Congress wants to cut tsunami warning centers? Really?

Timing is the key and this seems particularly bad timing. Now, what if this proposal had gone through last year?

"(CNN) – Buried deep inside the GOP House of Representatives plan to trim the 2011 budget is a line item that will take $454 million away from the agency running the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center.

Yes, that’s the same Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, one of two operated by a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, that alerted the nation to a potentially deadly wave headed toward Hawaii and the California coast following the devastating earthquake off northern Japan last week."

cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/17/tsunami.warning.centers/index.html?eref=rss_us&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_us+%28RSS%3A+U.S.%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

So why do you think that NOAA will cut the tsunami centers?

NOAA has an annual budget of $5.5 billion. That means that the proposed cut of $454 million is about 8% of their budget. Do you really believe that ANY federal agency can’t cut 8% and not cease to perform?

From the article:

It’s the Democrats and union leaders who have been the ones most worried about the proposed cuts to NOAA’s $5.5 billion 2011 budget request.

Interesting that “union leaders” worry about cuts to NOAA. Isn’t it really just that the democrats and union leaders oppose any cuts proposed by republicans? Have any of the proposed cuts been supported by either of those two? Do either group support ANY cuts in spending?

I also noticed that they want to take the tax breaks away from “big oil”. Today’s average price per gallon for regular unleaded gasoline is, according to AAA, $3.546. Do the democrats and union leaders really want to see that dramatically increase? Really?

Peace

Tim

Wait.

[how many people do they have in the tsunami warning centers?]

Shouldn’t be more than one or two. If the budget is THAT large, then they must have a hundred thousand people. What do they do with their time? Man the barricades with binoculars? Woman the barricades with binoculars? [want to be politically correct here]

But seriously folks, divide the total budget $500,000,000 divided by say $100,000 per person that’s 5000 people. Seems a little top heavy.

NOAA has a budget of $5,500,000,000. Divide that by $100,000 and you get … 50,000 staff people. Maybe they should contract out to the Weather channel.

To alert the nation and etc, would take exactly ONE person. $100,000. So, keep that one person. And send the other 49,999 people home. Let them find jobs in the non-government economy. Maybe apply to the weather channel.

Times have changed. We don’t do things manually anymore … go out there with clip boards and read the instruments by hand in the sleet and snow and gloom of night … no wait, that’s the post office and they’re losing more money than NOAA … say, isn’t NOAA the people who use uncalibrated instruments that give us inflated temperatures to fake global warming? www.surfacestations.org and all that?

There definitely is something fishy going on there.

Let’s get to Zero Based Budgeting. Start from Zero dollars in the NOAA budget. And see if we can replicate what they do for only $550,000,000 instead of $5,500,000,000.

Or even better, budget $100,000 for that tsunami guy and make that the entire NOAA budget.

There ya go!!!

Typical Beau twisting of the facts!

They want to cut $454M from NOAA, the parent, not specifically the warning centers.

Beau, if you’re gonna misrepresent an article at least do a better job!:rolleyes:

“House Republicans, who have been looking for ways to shave $61.5 billion from the 2011 federal budget, stress that they don’t want to specifically cut either of the warning centers – a network of ocean buoys and deep-water sensors that alert scientists to changes in ground movement and tide levels and could indicate a tsunami is on the way. They just think the parent agency has some fat to trim. The Republicans are also going after federal funding for climate change research and other environmental projects in their proposed cuts”

Actually, the NOAA budget could be cut to $100.

Buy a bunch of frisbees and give them to graduate students at the University of Wake Island, the University of Midway Atoll, the University of Guam, the University of Tuvaluu, and when the kids … err … sorry … graduate students notice that the ocean level at the beach has receeded and then the beach got wiped out by a tsunami, they could place a cell phone call to CNN, NBC, CBS, CNBC, ABC and MSNBC to say, “RUN!” … like that.

Total cost of the frisbees … $100. Peace of mind: priceless.

Interestingly, all they have to do is revert back to their 2010 funding to more than meet the proposed reduction. Savings would be $749.3 million.

Peace

Tim

How did the warning system help this time?

Actually, Beau was accurate regarding the article since that is the title. Unfortunately, it is just another example of bias at CNN.

Peace

Tim

Very well, actually.

Peace

Tim

It worked well.

They said “a tsunami is coming, a tsunami is coming.”

And they were right.

Beyond that, no so much.

I don’t think these budget cuts to organizations like NOAA would be such a punch in the face if the republicans didn’t seem to focus entirely on things that affect public safety and/or the common working person all the time. I hear alot of talk about “sharing the pain” but so far the only sharing I see is from the working poor.

[quote=Orogeny]Interesting that “union leaders” worry about cuts to NOAA. Isn’t it really just that the democrats and union leaders oppose any cuts proposed by republicans? Have any of the proposed cuts been supported by either of those two? Do either group support ANY cuts in spending?
[/quote]

These “budget cuts” are nothing more than political theater. Of course they support cutting spending, just not the same things that republicans want to cut.

Let me as you this, and I’m being totally serious. How do you justify extending tax breaks (tax spending, which I also blame President Obama for) to the richest 1 or 2 precent of the country, which will cost some 800 billion dollars? Then turn around and cut programs like this.

Nutritional programs for children and pregnant women $752 Millions from
Various educational programs $7 Billion for
FEMA - Management & Administration $24.3 million
FEMA - State and Local Programs $783.3 million
FEMA - Assistance to Firefighter Grants $510.0 million
FEMA - Emergency Management Performance Grants $40.0 million
FEMA - Predisaster Mitigation Grants $35.0 million
FEMA - Emergency Food & Shelter $100.0 million
USDA Food Inspectors - Budget down to only $100 million
Eliminates the “COPS” hiring program, roughly 1200-1300 less police
Border Security - Down $600 million

All in all with all the cuts proposed we’re looking at something like a $61 billion dollar cut here that pretty much focuses on services that concentrate on the commons. This amounts to barely a drop in the bucket that is our national debt.

The amount is so small when compared to the overall budget that it amounts to about 1.6% which isn’t going to do anything to reduce the debt or the deficit but what it will accomplish is hurting the working poor (formerly the middle class), the really poor, and those caught in natural disasters.

Defense spending has actually gone up, as if we’re not spending enough on the military already, one of the HUGE things that we could cut if we were really serious about balancing the budget.

Like I said, this is nothing but political theater. Existing tax cuts for the richest people in the country are kept in place or new tax cuts are put into place for them, which reduces revenue and makes the situation worse while at the same time cutting services for people that really need them. You can’t possibly think that they’re serious about cutting any budget.

First of all the “hidden” cost of our gas is alot more than what we pay at the pump, much of our tax dollars go to toward energy costs. We either pay for it on the back end or on the front end but we’re still paying for it.

Anyway, while I do agree with you that if the tax breaks were to go away for these oil companies they would probably raise the price of gasoline. However I’m not fooled for one second that these companies would need to do that in order to stay profitable. For Example:

In 2009 Exxon Mobile made a total of $45.2 BILLION (With a B). On top of that they even got an income tax REFUND of $46 Million. From what I found they did pay roughly $7.7 Billion in sales tax and about $50 Billion in non-U.S. taxes and duties overseas. So they are paying someone something but mostly it’s not the United States.

With these kinds of profits we could get rid of these corporate tax breaks and they’d still be making PLENTY of money on us.

Could you point us to where in the article it said they were cutting funds for the tsunami warning centers?

If you know the title of a news article isn’t accurate, please don’t post the news article. It only leads to confusion.

Thread closed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.