On Thu, 9 Feb 1995 08:11:48, I posted:
I think it's inevitable that Congress is going to make some
serious cuts in federal natural resource programs, especially
EPA, USDA Forest Service, and USDI agencies. For example, there
is talk of axing USGS altogether, and environmental groups are
pushing to cut Forest Service road budgets.
Many FOREST netters have an insider's view of the way these
federal programs and agencies run, and how useful and effective
they are. A natural response is to speak up for programs and
agencies that benefit (or employ) you. But nobody cares about
that self-interested response. A better response would be to let
Congress know, from an insider's view, what programs *don't*
work, and ought to be axed. Face it, if you don't give them
your list of priorities, they'll use someone else's.
So put yourself in this position: you're responsible for cutting
the federal natural resources budget by 40-50 percent. What
agencies would you eliminate or combine? What particular
programs are a waste of taxpayers' money? What about combining
USDA Forest Service and a couple of other USDA agencies with the
USDI?
Total number of responses: 4, of which:
one objected to the question even being raised on the
grounds that it would start a "budget cutting feeding
frenzy"
one argued against the objection, noting that "To argue that
we should avoid discussing the subject in fear of arbitrary
and ill-informed cutbacks is, in large part, a self
fulfilling prophesy." Another added "In fact, even if the
Congress was not in a budget cutting mood I would say there
are projects that never should have been funded in the first
place (pork barrel stuff) and also some projects that were
good in their day, but have outlasted their usefulness."
two actually offered some budget-cutting suggestions:
- consolidating forest monitoring efforts to eliminate
overlap (FIA, EMAP, NBS)
- hold Forest Service research to tougher relevancy tests,
and farm out a good portion of the research $ to
universities, where it can be accomplished more
efficiently -- too much overhead in FS research programs
- eliminate much of the middle management in many agencies,
with savings passed down to beef up line positions
- "pet projects" such as the following in the Park
Service: Eliminate Steamtown Historic Site (the worst
offender of all), Keweenaw National Historical Park,
Frederick Law Olmsted Park, Eugene O'Neill Park, Charles
Pinckney Historic Site, The Presidio, Gateway, Golden
Gate, and Kaloko-Honokohau Historical Park.
- raise user fees to help defray expenses and match costs
to benefit recipients
There are a number of ways to interpret the low response rate:
- too busy
- don't really care, more interested in science than politics
- don't want to see their own jobs eliminated
- can't get their hands around the topic, because it's just too
big
- don't think that any natural resource dollars should be cut
- don't think the views of scientists/professionals matter
To those who think this is all a GOP smokescreen, or that the
budget decisions will be made on the basis of politics rather
than a rational examination of needs and efficiencies, I
understand your concern. I do not assume a rational process
will prevail, and I think the "feeding frenzy" has already
started. Cuts will be made based on *some* information, so why
let the mis-information specialists have their way? I think
information from professionals would be credible if it's not of
the self-serving variety, which is what the professions usually
offer up. Let's get out of that mold!
...Sam
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Radcliffe George Banzhaf & Company
Voice: (414) 276-2062 225 E. Michigan Street
Fax: (414) 276-5206 Milwaukee, WI 53202
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0