[–] burns29 1 points 22 points (+23|-1) ago 

Why do we need 248 forecasters to get the weather wrong?

[–] Yogus [S] 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

It makes sense to reduce the cost of this given the amount of automation possible. Of course the liberal response is trump is trying to reduce funding of global warming research or some nonsense.

Why does the government need to be involved in every damn service anyhow? They could totally contract this out to the private sector if they really want a hand in the weather business.

[–] burns29 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

The liberals might be right if 100 of the forecasters were in the "climate change research division". If they say it isn't significant, they lose their jobs. If they say climate change is a huge threat, they get more money and promotions. You don't have to be a forecaster to figure out what the reports will say.

[–] DapperFrygar 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

See my post. Right on their own website they seem to favor getting your alerts from the private sector.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=list+of+weather+websites+which+provide+alerts&t=ffab&ia=web

[first link in my search is weather.gov]

[–] jimibulgin 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

They could totally contract this out to the private sector if they really want a hand in the weather business.

They mostly do. There are probably four contractors for every Federal employee. If 248 'employees' of the National Weather Service (forecasters or otherwise) are let go, I assure you, ALL of them will be contractors, and not one Fed will be terminated involuntarily.

[–] Norm85 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

This is the number being proposed to be cut. The article would have been more useful if it had also mentioned how many forecasters there are currently.

[–] burns29 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I pictured Trump lifting the NWS bin cover and the forecaster running for cover like cockroaches.

[–] TheDaoReveals 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

This is actually an area I hope they consider carefully. A lot of things are dependent on the NWS, it's one of the more respectable agencies and is widely regarded as efficient relative to the value it produces, yet it periodically is the target of budget cuts because the WEATHER can't take sides between political parties. I certainly agree with cutting out chaff and lowering spending, but if this cut happens it is wise to have an idea of the costs and relative benefits.

Budget revisions should focus on our massive military, entitlement, and subsidy programs, rather than a fairly small and useful agency, reductions to which amount to little more than political theater.

[–] dallasmuseum 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Budget revisions should focus on our massive military, entitlement, and subsidy programs

Those make up more than 85% of the budget, worrying about anything is just poor prioritization. Its like cleaning up the spilled water on the counter while the toilet overflows.

[–] BoyBlue 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Annual Budget for NWS is 1,1 billion with 5000 employees. NOAA has a 5.5 billion dollar budget. Most government agencies have too many useless executives that really do nothing but create bullshit work for their employees. Easy cut, but as usually they will get it wrong get rid of the smart employees first.

[–] level_101 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

You are aware that a large portion of that budget is to put weather satellites in orbit?

Dont get me wrong.. But those systems are used by our military to direct troops/ships. I would not trust a private org with that responsibility. Private contracting for military supply lines has been a disaster.

[–] BoyBlue 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Yes, I do understand and use NWS all the time for weather forecasting. Just pointing out that the cut could be used to get rid of some useless executives. If the issue is to privatize NOAA/NWS, then NO! I don't agree with that direction. Private contracting has been a disaster for the IRS. I should write a book.

[–] 0fsgivin 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The only thing worse than a government worker...Is a government contractor.

[–] DapperFrygar 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

http://www.weather.gov/subscribe

This site lists about 4 or 5 Government sources for alerts, then more than 50 or 60 free, non Governmental sources for alerts.

Government needs to be smaller and focus on doing core Governance well.

[–] flaxom 3 points 4 points (+7|-3) ago 

I don't really support this, forecasting is one of the few useful services the government does offer. Plus it will 100% be turned back around and blamed on the administration the second the next tornado or hurricane inevitably makes someone homeless.

[–] dallasmuseum 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I use weather.gov every day to check out the forecasts. They have the most accurate predictions I've seen anywhere. And when they are wrong, they explain what happened and why it fucked up the weather.

[–] TheDaoReveals 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Yep, this cut would just be fake meat for the base.

[–] voatuser1128 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yep, this cut would just be fake meat for the base.

Just like cuts to PBS. Small fries that don't have big lobbying groups protecting them.

[–] Titus-of-Voat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It's not fake if it saves money.

[–] Titus-of-Voat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That doesn't mean they should not be efficient. The private sector eliminates jobs to cut costs all the time, they find ways to get the work done. I have no issue with requiring the government to have the same focus.

[–] weezkitty 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

I don't support this because it is a direct loss of American jobs

[–] RightEdge 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

a "job" is NOT where you suck off the taxpayer for doing nothing. That is called "charity". The US fed gov is filled with it!

[–] DeltaBravoTango 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Maybe stop wasting so much money on the military instead?

[–] RightEdge 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Military is about the only thing done right... before Clinton, Obama...

[–] dd-schiznit 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That's just asinine to say.

[–] aria_taint 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I want a job where wearing this hat is totally legit. https://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mDdsiYhCw7KSSjjhFrCZjsQ.jpg

[–] derram 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

https://archive.fo/fcwTj :

Trump Wants to Fire 248 Forecasters at National Weather Service | Fortune

'After a year that saw over $300 million in damages from hurricanes, wildfires, and other natural disasters, the Trump administration is proposing significant cuts to the National Weather Service (NWS) and hopes to eliminate the jobs of 248 weather forecasters. '

'The starting salary for forecasters at the NWS is approximately $28,000 per year, the agency reports. '

'The budget proposal recommendations are based on a 2016 report that said “there is a mismatch in some areas [of the Weather Service] between workforce and workload” and “that the current distribution of staff across the country can evolve.”All totaled, the Weather Service faces cuts of $75 million in the initial proposal. '

' Some or all of those cuts could be jettisoned before the bill is voted upon. '

'After annual management reviews and training, potential incomes can range from $60,000- $100,000 per year. '


This has been an automated message.

load more comments ▼ (15 remaining)