Discussion for article #240388
“the administration said it wanted to shutter the project, citing billions in cost overruns and project delays.”
The days of the Rethuglicans calling themselves “fiscal conservatives” is over…
3 Likes
Um, standing? Supremacy?
Can a state sue the Federal Government whenever the Feds decide to shift spending from one place to another, on the grounds that the reallocation of funds hurts the “losing” state? Really?
1 Like
Fissile Keynesianism.
over??? when did it even begin??
1 Like
so the waste of millions of dollars isn’t something the ag is to concerned with huh??/ I wonder whats in it for him …??? how much does he stand to make off this deal…on the side that is
2 Likes
Typical, just like with tanks, they have thousands rusting away in fields in Alabama and other places but Congress wants to feed their paymasters so more for the MIC, fuck the taxpayers. Same here spend spend spend just for the sake of spending and not a thought about taxpayers. Correction not a thought about the 99% of taxpayers.
It isn’t just a budget issue, even though, according to experts, it would cost half as much to dilute the plutonium and store it as waste than to process and blend it for use in reactors.
Nonproliferation experts want the facility shut down, because closing it down will put the US in better position to get other countries to agree not to work on similar facilities. Each facility is a source of plutonium that could be diverted for weapons.
On top of all that, the product of the Savannah River facility would be a fuel that reactor owners are not excited about using. It would require some equipment modifications as well as security improvements.
Let SC sue. Whatever damages they could win (assuming both standing and success) would be more than covered by future savings and we could be making the world a little safer at the same time.
Yea, that’s an effective use of state resources and tax dollars.