Congress cutting NWS budget?

[isohume]

Your wage claims are not valid for this thread...most NWS people do not make close to 100k per year. There are some that do because they've been around a long time, but a VAST majority do not. Most make under 60k actually.

If they cut benefits, who the hell is gonna want to work for the NWS? Then you just end up with a terrible staff.

That's not true....most are GS-12s or higher with differential pay. Generally 75K and up.

The health insurance is not a great plan and it's going up in price significantly this year, without any added benefits.

[MN Transplant]

You're lumping all public employees with feds. Feds pay a plenty for their health coverage, DO have a nominal pension and pay into ssn, and have a 401k based on their own personal contributions. That's the category of NWS employees. When I came into federal service 26 years ago, they had just changed the pension system. I had worked for them over 5 years earlier and had I stayed vs going private, I'd be retired today and working somewhere else as a fat cat. This is not your grandfather's fed. I over $5,000/year for my health benefits (as do NWS employees taking the family option). The benefits are ok but far from great as they used to be.

I couldn't retire in my 50s without substantial penalty to my pension. I now am at retirement age and the pension would not be near enough to support my current needs.

This is a significant, persistent misconception with the public. Feds just do not have the "Cadillac" benefits that they used to decades ago, or that some state and local government employees seem to still enjoy now. Since the mid-80s feds pay into the Social Security system and have a 401k (called TSP) in lieu of a full prescribed pension plan. The health benefits are pretty pedestrian. As an example, my wife (a fed, but not a met) just had a recruitment offer from a private company. Their health plan was better, and the pay would have been a significant jump. She decided against it pretty much only because we are thinking about starting a family soon and wanted stability during this time frame (therein lies the gov't advantage). But if there starts to be furloughs and pay cuts, she'll bail and the gov't will be worse off for it.

[easternsnowman]

With apologies Adam I can't separate the two, the cost of the war in Afghanistan to date would have provided enough funding to operate the National Weather Service for approximately the next 300 years. If I really wanted to save money I could think of better places to get more bang for my buck if I was interested in doing something more than political posturing on the discretionary side of the budget.

I am quite conservative and I agree with you, I think the money saved by getting out of these wars as well as cutting foreign aid would give us alot more savings. Slicing discretionary spending would not have that much an impact as would reducing medicare and medicaid as well as the defense budget.

[wxdudemike]

Having happy employees is very important. Considering meteorologists have to work shift work, move far from family/home, staff for big events which results in OT/schedule changes, etc--the benefits are worthy in my opinion. They get these for a reason--and NWS employees in general are happy for a reason. Not saying private sector mets aren't--but I can tell you from experience it isn't necessarily something everyone wants to do for a career although its fits some very well. Once again--pay/benefits is justified as happy employees generally results in better overall results which then translates to greater economic benefit.

True, but I'm sure many private sector folks would be happier with higher salaries. They don't get it, however, because their companies can't afford it. Our government can't afford to keep paying out the stuff current employees are getting. The fact is, the NWS, just like any other government agency, is bloated and could do just fine with cuts in funding. The question is, do they cut the right places when they lose the money.

[Ed Lizard]

It would be ncie if they cut subsidies and tax breaks for big oil as well who already enjoy record profits.

I heard there is an AP thread for overtly political posts...

[wxdudemike]

I am quite conservative and I agree with you, I think the money saved by getting out of these wars as well as cutting foreign aid would give us alot more savings. Slicing discretionary spending would not have that much an impact as would reducing medicare and medicaid as well as the defense budget.

Cuts need to be made in Social Security too, but no one wants to be the bad guy who brings up stuff like that

[easternsnowman]

Cuts need to be made in Social Security too, but no one wants to be the bad guy who brings up stuff like that

I agree but neither side wants to blink first. We need to raise the retirement age for younger workers as well as means test it and do the same for medicare.

[nrgjeff]

I was going to read the NWS FY12 budget before posting, but it is a 95 page PDF. Will keep my post general until I read that PDF. My idea for cuts that would not adversely impact NWS Mets is to stop competing with the private sector. I see many specialized forecast graphics and forecast charts on the NOAA websites. These forecasts should be left to the private sector. I believe the NWS main forecast products should be watches, warnings, aviation forecasts and zone forecasts. A plain language zone is not competing with the private sector, and the public needs the more accurate NWS forecasts. NWS focus on climate reporting, obs, upper air, and running the models should continue. I'm probably forgetting some stuff.

Not competing with the private sector should create more jobs in the private sector. Think of all the jobs created in logistics, surface transportation, aviation, insurance and energy because the NWS keeps out of that area. It is a good thing. TAFs, like zones, do not compete with the private sector. Add those to products the NWS should keep for safety reasons. I'd even be in favor of bringing back ag and livestock forecasts.

My idea would not cut 30% of the budget. That might be too much, but sacrifice is needed. Some earlier posts chimed in on social security and medicare. We all need to sacrifice to reduce the deficit and hopefully one day pay down part of the debt. Save up young Mets; social security will be there but at reduced benefits. A note about NWS compensation: They need not cut that. In order to attract and retain the best Mets, for public safety and economic development, a robust compensation package is clearly justified esp for the safety part. Cheers!

[Clinch Leatherwood]

You're lumping all public employees with feds. Feds pay a plenty for their health coverage, DO have a nominal pension and pay into ssn, and have a 401k based on their own personal contributions. That's the category of NWS employees. When I came into federal service 26 years ago, they had just changed the pension system. I had worked for them over 5 years earlier and had I stayed vs going private, I'd be retired today and working somewhere else as a fat cat. This is not your grandfather's fed. I over $5,000/year for my health benefits (as do NWS employees taking the family option). The benefits are ok but far from great as they used to be.

I couldn't retire in my 50s without substantial penalty to my pension. I now am at retirement age and the pension would not be near enough to support my current needs.

We should all be working for the state or MA. I understand what you are saying but my point is part of the reason we are in this position is the bad decisions over the last xx years. We don't have a choice. Read the nyt article today which sums it up well. The dems and repubs agree our best days are behind us unless we act swiftly now.

There are going to be more and more cuts and people have to realize it won't end. There's no big next boom/scam to save us this time. Budget shortfalls are a way of life and cuts won't stop.

Our national debt if unchecked would exceed GDP in short order. Noaa budgets are one piece of the puzzle. They aren't going to be immune to cuts. Everything is going to be cut somewhat there's just no choice.

Ot but as gas prices rise the economic 'growth' will stall and will only make the situation worse. Capitalism is consuming itself and eventually this house of cards will fall in. we have developed the next great thing whether it be the smartphone or iPad but all those manufacturing jobs are in Asia not here. That won't shift back until we have fallen so far Americans are willing to use little screwdrivers for $8 an hour instead of working as an electrician making $50.

I just don't think people get how screwed we are as a nation and make it all IMBY. Cuts have to be made to delay the inevitable. The fight will be to ward off drastic cuts like this in favor of more acceptable scenarios. Either way some cuts are coming.

[famartin]

True, but I'm sure many private sector folks would be happier with higher salaries. They don't get it, however, because their companies can't afford it.

They don't get it because they don't have it, or they don't get it because the bosses keep a significantly larger share?

It seems to me that besides the general need to cut back, there's a lot of anger in America because many government employees are unionized while many private sector ones aren't. Hence what is going on in Wisconsin. Government jobs are secure and generally well (not necessarily over) compensated, while everyone in the private sector is feeling scared about what might happen next with their companies. The average American wants the "safe" government employees to feel the heat the rest of them are feeling. Whether or not that anger and feeling is justified, I won't get into.

[ApacheTrout]

I heard there is an AP thread for overtly political posts...

The proposed NWS cuts are political by the very nature of the NWS being a publicly funded agency. So when we are asked to decide if the cuts are warranted, we look at: 1) whether the services of such a vital agency can continue unhindered by a lower budget, and 2) if not, where can funds be found to keep the agency operating effectively? The answer to the second question requires that we examine other policy choices. In the case of oil, our politicians believe it critical to offer tax subsidies to an extremely profitable private sector. As these subsidies remove revenue to the government, how can we adequately answer the second question?

I don't believe that the answer to Q1 is automatically NO. But I do believe the search for that answer is dishonest if we focus on the misconceptions of bloated salaries and Cadillac benefits.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

They don't get it because they don't have it, or they don't get it because the bosses keep a significantly larger share?

It seems to me that besides the general need to cut back, there's a lot of anger in America because many government employees are unionized while many private sector ones aren't. Hence what is going on in Wisconsin. Government jobs are secure and generally well (not necessarily over) compensated, while everyone in the private sector is feeling scared about what might happen next with their companies. The average American wants the "safe" government employees to feel the heat the rest of them are feeling. Whether or not that anger and feeling is justified, I won't get into.

Again this is the stuff that sets people off, 83 city workers making more than 200k a year when we're laying off teachers, don't have complete FD coverage etc. http://www.bostonher...ticleid=1317396

Multiply this times xxxxxx for all the other little towns, cities and states that do the same thing, go broke and then take money from the Fed that it doesn't have. Then in turn to "balance" the budget the Fed has to cut NOAA because the Fed had to give tons of money to states so they could rehire people they overpaid in the first place. One big circle jerk I'm afraid. This is the part people don't get. The towns turn to the state, the state to the Fed. But the real hard cuts aren't made because Uncle Sam will just slap down some cash. But eventually the cuts do come at the federal level as we are seeing here because it's much easier to gut the NWS than it is to take on a police, fire or teachers union. That's why this issue cannot be separated out as it is part and parcel. Do we really think the intention of public service with great pensions and benefits was to make 250k a year? As a public servant?

Weathafella talked about pensions earlier. Sure it's changed SOME in SOME areas....but the damage is done. Miami Florida...25% of their operating budget is pensions! Some states are well over 10%...how can any system survive at those rates...they just cannot.

[AtticaFanatica]

Would dual pol be on the chopping block or has it already been paid for?

I doubt it. If anything radar gets hurt, it'll probably be R&D in the area of phased-array radar. The dual-pol upgrade has already started (finally).

[famartin]

Again this is the stuff that sets people off, 83 city workers making more than 200k a year when we're laying off teachers, don't have complete FD coverage etc. http://www.bostonher...ticleid=1317396

I'm not so sure... there seems to be a lot of people who, for example, hate the teachers union. The city workers making 200k may be the cause of many financial woes, but it seems like the teachers union is one of the prime entities who draws a lot of fire.

[wxdudemike]

"You" don't pay all NWS employees overtime for all holidays (I put "you" in quotes because people forget that NWS and every other government employee is a taxpayer too). If a person is scheduled to work on that holiday, they do get double pay--which is done because they're having to work while other employees are off spending the holiday with their family (which is especially justifiable if they're on a midnight shift then spend the holiday in a cranky mood or asleep). If they're not scheduled to work that day, they just get a regular paid holiday like many areas of private sector--and most government employees are in that category.

Thanks for the clarification. I still believe some of the smaller holidays most normal people wouldn't take off for are overdoing it a bit, but I guess that would be a fine line to draw.

[famartin]

z

Actually the NWS is quite a lean-running machine and does very well given the budget it gets, even before the current budget problems. You're getting a lot of bang for your buck here--for the yearly individual equivalent of a Burger King value meal, you're getting a near overload of weather information and life-saving warning services.

I find it a bit odd that a meteorology student is advocating hacking away at the largest employer of meteorologists--an employer that's already very tough to get into.

I hear one Joel Myers has had his cross-hairs on the NWS since he was a kid, so its not completely crazy

[wxdudemike]

Actually the NWS is quite a lean-running machine and does very well given the budget it gets, even before the current budget problems. You're getting a lot of bang for your buck here--for the yearly individual equivalent of a Burger King value meal, you're getting a near overload of weather information and life-saving warning services.

I find it a bit odd that a meteorology student is advocating hacking away at the largest employer of meteorologists--an employer that's already very tough to get into.

Well, in a perfect world they wouldn't lose funding and would create more jobs to help me and other met. students out. But I have to be realistic and understand that when we the government starts cutting spending (which has to happen) it will undoubtedly effect the NWS.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

Actually the NWS is quite a lean-running machine and does very well given the budget it gets, even before the current budget problems. You're getting a lot of bang for your buck here--for the yearly individual equivalent of a Burger King value meal, you're getting a near overload of weather information and life-saving warning services.

I find it a bit odd that a meteorology student is advocating hacking away at the largest employer of meteorologists--an employer that's already very tough to get into.

It doesn't matter how well the NWS is being run. That's what people don't get. So many other segments of the government are so poorly run everyone takes a hit. It's the one bad apple scenario but in this case it's 50% of our agencies being bad apples ruining those that aren't.

People need to go sit in on their local town meetings/city council meetings instead of reading this forum so much. It's UGLY and about to get a lot worse as it always hits government later (recessions). The worst is yet to come and now there's no more monopoly money left to save the jobs.

I don't think people look beyond their on backyards. I don't blame anyone we are all just trying to get through today and survive. But we're China's b**ch and as wikileaks and other sources are showing....we're going to be essentially tennants of China east over the next 100 years. I think it's going to take another 5-10 years before people realize we may still have the best militiary but we're already far from the economic top of the hill. http://www.cnbc.com/id/41643598

There are going to be ridiculous cuts to our services and to things like NOAA in years to come. The alternative is the Chinese pulling out the rug that knocks over the pyramid scheme.

[baroclinic_instability]

True, but I'm sure many private sector folks would be happier with higher salaries. They don't get it, however, because their companies can't afford it. Our government can't afford to keep paying out the stuff current employees are getting. The fact is, the NWS, just like any other government agency, is bloated and could do just fine with cuts in funding. The question is, do they cut the right places when they lose the money.

You are seemingly missing the point--there is a huge difference in small cuts and 20-30% cuts in spending. You also seem to miss the point that private companies work directly off products produced by NOAA including NCEP products that are currently free by law. If models suddenly had to be paid for after there are 20-30% slashes in spending--how well do you think private corporations will fair? This is a broad impact budget plan the house republicans are trying to pass that effects all parts of the meteorological industry--and your career with NCEP or any other met company you want to work for. Thankfully it won't make it in its current iteration--but it shows what kind of political games we are playing here.

[Maximum lawman]

It doesn't matter how well the NWS is being run. That's what people don't get. So many other segments of the government are so poorly run everyone takes a hit. It's the one bad apple scenario but in this case it's 50% of our agencies being bad apples ruining those that aren't.

People need to go sit in on their local town meetings/city council meetings instead of reading this forum so much. It's UGLY and about to get a lot worse as it always hits government later (recessions). The worst is yet to come and now there's no more monopoly money left to save the jobs.

I don't think people look beyond their on backyards. I don't blame anyone we are all just trying to get through today and survive. But we're China's b**ch and as wikileaks and other sources are showing....we're going to be essentially tennants of China east over the next 100 years. I think it's going to take another 5-10 years before people realize we may still have the best militiary but we're already far from the economic top of the hill. http://www.cnbc.com/id/41643598

There are going to be ridiculous cuts to our services and to things like NOAA in years to come. The alternative is the Chinese pulling out the rug that knocks over the pyramid scheme.

I should let this go, but this incessant drumbeat of gloom is really annoying. Some facts. The Fed just upped it's GDP forecast, meaning more revenue to the Treasury, quite possibly more than the $100 Billion the House is looking to cut (here's another fact-it's not really $100M that's just a gimmick). Fact: privately held debt is several multiples of government debt, so if you want to see an empire collapsing go peek in your neigbors houses. Here's a fact - the Fed made $20B on it's liquidity programs the doomsayers label as a pnzi scheme. Huh. Etc.

But most importantly, there is no chance these cuts will pass. 122 offices means there are a helluva lot of Congressinal offices with constituents on the chopping block. The House has already capitulated on a host of proposed cuts, including to the COPS office, funds for first responders etc. Not to mention Boehner seems to have lost control of his troops, note today's cancelling of the F-35 engine project, to be built in part in Boehner's district. I think NWS is pretty safe.

[ApacheTrout]

I should let this go, but this incessant drumbeat of gloom is really annoying. Some facts. The Fed just upped it's GDP forecast, meaning more revenue to the Treasury, quite possibly more than the $100 Billion the House is looking to cut (here's another fact-it's not really $100M that's just a gimmick). Fact: privately held debt is several multiples of government debt, so if you want to see an empire collapsing go peek in your neigbors houses. Here's a fact - the Fed made $20B on it's liquidity programs the doomsayers label as a pnzi scheme. Huh. Etc.

The gloom is part of the message. We must cut services (which are bloated, of course, but somehow manage to out-compete private enterprises) because we can't afford them any longer because our society is collapsing and we're going to be owned by foreigners unless we change our ways. The result is that the nobody understands that government debt is inherently due to tax cuts. Restore the taxes to the levels of the 1990s when budgets were balanced and we were actually paying down the national debt. Strangely, the annual deficit problems disappear. Go figure.

Look at what's going on in Wisconsin. Prior to a tax cut that was enacted this year, the state's budget was in balance. Now, the deficit is being hoisted squarely on the shoulders of workers and the nefarious unions.

[LocoAko]

I haven't read the entire article, but could this actually be one of the effects should this come to pass? Or is this just someone being dramatic and listing potential things that could theoretically happen?

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/house-fiscal-11-budget-proposal-could-devastate-the-national-weather-services-life-saving-warnings-and-forecasts-116235429.html

...

Reduced funding will mean upper air observations currently made twice a day might be reduced to every other day. Buoy and surface weather observations, the backbone of most of the weather and warning systems, may be temporarily or permanently discontinued. Delays in replacement satellites run the risk of losing key weather data that can be obtained no other way. "This information is vital for weather modeling and essential for accurate tornado watches and warnings," said Sobien.

....

[wxdudemike]

You are seemingly missing the point--there is a huge difference in small cuts and 20-30% cuts in spending. You also seem to miss the point that private companies work directly off products produced by NOAA including NCEP products that are currently free by law. If models suddenly had to be paid for after there are 20-30% slashes in spending--how well do you think private corporations will fair? This is a broad impact budget plan the house republicans are trying to pass that effects all parts of the meteorological industry--and your career with NCEP or any other met company you want to work for. Thankfully it won't make it in its current iteration--but it shows what kind of political games we are playing here.

I must not have been clear...I don't want a 30% cut in spending b/c as we've all stated that would be devastating. But some sort of cut (maybe on the order of 10%?) will likely be made and I'm trying to say that if applied to the right areas it wouldn't be extremely bad. Unfortunately the folks handling that wouldn't have the best judgment on what cuts will do more harm than others...

[wxdudemike]

I haven't read the entire article, but could this actually be one of the effects should this come to pass? Or is this just someone being dramatic and listing potential things that could theoretically happen?

http://www.prnewswir...-116235429.html

Seeing as it came from a union, I would expect it was beefed up a little extra. But I don't think anyone knows exactly what would happen, so it's not 100% out of the question.

[Clinch Leatherwood]

I should let this go, but this incessant drumbeat of gloom is really annoying. Some facts. The Fed just upped it's GDP forecast, meaning more revenue to the Treasury, quite possibly more than the $100 Billion the House is looking to cut (here's another fact-it's not really $100M that's just a gimmick). Fact: privately held debt is several multiples of government debt, so if you want to see an empire collapsing go peek in your neigbors houses. Here's a fact - the Fed made $20B on it's liquidity programs the doomsayers label as a pnzi scheme. Huh. Etc.

But most importantly, there is no chance these cuts will pass. 122 offices means there are a helluva lot of Congressinal offices with constituents on the chopping block. The House has already capitulated on a host of proposed cuts, including to the COPS office, funds for first responders etc. Not to mention Boehner seems to have lost control of his troops, note today's cancelling of the F-35 engine project, to be built in part in Boehner's district. I think NWS is pretty safe.

So you think the multipliers of debt both on the private and federal level are good things? And that those debts are increasingly held by foreign governments? China and Japan alone own about 43% of all debt owned by foreign governments, we owe China at least a trillion in just long term dollars. They will/do have us over a barrel because we cannot afford to have them stop buying our debt or we are done.

The situation is dire in a lot of States. Just look at Wisconsin, tough votes need to be made and the police are actually being forced to go look for politicians under desks that won't show up to vote. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/us/18wisconsin.html?_r=1&hp

The gloom is part of the message. We must cut services (which are bloated, of course, but somehow manage to out-compete private enterprises) because we can't afford them any longer because our society is collapsing and we're going to be owned by foreigners unless we change our ways. The result is that the nobody understands that government debt is inherently due to tax cuts. Restore the taxes to the levels of the 1990s when budgets were balanced and we were actually paying down the national debt. Strangely, the annual deficit problems disappear. Go figure.

Look at what's going on in Wisconsin. Prior to a tax cut that was enacted this year, the state's budget was in balance. Now, the deficit is being hoisted squarely on the shoulders of workers and the nefarious unions.

We are owned by foreigners. Removing the shell game of intragovernmental holdings foreigners hold a much larger share of our debt than private domestic investors, state and local pensions etc.

There are 4 countries that are expected to have a total debt vs GDP of over 100%. We're one of them, so is Greece.

We need to keep the status quo, let our kids deal with it.

[ApacheTrout]

So you think the multipliers of debt both on the private and federal level are good things? And that those debts are increasingly held by foreign governments? China and Japan alone own about 43% of all debt owned by foreign governments, we owe China at least a trillion in just long term dollars. They will/do have us over a barrel because we cannot afford to have them stop buying our debt or we are done.

The situation is dire in a lot of States. Just look at Wisconsin, tough votes need to be made and the police are actually being forced to go look for politicians under desks that won't show up to vote. http://www.nytimes.c...in.html?_r=1

We are owned by foreigners. Removing the shell game of intragovernmental holdings foreigners hold a much larger share of our debt than private domestic investors, state and local pensions etc.

There are 4 countries that are expected to have a total debt vs GDP of over 100%. We're one of them, so is Greece.

We need to keep the status quo, let our kids deal with it.

Aiigh.. Never mind. Let's just eliminate NWS so I can have my $4.30 in taxes back. I'll buy a weather stick, and watch for it to bend to tell me rain is on the way. That way I don't have to rely on "science" or anything else hokey that also might contribute to those global warming hoax studies.

[MGorse]

I was going to read the NWS FY12 budget before posting, but it is a 95 page PDF. Will keep my post general until I read that PDF. My idea for cuts that would not adversely impact NWS Mets is to stop competing with the private sector. I see many specialized forecast graphics and forecast charts on the NOAA websites. These forecasts should be left to the private sector. I believe the NWS main forecast products should be watches, warnings, aviation forecasts and zone forecasts. A plain language zone is not competing with the private sector, and the public needs the more accurate NWS forecasts. NWS focus on climate reporting, obs, upper air, and running the models should continue. I'm probably forgetting some stuff.

Not competing with the private sector should create more jobs in the private sector. Think of all the jobs created in logistics, surface transportation, aviation, insurance and energy because the NWS keeps out of that area. It is a good thing. TAFs, like zones, do not compete with the private sector. Add those to products the NWS should keep for safety reasons. I'd even be in favor of bringing back ag and livestock forecasts.

My idea would not cut 30% of the budget. That might be too much, but sacrifice is needed. Some earlier posts chimed in on social security and medicare. We all need to sacrifice to reduce the deficit and hopefully one day pay down part of the debt. Save up young Mets; social security will be there but at reduced benefits. A note about NWS compensation: They need not cut that. In order to attract and retain the best Mets, for public safety and economic development, a robust compensation package is clearly justified esp for the safety part. Cheers!

I do not really think the NWS is competing with the private sector regarding the graphics that you mentioned on NOAA websites. From what I understand, they are taking advantage of the technology and offering different ways to get the weather message across. Not all NWS regions do these graphics however. Also, this competing aspect you mention, it does go both ways as the private sector has taken on some things that the NWS has been doing. An example is tropical storm and hurricane track forecasts. I used to work in the private sector and once someone noticed what the NWS/NHC was doing, then a similar product was being produced by this private sector company. You mentioned TAFs and at one point the FAA was looking to possibly go to the private sector to get their aviation forecasts (there may have been some testing with this but I am not 100 percent sure on that). The NWS met with the FAA many times and worked with them and then made improvements/changes. While there is a fine line between what the NWS and the private sector companies offer, there is some overlap. Again, I do not think the NWS is meaning for this type of stuff to be competition as there is no real gain from it. The NWS just wants to get the weather information out there so people are aware of impending inclement weather. There is room for the private sector and the NWS to exist together.

Anyway, back to the budget discussions...

[ApacheTrout]

I do not really think the NWS is competing with the private sector regarding the graphics that you mentioned on NOAA websites. From what I understand, they are taking advantage of the technology and offering different ways to get the weather message across. Not all NWS regions do these graphics however. Also, this competing aspect you mention, it does go both ways as the private sector has taken on some things that the NWS has been doing. An example is tropical storm and hurricane track forecasts. I used to work in the private sector and once someone noticed what the NWS/NHC was doing, then a similar product was being produced by this private sector company. You mentioned TAFs and at one point the FAA was looking to possibly go to the private sector to get their aviation forecasts (there may have been some testing with this but I am not 100 percent sure on that). The NWS met with the FAA many times and worked with them and then made improvements/changes. While there is a fine line between what the NWS and the private sector companies offer, there is some overlap. Again, I do not think the NWS is meaning for this type of stuff to be competition as there is no real gain from it. The NWS just wants to get the weather information out there so people are aware of impending inclement weather. There is room for the private sector and the NWS to exist together.

Anyway, back to the budget discussions...

Stop that. You're introducing analytical assessments of the functions of NWS. It's going to interfere with our ability to make rational judgments without the support of facts.

[MGorse]

Stop that. You're introducing analytical assessments of the functions of NWS. It's going to interfere with our ability to make rational judgments without the support of facts.

Excuse me!! I was responding to the post that mentioned competition between the NWS and private sector. Rational judgments? About what? This thread is about the NWS budget. The information I provided was a response to that one post so folks understand that aspect of it.

[Cajun Thunder]

Didn't we just finish hearing from a bunch of you about the NWS computer/communications problems during the big winter storms?? Anyone wonder why that happened?? When the infrastructure can't keep up with the technology, bottlenecks occur. How does that get resolved?? Investment in infrastructure. Something that cannot be done effectively without funding. Funding that is being cut.