Yeah that one worked, thanks.

My comments to it.
"But Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., castigated Stone, saying that if he wanted "to be taken seriously" he needed to specify where additional funding would be found."

I agree with Rohrabacher [who btw, is a big supporter of space exploration- though not alway gentle in his statements:)]. The only possible advantage I can see to taking this long path is to keep this whole project on budget, so we can get there at lowest cost and somewhat smoothly- not like the boom/bust and bad management of decades of NASA's in the past. So unless we can get serious support by whole congress for a increase in NASA entire budget [and would include DEM top leadership stepping up] then the focus needs to stay on keeping down the cost.

"It said the agency needs 150 to 200 more program/project managers, 100 to 150 in systems and integration engineering and 200 to 240 in mission operations.

The council report recommended:

# Recruiting more young workers by making administrative and legislative changes to rules on pensions and conflicts of interest to allow people in private industry to more easily move into NASA jobs.

# Expanding NASA's employee training programs to give entry-level employees more hands-on experience with flight programs.

# Providing more college students with the chance to work on NASA programs."

All the above seems reasonable.

"Stone said the agency appears obsessed with pushing out its older workers when the real problem is attracting more young scientists.

He suspects there is an unofficial quota that before a new employee can be hired, three older workers must retire."

Well Stone might be right, but it's probably a good idea. Clearing the decks now, in order change direction, then hire people for these different roles seems in general to be a good idea.
As for:
"When NASA was in its moon-landing heyday, the space agency had 36,000 employees and many of the best young scientific minds in the country."

NASA was also building a moon rocket called Saturn V during this time. NASA should NOT be in the business of building rockets in the future. And we are phasing out the Shuttle which requires a huge workforce. Also with increases in job efficiency since that time, even if NASA were doing the same thing [building Saturn V] it should require less personnel to do it.