[ RadSafe ] " White House Urges Oil Appropriations Be Given T o Nuclear, Coal "

[howard long]

How many of the closed bases would fit nuclear power reactors? We need 500 reactors in the next two decades to charge electic hybrid cars at night, etc!

It would help solve the NIMBY problem and might turn on Thune to support jobs in SD, rather than obstruct, for example. Is this worth PHs flooding Congress with support for clean energy
replacing white elephants, reactors replacing horses, ploughshares replacing swords?  
 
Howard Long
 

"Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj at aecl.ca> wrote:
John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]

Maybe if the administration did not request money for
nuclear weapons development, there might be more
research funds for nuclear power development. 

I remember when Republicans used to claim about
"spend-thrift" administrations and rising deficits. 
So, what's the Bush's Administrations problem?





Here's the problem John :


Rumsfeld Reveals Huge Base-Closure Plan
Washington DC (UPI) May 13, 2005

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Friday renewed his political offensive
to win congressional approval to shut more than 30 major U.S. military bases
worldwide and save at least $50 billion.
Rumsfeld told the nine-member Defense Base Realignment and Closure
Commission that his recommendations to close or realign domestic military
facilities across the country would help U.S. military forces both at home
and around the world confront the new security threats of the 21st century.

Rumsfeld and his Pentagon planners estimate that their recommendation, if
fully implemented, will generate a net savings of nearly $50 billion over
the next two decades.

When combined with the anticipated savings from overseas basing
realignments, they believe the savings increase to $64.2 billion.

"Our current arrangements, designed for the Cold War, must give way to the
new demands of the war against extremism and other evolving 21st-century
challenges," Rumsfeld said.

The recommendations would close 33 major bases and realign 29 more. If
approved, the ax will swing on such major installations as Fort Monmouth,
N.J.; the naval station at Pascagoula, Miss.; Ellsworth Air Force Base in
South Dakota; and the submarine base in Groton, Conn.

The closures were sweeping, but Rumsfeld's bark was worse than his bite. He
was believed to be considering closing as many as a quarter of all 425
domestic military installations, but he wanted to keep open facilities to
house forces being brought home from Europe and South Korea.

"The department is recommending fewer major base closures than had earlier
been anticipated," due in part to the return of tens of thousands of troops,
the secretary said Friday.

Bases in the West will be hit hard, but some of the biggest facilities in
California that were under threat have been spared. Los Angeles Air Force
Base and the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey stay open.

Beale Air Force Base near Sacramento will lose 179 service positions, but a
dozen more bases in the state will close.

The proposed cutbacks will be the fifth stage of a historic process that
began during the last era of detente even before the end of the Cold War.

Four previous rounds of base closings and amalgamations eliminated or
realigned 451 installations, including 97 major ones, and have saved an
estimated $40 billion. The cuts Rumsfeld proposed Friday would be carried
out over a six-year period starting next year.

Despite the previous four rounds of closures, Rumsfeld felt he had been
forced to work with a domestic base infrastructure primarily designed to
confront the Soviet Union through the Cold War.

He wants a different domestic force deployment that will be designed to
favor future projections of U.S. power towards Asia and the Middle East as
well as respond in a more centralized, rapid and cost-effective way to
domestic national security threats.

The Pentagon argues that U.S. forces coming home will return to
installations better arrayed to train and deploy for possible contingencies
around the world.

In broad principle no one argues with that.

There is also a general consensus, at least in theory, on Capitol Hill that
the manpower-heavy, massive infrastructure domestic deployments of the Cold
War era have long since been out of date, and that they are at best
irrelevant and at worst a costly hindrance and distraction from the "fast
and agile" operations involving first-class intelligence, 21st-century
communications and small, superbly trained Special Forces necessary for
anti-terrorist and other security operations at home as well as around the
world.

But in practice, the great economic importance of the bases to the states in
which they are located has led members of Congress to protect their
political bases. Rumsfeld has found political progress on his cutback plan
slow and hard.

The need to concentrate on preparing for the Iraq war and then deal with its
unanticipated complications also slowed progress. But the sweeping
Republican victories in both houses of Congress have given President George
W. Bush and his secretary of defense political capital they are using to try
and push the big change through.

Rumsfeld's planners looked at the current military value of the bases, the
potential savings to be made from closing them and the economic and
environmental impact of potential changes.

Pentagon officials say the closures and consolidations that will follow are
intended to enhance the military's ability to meet contingency surge or
mobilization requirements.

They say they are also retaining installations that have unique capabilities
that would be difficult to reconstitute at other locations.

The ambitious changes are aimed at boosting efficiency as well as saving
money. They aim to consolidate similar or duplicative training and support
functions to improve joint war fighting.

Department of Defense planners also hope the closures will give them the
opportunity to transform important support functions including logistics,
medicine and research and development by capitalizing on advances in
technology and business practice.

But the process still has a long way to go. Rumsfeld's plan will be reviewed
by the BRAC Commission, which will seek comments from affected communities.

The Department of Defense has promised to assist those areas with programs
such as personnel transition and job-training assistance, local reuse
planning grants and streamlined property disposal. The process should be
completed by the end of the year.

The closures fit clearly into what has been Rumsfeld's long-term strategy to
reshape the structure of the U.S. armed forces. They are neither
unprecedented in their scale or direction.

Congress still has to approve the cuts, but though it can reject them in
their entirety, it cannot trim or soften them - the usual Capitol Hill
procedure to save programs favored by powerful political patrons.

There is bound to be grumbling. Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts,
last year's Democratic Party candidate for president, has already objected
to the closing of the National Air Guard base in Maine.

But in the current political climate, Rumsfeld still looks likely to get
these cuts approved.
============================



--- "Franta, Jaroslav" wrote:

> So much for the "oil president" monicker.....
> 
> Jaro 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> White House Urges Oil Appropriations Be Given To
> Nuclear, Coal
> Energy Washington Week
> Vol. 2, No. 22
> 1 June 2005
> 
> The Bush administration is criticizing the
> House-passed energy
> appropriations bill for underfunding several high
> priority programs,
CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE

This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that
is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure.
Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, 
dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information 
may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. 

AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÉGIÉE

Le présent courriel, et toute pièce jointe, peut contenir de 
l'information qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits 
d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, 
divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations 
non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée 
envers celle-ci peut être illégale et est strictement interdite.
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list radsafe at radlab.nl

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/