The U.S. nuclear weapons agency is rejecting a finding by auditors that it should know how much money it could save by pursuing certain efficiencies.
The National Nuclear Security Administration was required under the fiscal 2012 defense authorization law to issue a report to Capitol Hill examining areas within its enterprise where it could operate more efficiently and save money by doing so. A Thursday report by the Government Accountability Office found that while the agency’s assessment — eventually delivered to lawmakers in November 2013 — did highlight seven “opportunities for efficiency,” it failed to provide estimates on the cost savings that could be realized with those projects.
The semiautonomous Energy Department branch, in its comments to auditors, disputed the finding that it was required under the 2012 legislation to “casually and quantitatively link its cost efficiency initiatives to specific cost savings.”
According to the 25-page audit report, the National Nuclear Security Administration had argued it lacked “reliable information to accurately develop cost estimates” for the initiatives it outlined to Congress.
The auditors disagreed with this contention, noting that, while analytically difficult to develop, a “sound methodology for estimated savings helps ensure that proposed savings can be achieved.”
The nuclear agency’s spending decisions are currently under the microscope in light of a broader congressional atmosphere of budget-tightening and, more specifically, because NNSA officials in recent years have overseen a number of projects that have far exceeded initial cost projections.
One of the efficiency projects the agency outlined in its report to Congress was the planned Uranium Conversion Facility at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee. That initiative today is in jeopardy due in part to how much its estimated price tag has risen, skyrocketing from initial projections of no more than $1.1 billion to almost $20 billion.
What We're Following See More »
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.