Senior Obama administration officials are insisting the government is not retreating from its focus on nuclear security despite proposed funding cuts.
The administration’s fiscal 2015 budget proposal, announced last week, would eliminate in excess of $220 million in funding for nuclear security and nonproliferation efforts, USA Today reported on Saturday.
One of the largest requested cuts in nuclear nonproliferation spending would come from the International Material Protection and Cooperation initiative. The administration is seeking just $305.5 million for the program, compared to the $419.5 million appropriated for the current fiscal cycle. The administration is also requesting $108 million less than current appropriated levels for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said the decline in requested nonproliferation funding is due to an administration determination to mothball a controversial effort to construct a mixed-oxide fuel fabrication facility that would convert excess plutonium into nuclear-reactor fuel.
The decision to shelve the MOX facility in South Carolina explains 54 percent of the reduction in sought-after nonproliferation funds.
Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, the White House’s point person on weapons of mass destruction, in a recent talk at Harvard University’s Belfer Center, rejected any suggestion that the administration is less focused on global nuclear security.
“I don’t think there is a problem with complacency,” she said. “We are seized with this challenge — with preventing sensitive materials from falling into the hands of terrorists or others who could use it to do us harm.”
Still, some arms control advocates question the Obama administration’s commitment to nuclear security.
“What I take away from this budget is that there was a lack of leadership in trying to maintain the prioritization of the funding of this issue,” said Partnership for Global Security President Kenneth Luongo. “The signal is we are in retreat on this issue, and I think that is a huge mistake.”
What We're Following See More »
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
Speaking at the funeral of former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, President Obama "compared Peres to 'other giants of the 20th century' such as Nelson Mandela and Queen Elizabeth who 'find no need to posture or traffic in what's popular in the moment.'" Among the 6,000 mourners at the service was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Obama called Abbas's presence a sign of the "unfinished business of peace" in the region.
Three million—a number that lays "bare the significant gap between Donald Trump’s bare-bones operation and the field program that Clinton and her hundreds of aides have been building for some 17 months."
In a somewhat shocking move, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president, saying a vote for him is one that voters "can be proud of." The editorial barely touches on Donald Trump, who the paper has time and again called "unfit to be president," before offering a variety of reasons for why it can't endorse Hillary Clinton. Johnson has been in the news this week for being unable to name a single world leader who he admires, after earlier this month being unable to identify "Aleppo," a major Syrian city in the middle of the country's ongoing war.
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."