Congress cutting NWS budget?

[OSUmetstud]

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.

I think your sarcasm detector is broken.

[famartin]

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.

I think that comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, Mike...

[ApacheTrout]

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.

Oops. I wrote this with too much of a straight face. I should've used the ol' smiley face that sticks out his tongue, as I see that I caught you off guard.

[MGorse]

Oops. I wrote this with too much of a straight face. I should've used the ol' smiley face that sticks out his tongue, as I see that I caught you off guard.

Well then, I did not see that but apparently a few others did. My bad. Tough to pick that out sometimes.

[Maximum lawman]

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.

Sigh. There's a lot of financial ignorance on this thread. What happens to the debt China owns if they stop buying US treasuries?

[Clinch Leatherwood]

Sigh. There's a lot of financial ignorance on this thread. What happens to the debt China owns if they stop buying US treasuries?

If they stop buying our treasuries as the number one foreign owner we can't afford all the programs we're already running by borrowing. China, Japan and one or two others are our sugar daddies right now. Even the hint that they are going to stop buying and they have political influence which they already do.

Before you say someone is financial ignorant maybe get your facts straight or ask a question of what was meant.

40% of all personal income taxes goes to pay the ~500 billion a year we spend on interest on our national debt. If their appetite for new treasuries vanishes we're screwed. It would drive up interest rates across the board hurting the housing market even more, increasing personal, corporate and the governments borrowing cost and taking us one step closer to being a banana republic. It could even start a fatal run on the dollar.

Why did we bail out fannie and freddie? Partly because of the public threats by China on the value of their investments seeing as they owned about 400 billion in Fannie/Freddie and stood to lose it all. We had to bail out fannie and freddie because at that point if the chinese event hinted more than a few times that they'd think about dumping their investments or slowing purchases we were totally screwed.

If China were ever to decide it was type to step over us in the world they simply pull back on buying our treasuries. There isn't another nation or even group of nations that could pick up the slack and at that point we cannot finance our deficit and the cuts proposed on this thread will look like a dollar bill flying out of a wallet by comparison.

If China stops buying our debt we're all done.

[AtticaFanatica]

You've said the same thing in like 10 posts now. We get your point.

[nynjpaweather]

Simple way to prevent these cuts to the NWS, get rid of Social Security, Obamacare, and Medicare. Simple. This is what happens when you put big government idiots in charge.

[AtticaFanatica]

There's nothing like pejoratives to guarantee that your argument will not be taken seriously.

[RUNNAWAYICEBERG]

Simple way to prevent these cuts to the NWS, get rid of Social Security, Obamacare, and Medicare. Simple. This is what happens when you put big government idiots in charge.

epic fail dood. EPIC!!

dont know where to start cuz your statements are flawed from all directions. well, unless you're a wall st goon or big business CEO.

oh, you forgot to mention getting rid of unemployment benefits too. heck, lets not have a govt at all. just put an old rich white guy in the WH and just let everyone across this great nation walk around strapped fending for themselves. no need for police, firefighters, teachers, etc.....we can turn back the clock 100yrs and just have a wild wild west across the entire land.

and its funny, but im not laughing, that the party who is ALL ABOUT small govt and less spending had the BIGGEST govt in GW's 8yrs in office, and spent THE MOST IN HISTORY!!

oh i get it...wait til the liberal gets into the WH and just blame HIM for it. esp cuz hes black, just start up the hate train and those simple minded folks who live in fear will just follow!

[RUNNAWAYICEBERG]

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.

EXACTLY!!!!

[donsutherland1]

Two quick points:

1) There are structural budget deficits tied to the mandatory spending programs/insufficiency of long-term revenue; there are cyclical deficits tied to the business cycle and shorter-term extraordinary factors (i.e., the Afghanistan and Iraq war-related spending). The latter is largely driving the current fiscal deficits. The former have put the nation on a medium- and long-term unsustainable fiscal path, as it is those imbalances that will escalate to the point where inaction would lead to a fiscal crisis.

2) The NWS is one of the higher value-added components of the federal government. It is unfortunate that the federal budgeting process does not take a hard look at value added, long-term returns (e.g., on investments), etc., and, instead, treats all dollars as essentially the same. IMO, that is not a very rational way to do things e.g., a dollar of savings achieved today from an investment that leads to lower productivity could lead to an overall negative fiscal impact that greatly exceeds that near-term "saving."

[baroclinic_instability]

Two quick points:

1) There are structural budget deficits tied to the mandatory spending programs/insufficiency of long-term revenue; there are cyclical deficits tied to the business cycle and shorter-term extraordinary factors (i.e., the Afghanistan and Iraq war-related spending). The latter is largely driving the current fiscal deficits. The former have put the nation on a medium- and long-term unsustainable fiscal path, as it is those imbalances that will escalate to the point where inaction would lead to a fiscal crisis.

2) The NWS is one of the higher value-added components of the federal government. It is unfortunate that the federal budgeting process does not take a hard look at value added, long-term returns (e.g., on investments), etc., and, instead, treats all dollars as essentially the same. IMO, that is not a very rational way to do things e.g., a dollar of savings achieved today from an investment that leads to lower productivity could lead to an overall negative fiscal impact that greatly exceed that near-term "saving."

Exactly--fully agree. Reckless is the only way I can say it. Simply cutting everything without considering the economic benefit of the program is amazingly silly. Unfortunately some folks in the house/senate are more interested in making a political statement than doing what is truly beneficial to the economy. Slashing funding to cut costs which only leads to greater losses than the actual initial savings makes no sense. This argument doesn't even consider societal impacts and public safety regarding adverse weather. Can you put a dollar value on human life? I know it has been tried...

[RUNNAWAYICEBERG]

Exactly--fully agree. Reckless is the only way I can say it. Simply cutting everything without considering the economic benefit of the program is amazingly silly. Unfortunately some folks in the house/senate are more interested in making a political statement than doing what is truly beneficial to the economy. Slashing funding to cut costs which only leads to greater losses than the actual initial savings makes no sense. This argument doesn't even consider societal impacts and public safety regarding adverse weather. Can you put a dollar value on human life? I know it has been tried...

funny you mention that..this morning on 820am here in WNYC they talked about studies and research about this exact topic. and though the old saying is that life is priceless, the avg price tag is around $8million or so, though it flucuates.

http://www.aolnews.c...-on-human-life/

[baroclinic_instability]

funny you mention that..this morning on 820am here in WNYC they talked about studies and research about this exact topic. and though the old saying is that life is priceless, the avg price tag is around $8million or so, though it flucuates.

http://www.aolnews.c...-on-human-life/

Interesting--I knew it had been done before--but thanks for the link. I didn't know the "value" was that high.

[schlontz]

This is just the thread I wanted to come across when I'm visiting colleges next week to potentially major in meteorology.

Thanks.

This stuff is even better when you are two and a half months away from graduating with a degree in meteorology.

[Animal]

This stuff is even better when you are two and a half months away from graduating with a degree in meteorology.

if you are smart, dedicated and can work well with groups of people, you should be okay in the long term.

the fear factor is not only in gov jobs, but public.(just read this thread) You may be the next director of XYZ NOAA office or agency or private met company.

I have over the years seen a few prospects that are bright when young, but turn out as dud in their early 20's.

The idea that you will get rich in most professions is far from true, but just enjoy what you do and happy times should follow.

cheers

[famartin]

if you are smart, dedicated and can work well with groups of people, you should be okay in the long term.

And if you're willing to move long distances to less than ideal locales.

[schlontz]

And if you're willing to move long distances to less than ideal locales.

I've always been aware of this and I am completely open to moving anywhere. It's just that if these budget cuts come to pass, jobs are likely to become even more scarce than they already are. I've read the whole thread and some posts on other sites, and there does seem to be some optimism about this not happening to the extent feared. However, the fact that this idea is even being considered should be enough to make people pursuing a meteorology career feel uneasy.

That being said, I am really enjoying the fact that it is currently 61 degrees at 3AM in February.

[wall_cloud]

they tried to pass a bill that would have crippled the NWS' ability to dissiminate warnings (outside of weather radio) in 2005. That bill never left the committee. usually the local emergency managers start to throw a big fit about right now.

[blizzard1024]

I doubt any of the 122 WFOs would close even under the worst scenarios.

There is just too much political risk under such "rolling closure" scenarios.

Imagine a tornado outbreak in an area which is down a local WFO with

deaths. The blame will go directly to Congress . They won't take this risk

with such small amounts of money(100 million dollars).

No way. Does launching weather balloons every other day really

save that much money? Are the savings worth the unraveling of the gains

in forecast accuracy that all americans are used to. Plus, private sector

companies would get hit with decreased accuracy of their products and services

would could cut into their bottom line. I believe all this talk is a ploy to

get attention and decrease chances of such draconian cuts to the NWS the

rest of this FY. What about the future? That is where all should be more

concerned.

For long term, I fear that, if the budget pictures remains bleak, something

like CONOPS of years past will have to be enacted. I don't see any reason

to close a WFO since they have NEXRAD radars and local ASOSs. Facilities

have to be in place for the electronic technicians in case of outages. So a facility

has to remain in place with costs for utilities, leasing etc. Thus why not have

some met staff there? There is outreach, local research, COOP, climate, SKYWARN,

local EM partnerships (StormReady), decision support services, local deployments

to EOCs during high impact weather events etc. Staff will be needed to

continue these vital programs. BUT these staff don't necessarily have to

produce daily forecasts given the latest in technology (GFE) etc.

They however could be utilized like the old WSO days issuing warnings

for high impact weather and providing Decision support briefings, local

deployments to county or state EOCs during major weather events. When

the weather is fair they do the other stuff described above.

What this could mean is that the number of forecasters at most WFOs would

be reduced possibly by 1/2 or more with 4-6 forecasters instead of 10-12. There would

be some regional forecast centers that would have somewhat larger staffs.

These larger offices would produce daily forecasts for much larger areas.

In this way, NWS would be able to reduce staffing and cut labor costs which are

around 2/3 their budget. 1/3 is for facilities. So if NWS has to absorb

large cuts in the future, it likely will come from reducing the number of staff...not

consolidating WFOs with more people. I don't see anyone losing their job outright.

This likely can be obtained through attrition with a total hiring freeze for 5-10 years.

Oh yeah...I would imagine that there would be a reduction in the number of

regions and positions at NWSHQ. Could be some tough times for NWS

staff and future met grads who want NWS jobs in the next 5-10 years

unless the budget situation rights itself.

That's my opinion. thoughts???

[Rainshadow]

they tried to pass a bill that would have crippled the NWS' ability to dissiminate warnings (outside of weather radio) in 2005. That bill never left the committee. usually the local emergency managers start to throw a big fit about right now.

Well HR1 passed the house today, pretty much along party lines. It sounds like its DOA in the Senate as is.

[Snowbo]

If we cheap out on WX observations and lessen the data stream available, would that not impact weather forecasting worldwide? With less reliable forecasts would that not affect aircraft carriers , for example? Would that not affect national security in that sense? To say nothing of lives placed in jeopardy from less up to date weather services, right here at home? Cutting NWS is quite a foolish way to save a buck. Or so it seems to me, but I am not a Met.

[Snowbo]

Simple way to prevent these cuts to the NWS, get rid of Social Security, Obamacare, and Medicare. Simple. This is what happens when you put big government idiots in charge.

Someday, when you are 65 years old, you may have a different outlook, sir. And who is in charge of the Pentagon budget, since half of our taxes goes right there?

[BillB]

For long term, I fear that, if the budget pictures remains bleak, something

like CONOPS of years past will have to be enacted. I don't see any reason

to close a WFO since they have NEXRAD radars and local ASOSs. Facilities

have to be in place for the electronic technicians in case of outages. So a facility

has to remain in place with costs for utilities, leasing etc. Thus why not have

some met staff there? There is outreach, local research, COOP, climate, SKYWARN,

local EM partnerships (StormReady), decision support services, local deployments

to EOCs during high impact weather events etc. Staff will be needed to

continue these vital programs. BUT these staff don't necessarily have to

produce daily forecasts given the latest in technology (GFE) etc.

They however could be utilized like the old WSO days issuing warnings

for high impact weather and providing Decision support briefings, local

deployments to county or state EOCs during major weather events. When

the weather is fair they do the other stuff described above.

That's my opinion. thoughts???

Some thoughts:

Wow. Outreach, local research, climate, Skywarn, EM partnerships, decision support services, local deployments...and a few you didn't mention such as verification of public, aviation, marine, and fire weather forecasts...and translation of that verification into actions for improvement. Outreach and Skywarn are commitments that require forecasters outside the building and unavailable for staffing during those periods. And the proposed smaller offices are going to be able to do all that with just 4-6 people. Our office needs that many at one time just to handle our larger Severe Tstm events...normally several times each summer. Or Flood events. Or Winter Storm events.

24/7 coverage will require more than 4 people even at a "small" office. Four people means 160 hours a week...except a week has 168 hours. Of course there is scheduled overtime that could be used each week...and which burned out our office after 8 months of shorthanded operations. Unless researchers come up with a formula that ends all sickness and injury for federal workers and their families. And that isn't even considering annual leave or temporary assignments to headquarters.

Even the proposed larger offices are going to have larger workload. There is the work for their own local area, the work being shed by the smaller office(s), and their program work (this doesn't just happen at "small" offices). But wouldn't GFE (Graphical Forecast Editior) take care of that...same amount of work whether for local area or for a combined local/neighbor area? Maybe for a "plug and chug" forecast method. Unlikely otherwise. The combined area would be a larger area covering differing topography, differences in time and space (for example, coastal storm in one area and cold pool effects in the neighbor area), and a need to account for grid deficiencies (problems/inconsistancies in model/mos grids for sky cover and for pops, a significant problem in the Northeast).

Please see my previous post to see how impressed I am at genuflections toward "new technology" or "latest in technology". GFE hasn't reduced the workload, only shifted its appearance. The scenario you pose will not reduce the workload...it will only shift it from one (smaller) office to another (larger) one. Same human requirement, but with a shuffling of the deck chairs. Perhaps when the technology matures to the point that it approaches the promises made 20 years ago........

Is it possible the NWS would try this scenario, if allowed? Perhaps, if pushed. Would this be advisable? No.

Anyway, those are some of my reactions.

[ApacheTrout]

Simple way to prevent these cuts to the NWS, get rid of Social Security, Obamacare, and Medicare. Simple. This is what happens when you put big government idiots in charge.

Two out of your three targets contribute nothing to the annual deficit or the public debt. Social Security has been in the black every year, in the process building up a surplus that is projected to last until 2037. The government has borrowed against the surplus and many people believe that the surplus will never be paid back. That would constitute a default, which is something our government has never done. You can argue against SS because you philosophically believe it is wrong, but you can't argue that it contributes to the deficit, as it simply not true.

Regarding "Obamacare", the majority of the program won't be implemented until 2014. Even so, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that, over 10 years, the program actually reduces the deficit. As with Social Security, you can argue about the merits of the program, but the facts are that the health care reform has nothing to do with the annual deficit or the public debt.

Your third target, Medicare, does contribute to the annual deficit and the public debt. Yet when Part D was enacted (under Republican (i.e. the party of "small government") control of the Presidency and both chambers of Congress), the new benefits were not paid for with increased taxes or spending cuts elsewhere, which effectively increased the annual deficit and the public debt.

[Rainshadow]

Some thoughts:

Wow. Outreach, local research, climate, Skywarn, EM partnerships, decision support services, local deployments...and a few you didn't mention such as verification of public, aviation, marine, and fire weather forecasts...and translation of that verification into actions for improvement. Outreach and Skywarn are commitments that require forecasters outside the building and unavailable for staffing during those periods. And the proposed smaller offices are going to be able to do all that with just 4-6 people. Our office needs that many at one time just to handle our larger Severe Tstm events...normally several times each summer. Or Flood events. Or Winter Storm events.

24/7 coverage will require more than 4 people even at a "small" office. Four people means 160 hours a week...except a week has 168 hours. Of course there is scheduled overtime that could be used each week...and which burned out our office after 8 months of shorthanded operations. Unless researchers come up with a formula that ends all sickness and injury for federal workers and their families. And that isn't even considering annual leave or temporary assignments to headquarters.

Even the proposed larger offices are going to have larger workload. There is the work for their own local area, the work being shed by the smaller office(s), and their program work (this doesn't just happen at "small" offices). But wouldn't GFE (Graphical Forecast Editior) take care of that...same amount of work whether for local area or for a combined local/neighbor area? Maybe for a "plug and chug" forecast method. Unlikely otherwise. The combined area would be a larger area covering differing topography, differences in time and space (for example, coastal storm in one area and cold pool effects in the neighbor area), and a need to account for grid deficiencies (problems/inconsistancies in model/mos grids for sky cover and for pops, a significant problem in the Northeast).

Please see my previous post to see how impressed I am at genuflections toward "new technology" or "latest in technology". GFE hasn't reduced the workload, only shifted its appearance. The scenario you pose will not reduce the workload...it will only shift it from one (smaller) office to another (larger) one. Same human requirement, but with a shuffling of the deck chairs. Perhaps when the technology matures to the point that it approaches the promises made 20 years ago........

Is it possible the NWS would try this scenario, if allowed? Perhaps, if pushed. Would this be advisable? No.

Anyway, those are some of my reactions.

If you ask me all of the new grids that are required to be created in GFE (we haven't even started aviation grids here yet) has tremendously increased the workload from where it was a few years ago.

[blizzard1024]

You are correct that it takes more people to do all this stuff than 5 forecasters or so. But, that assumes

the same level of services as today. There is no doubt that a reduction as outlined

would lead to a degradation of service nationwide. You get what you pay for. if congress

reduces the budget and the president goes along with it through the years then the service will suffer. Less

people = less service, especially since most NWS staff are so dedicated and hard working.

Those who are left under this scenario would be working harder than ever...OT and tons of

extra duties. Oh yeah...by then they probably will either cut federal pay or they won't see any

raises for 5-10 years so in effect it would be a pay cut. Less pay and more and more work...

sounds like many in the private sector huh? sucks. Hopefully none of this will happen.

NWS is a very very very small piece of the budget pie and the taxpayer gets a lot of bang for the buck.

NWSEO is also very influential and basically crushed CONOPS years ago...maybe this would hold

true again? Also the CWSU closure and consolidation never made it either and it looked

very bleak at one point. one can hope.

Some thoughts:

Wow. Outreach, local research, climate, Skywarn, EM partnerships, decision support services, local deployments...and a few you didn't mention such as verification of public, aviation, marine, and fire weather forecasts...and translation of that verification into actions for improvement. Outreach and Skywarn are commitments that require forecasters outside the building and unavailable for staffing during those periods. And the proposed smaller offices are going to be able to do all that with just 4-6 people. Our office needs that many at one time just to handle our larger Severe Tstm events...normally several times each summer. Or Flood events. Or Winter Storm events.

24/7 coverage will require more than 4 people even at a "small" office. Four people means 160 hours a week...except a week has 168 hours. Of course there is scheduled overtime that could be used each week...and which burned out our office after 8 months of shorthanded operations. Unless researchers come up with a formula that ends all sickness and injury for federal workers and their families. And that isn't even considering annual leave or temporary assignments to headquarters.

Even the proposed larger offices are going to have larger workload. There is the work for their own local area, the work being shed by the smaller office(s), and their program work (this doesn't just happen at "small" offices). But wouldn't GFE (Graphical Forecast Editior) take care of that...same amount of work whether for local area or for a combined local/neighbor area? Maybe for a "plug and chug" forecast method. Unlikely otherwise. The combined area would be a larger area covering differing topography, differences in time and space (for example, coastal storm in one area and cold pool effects in the neighbor area), and a need to account for grid deficiencies (problems/inconsistancies in model/mos grids for sky cover and for pops, a significant problem in the Northeast).

Please see my previous post to see how impressed I am at genuflections toward "new technology" or "latest in technology". GFE hasn't reduced the workload, only shifted its appearance. The scenario you pose will not reduce the workload...it will only shift it from one (smaller) office to another (larger) one. Same human requirement, but with a shuffling of the deck chairs. Perhaps when the technology matures to the point that it approaches the promises made 20 years ago........

Is it possible the NWS would try this scenario, if allowed? Perhaps, if pushed. Would this be advisable? No.

Anyway, those are some of my reactions.

[BillB]

If you ask me all of the new grids that are required to be created in GFE (we haven't even started aviation grids here yet) has tremendously increased the workload from where it was a few years ago.

I agree. It's more than what we had in the storied days of AFARSE...excuse me, AFOS. And the suggestion here was to move some of some offices' extra workload to selected offices that are already dealing with their own extra workload. Gee, that sounds like fun.

When the software has matured so that we can focus more on meteorology and not on knobology, or on manually running QC tools every time we tweak a grid, then maybe.......but we are not even close to that at present.

[Rainshadow]

You are correct that it takes more people to do all this stuff than 5 forecasters or so. But, that assumes

the same level of services as today. There is no doubt that a reduction as outlined

would lead to a degradation of service nationwide. You get what you pay for. if congress

reduces the budget and the president goes along with it through the years then the service will suffer. Less

people = less service, especially since most NWS staff are so dedicated and hard working.

Those who are left under this scenario would be working harder than ever...OT and tons of

extra duties. Oh yeah...by then they probably will either cut federal pay or they won't see any

raises for 5-10 years so in effect it would be a pay cut. Less pay and more and more work...

sounds like many in the private sector huh? sucks. Hopefully none of this will happen.

NWS is a very very very small piece of the budget pie and the taxpayer gets a lot of bang for the buck.

NWSEO is also very influential and basically crushed CONOPS years ago...maybe this would hold

true again? Also the CWSU closure and consolidation never made it either and it looked

very bleak at one point. one can hope.

Our fiscal house is not in order, but I don't see a unilateral 30% cut in funding across the board for every federal department/program/agency for the rest of this fiscal year.