Finally, I don't want to hear that the House appropriators cut $19 million from that request.  The Senate Energy and Water Committee actually added $10 million.  If you split the difference (which is premature at this point because there might not be a decrease at all when it's all said and done) that's a decrease of only $4.5 million out of a budget of $7 billion.

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account by clicking right here. It's quick and free.

About This Blog

Search This Blog

Center Analysis

US weapons for future include key relics of the past
The Associated Press' Robert Burns wrote an article entitled "US weapons for future include key relics of the past" that features the Center for Arms Control and Non Proliferation's Laicie Olson discussing the 2013 Defense Budget....

Pentagon Budget: Forced To Diet On Only $613 Billion
The Associated Press' Robert Burns wrote an article entitled "US weapons for future include key relics of the past" that features the Center for Arms Control and Non Proliferation's Laicie Olson discussing the 2013 Defense Budget....

Are ambitious Life Extension Programs on Hold?
The B61 life extension program has come under increasing scrutiny. And for good reason writes Nickolas Roth in this new analysis....

Missile Defense Intercepts in Space: A problem not solved
A recent report by the Defense Science Board concludes that U.S. missile defenses are still unable to discriminate between an incoming missile and decoys or countermeasures designed to confound the system, writes Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (USA, ret.) in this n...

UNSCR 1540 & the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit: A View From Seoul
The Republic of Korea (ROK) has been and remains a staunch supporter of the global nonproliferation regime as it borders a grave security threat and proliferator of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). With the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit just months away,...