Crying Wolf on Lab Funding Cuts?

I know everyone in New Mexico is supposed to be hysterical because of the U.S. House cuts to the budgets of Los Alamos and Sandia Labs totaling about $400 million. But as far as I can tell, I don't see how such cuts would result in up to 2000 layoffs at Los Alamos and 900 at Sandia, as is being bandied about. Googling around, I found that the cuts are mostly directed at reducing spending on security enhancements, computer hardware upgrades, a new chem building and funding for the controversial and much criticized Reliable Replacement Warhead and plutonium pit manufacturing programs.How do these cuts translate into that many lost jobs?

Moreover, If we look at this issue carefully, I think what the cuts really portend is a growing movement in Washington (and the nation) on both sides of the aisle to to deemphasize Cold War-era type nuke weapon spending and put more money into modern-day security in the form of clean and renewable energy technologies. If the labs -- and Domenici, Pearce and Wilson -- don't wake up and start moving quickly into the new era of global warming threat reduction and diminishing fossil fuel use, they'll have only themselves to blame.

Udall's Role
Rep. Tom Udall tried unsuccessfully to reinstate $192 million of the budget cuts, but not for the plutonium pit and Reliable Replacement Warhead programs. Instead he requested more funds for the Los Alamos high-speed supercomputer system and the stockpile stewardship programs that test the reliability of already existing bomb components without using underground blasts. Udall's amendment failed by a vote of 121-312. Sen. Domenici and Reps. Wilson and Pearce have been trying to blame the cuts entirely on Democrats -- and especially on Udall. However, 103 Republican members of Congress voted against Udall's attempt to restore lab funds:

Democrats; 24 Aye; 209 Nay; 2 Not Voting
Republicans: 97 Aye; 103 Nay; 2 Not Voting

Back to the Future
As Eric Griego writes in his latest Albuquerque Tribune column:

... could the cuts really be an opportunity? Could the proposed cuts to the labs be the impetus so desperately needed to finally change the mission of both labs to one focused on renewable energy development instead of protecting and developing nuclear weapons?

Conservationists and those who oppose continued nuclear weapons development have tried for years to redirect the mission of the state's two national labs in the direction of renewable energy. Sandia has taken on more renewable energy work over the past several years, but Los Alamos has actually deepened its nuclear mission.

Rep. Udall has been the target of a lot of often mean-spirited bashing because of the cuts, but I applaud him for refusing to attempt to reinstate the funding for the RRW and plutonium pits. It's high time we bring the core missions of our national labs into the 21st century, where renewable energy and mitigating global warming will be the key areas where we need our best scientific minds to concentrate their research. We're moving into an era of rapid and profound change, with many similiarites to the years when horse power was being replaced by the combustion engine.

At some point, you either have to face the new realities and make the switchover, or you'll pay the consequences for hanging onto a no longer relevant mindset. We'll be needing fresh ideas and a change in focus from our national labs if they are to survive and thrive in the new techology environment. Many believe the world as we know it hangs in the balance. Yes, an inconvenient truth. I had to say it.