• US Senate bill proposed that would consolidate the current 122 weather forecasting offices of the Na
    30 replies, posted
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/06/16/senate-bill-proposes-centralizing-weather-service-forecasting-into-6-regional-offices/[/url] [quote=Washington Post]The Senate Commerce Committee is introducing a bill on Tuesday that would consolidate forecasting at 122 National Weather Service (NWS) forecast offices into six regional offices. The measure and its supporters argue that it would make NWS forecast operations more efficient and nimble while saving money. Opponents say it would reduce jobs and significantly compromise forecast quality by dispersing the trove of local knowledge within the nation’s forecasting network. The National Weather Service Improvement Act would order the NWS to come up with a plan for establishing regional forecasting centers within a year of enactment. It recommends that these centers be co-located with a university or government lab and staffed to ensure that local forecast quality would not be not “degraded.” After a review of the plan from the National Academy of Sciences, the NOAA administrator is ordered to set up the regional hubs within a year.[/quote]
Does the US Senate actually do anything good?
What an awful idea
[quote]efficient and nimble[/quote] in the fact that it saves the government a negligible amount of money, while not allowing the NWS to get data as accurately, as well as removing jobs. Maybe they should actually scale down the industry that takes up 55% of national spending instead of the one that takes up <2%.
knowing the weather is so important in war, you don't cut corners. I bet you what they propose won't do any of the pros they suggest.
[QUOTE=code_gs;47983173]in the fact that it saves the government a negligible amount of money, while not allowing the NWS to get data as accurately, as well as removing jobs. Maybe they should actually scale down the industry that takes up 55% of national spending instead of the one that takes up <2%.[/QUOTE] Based on the article, it doesn't seem like they're cutting any funding. It's just being used for different purposes with the same agency. "The bill says cost savings from consolidating forecasting would enable NOAA to reinvest in the following areas: expanding super-computing capacity, improving weather forecasts, enhancing communication of weather forecasts to the public, and expanding the use of ground-based observations and strengthening radar coverage where necessary. Although the measure mandates centralizing forecasting operations at six regional offices, it would not result in closure of any of the existing 122 forecast offices. Rather, it specifies that these offices maintain a warning coordination meteorologist to serve as a liaison with emergency management for storm preparedness and response activities as well as to conduct media and public outreach. Offices also would continue to maintain radar instrumentation and launch weather balloons." It seems like the union is really the only group strongly against it, and we all know that the union's job is to care of the employees, not actually increasing the effectiveness of the agency. Their main argument is that it will eventually lead to less total meteorologists being hired even though the bill is job neutral at the moment, and less meteorologists means less people paying into the union.
With all the computing and automation I often wonder what those remaining meteorologists actually have to do ?
[QUOTE=Xieneus;47983170]What an awful idea[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=code_gs;47983173]in the fact that it saves the government a negligible amount of money, while not allowing the NWS to get data as accurately, as well as removing jobs. Maybe they should actually scale down the industry that takes up 55% of national spending instead of the one that takes up <2%.[/QUOTE] When the main opposition to a consolidation measure is that it will cost jobs, you know there's bureaucratic bloat. Large regional offices are a necessity for any federal agency trying to be organizationally efficient; the establishment and organizational emphasis of regional offices was one of the biggest factors in turning FEMA from the incompetent mess it was during Katrina into an effective emergency management organization in recent years. Also, can you tell me which industry here takes up 55% of national spending? Or why the spending of other bodies of government elsewhere somehow justifies unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars when it can be fixed? [img]https://static.nationalpriorities.org/images/fb101/2014/presidents-proposed-total-spending.png[/img]
2% on education... your government certainly has it's priorities in order
[QUOTE=PatrickT;47983720]2% on education... your government certainly has it's priorities in order[/QUOTE] 1% on science and we still produce more research than your country
[QUOTE=catbarf;47983656]When the main opposition to a consolidation measure is that it will cost jobs, you know there's bureaucratic bloat. Large regional offices are a necessity for any federal agency trying to be organizationally efficient; the establishment and organizational emphasis of regional offices was one of the biggest factors in turning FEMA from the incompetent mess it was during Katrina into an effective emergency management organization in recent years. Also, can you tell me which industry here takes up 55% of national spending? Or why the spending of other bodies of government elsewhere somehow justifies unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars when it can be fixed? [/QUOTE] I think he's thinking of this: [IMG]https://static.nationalpriorities.org/images/fb101/2014/presidents-proposed-discretionary-spending.png[/IMG]
Medicare costs need to come down though, none of the replebicans have any solution other than gut it and obamacare which doesn't help
[QUOTE=CreeplyTuna;47983787]I think he's thinking of this: [IMG]https://static.nationalpriorities.org/images/fb101/2014/presidents-proposed-discretionary-spending.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Ah, right. Discretionary spending is a portion of overall spending, but we discuss it as if it's the overall spending. I assume that's because it can be used as a weapon against the President, whereas mandatory spending is handled by Congress.
At the risk of sounding incredibly stupid, what exactly is discretionary spending?
[QUOTE=Fhenexx;47983965]At the risk of sounding incredibly stupid, what exactly is discretionary spending?[/QUOTE] It's basically money that the president uses to spend as he sees for his projects and other programs.
[QUOTE=PatrickT;47983720]2% on education... your government certainly has it's priorities in order[/QUOTE] Education is probably funded by the states mostly.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;47984219]Education is probably funded by the states mostly.[/QUOTE] Usually by local property taxes. So yes, if an area has really high value land, the public schools in that district are well funded. Which is basically the most retarded way possible to fund education.
More like, if your city is not dying then the school is safely paid by local taxes.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;47986807]More like, if your city is not dying then the school is safely paid by local taxes.[/QUOTE] It entirely depends on the population. I used to live in a pretty rich town with plenty of business in it and the schools didn't get shit because they couldn't pass a single levy.
Why is Medical cost so high? I thought you had to pay for it yourself? (Seriously i wanna know)
Well crap, I was just using the site to actually track down that TS thats about to hit Houston or something. At this point i'm just having a laugh at their savings yeah, because you really needed to save more on that 1% of science..
Yea and obamacare definetly helps in this xD
[QUOTE=GunFox;47984394]Usually by local property taxes. So yes, if an area has really high value land, the public schools in that district are well funded. Which is basically the most retarded way possible to fund education.[/QUOTE] Education, while a thing that throwing money at helps, isn't really solvable by just allocating more through a different funding system. As an example, there's the DC school system which has poor inner city students but extremely well funded schools and you end up getting the same results that are seen in poorer funded areas elsewhere in the country.
[QUOTE=Sableye;47983784]1% on science and we still produce more research than your country[/QUOTE] According to [url=http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/18767/research-publications-per-capita]this[/url] and trusting flagdogs, the Netherlands produces ~50% more papers per capita than the US. 1% of the budget is still doing poorly.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;47989599]According to [URL="http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/18767/research-publications-per-capita"]this[/URL] and trusting flagdogs, the Netherlands produces ~50% more papers per capita than the US. 1% of the budget is still doing poorly.[/QUOTE] Per Capita for that sort of figure doesn't really mean anything when a country has over 30 times more people.
[QUOTE=Nikota;47990251]Per Capita for that sort of figure doesn't really mean anything when a country has over 30 times more people.[/QUOTE] yeah but the point is that if USA actually made science a higher priority, and matched Netherland's per capita output, then it would improve the field of science significantly so Sableye's point is not a zing
NWS is a bunch of dumbasses anyways, my county gets a flood watch when the nearest rain is like 2 hours away
[QUOTE=Matthew7434;47990400]NWS is a bunch of dumbasses anyways, my county gets a flood watch when the nearest rain is like 2 hours away[/QUOTE] And this is why you leave meteorology to the meteorologists.
[QUOTE=Orki;47987273]Why is Medical cost so high? I thought you had to pay for it yourself? (Seriously i wanna know)[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29[/url] we do actually have government funded medical programs (despite the stereotypes to the contrary), its just that they are bloated, overly-bureaucratic messes, which is part of the reason a lot of people are against socialized medicine [editline]17th June 2015[/editline] people who think that we spend all of our money on the military because our military budget is so much larger than other countries fail to realize that we are actually [B]rich as fuck[/B] as a country, and as a percentage of our GDP, our military spending isnt actually that high compared to a lot of countries. [editline]17th June 2015[/editline] [t]http://i.imgur.com/kxTNKa2.png[/t] Russia actually spends more of its total GDP on its military than we do, but we still have more than 8 times more money invested in our military because our GDP is so much higher
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;47991057][URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid[/URL] [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)[/URL] we do actually have government funded medical programs (despite the stereotypes to the contrary), its just that they are bloated, overly-bureaucratic messes, which is part of the reason a lot of people are against socialized medicine [editline]17th June 2015[/editline] people who think that we spend all of our money on the military because our military budget is so much larger than other countries fail to realize that we are actually [B]rich as fuck[/B] as a country, and as a percentage of our GDP, our military spending isnt actually that high compared to a lot of countries.[/QUOTE] People who say that the US is an example of a true free market when it comes to the health industry are either jokers, ignoramuses, or idealogues. It's the most regulated industry in the country and probably has more government money put into it than any other.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.