Do We Really Need a National Weather Service

[Persia]

The National Weather Service (NWS) was founded in 1870. Originally, the NWS was not a public information agency. It was a national security agency and placed under the Department of War. The Service’s national security function has long since disappeared, but as agencies often do, however, it stuck around and managed to increase its budget.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/27/do-really-need-national-weather-service/#ixzz1Wc85xlFm

[Doug1029]

The National Weather Service (NWS) was founded in 1870. Originally, the NWS was not a public information agency. It was a national security agency and placed under the Department of War. The Service’s national security function has long since disappeared, but as agencies often do, however, it stuck around and managed to increase its budget.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/27/do-really-need-national-weather-service/#ixzz1Wc85xlFm

The National Weather Service, now operating as part of NOAA, is the major storehouse of climate data. It is easy to see why Faux News doesn't like it: climate researchers find it a very important source of data and Fox et al. would like to deprive them of that tool.

Doug

[Rafterman]

The National Weather Service, now operating as part of NOAA, is the major storehouse of climate data. It is easy to see why Faux News doesn't like it: climate researchers find it a very important source of data and Fox et al. would like to deprive them of that tool.

Doug

That's really not the issue. Climate data would still be maintained by NOAA or numerous other educational entities.

And I have to agree with the premise of the article. The NWS is a product of a by-gone era.

[Doug1029]

That's really not the issue. Climate data would still be maintained by NOAA or numerous other educational entities.

And I have to agree with the premise of the article. The NWS is a product of a by-gone era.

Read the National Weather Service Monthly Bulletins: about all they talk about is whether the freeze is going to affect the peach harvest, or whether the fields were too wet to plough, or whether the dry spell will affect corn prices: it is (and was) an agricultural bulletin. Before 1890 there were no records kept for Oklahoma. Why? Because we were the Indian Nations - the enemy. A defense publication that doen't even deal with defense issues? I wonder where Faux News gets its information.

The National Weather Service was organized under the War Department in 1870. It has since been transferred to NOAA. The army kept the records as far back as 1828. From 1870 to 1890 weather records were a cooperative venture between NWS and the army. After that, inadequate numbers of military posts for making observations and problems with the military's "discipline" led to its replacement by a volunteer observer corps.

The Hurricane Center, those big radars used in tornado tracking in Norman, and numerous other services are provided by the National Weather Service. Is Faux News saying we don't need tornado forecasts? I think there's a lot of people around here who will volunteer to draw-and-quarter the guy who came up with that idea.

Doug

Edited August 31, 2011 by Doug1029

[ninjadude]

NWS is a product of a by-gone era.

Then both you, foxnews and all the other anti-science crowd are completely wrong and around the bend. The NWS is a critical piece of life in many places in the US. I'm sure that for the majority, all secure in large cities, the NWS is not very important. ELSEWHERE, however, we would go back to an anti-bellum agriculture?! REALLY? We'd have to give up about 200million people to start with.Then we'd have to allow that vast swaths of the country could become barren and unlivable because of that lack weather knowledge for agriculture. I'm getting pretty sick of conservatives whining about how things were originally done. There were 13 original colonies too. you want to go back to that?!

[MID]

The National Weather Service, now operating as part of NOAA, is the major storehouse of climate data. It is easy to see why Fox News doesn't like it: climate researchers find it a very important source of data and Fox et al. would like to deprive them of that tool.

Doug

I don't think you understand that this is an opinion piece on Fox news, not a Fox News position paper. It should also be understood that although the author is unaware of a few great weather truths, what he speaks to is privatizing the weather service. That is a wise position, and I'm all for it (it's the principal. smaller Government).I would however, like to point out a few things:

AccuWeather, as well as most TV stations and radio stations, get the bulk, if not all oftheir information from NWS.

NWS employs the best actual climatologists and meteorologists rthere are (you rarely see an actual meteorologist on your TV giving an "Accuweather forecast" They're Journalism graduates who have no idea what they're talking about regarding weather). It's a difficult business to be in, especially when translating data for a public that is un-knowledgeable about meteorology. Often, offices have to hype weather to get it through and have people pay attention to it.

Part of the Government's responsibility is to protect the citizenry, so accurate, realistic forecasts logically, especially in severe circumstances (tornadoes, hurricanes, etc...) are a part of the government's duties where they are capable of doing so.

That being said, private industry can certainly manage these tasks. No jobs need be lost. It's simply a matter that private industry will better manage the weather forcasting in a manner that insures accuracy and lack of hype. No one will govern the local TV and radio outlets, however, who will still do what they do to gain ratings.

There's another aspect here: Pilots rely on forecasts (not TV forecasts. REAL FORECASTS of conditions aloft, enroute, and at destination)provided by Flight Service Station meteorologists who are Federal employes working for the FAA.

I think this as well could be privatized, and I think that is what the author is talking about.

It doesn't have anything to do with what you're implying...which is that FOX News doesn't believe in MMGW and thus supports this because NWS does, as a great supplier of climate data that supports it.

But the fact is, they do not support it, they're data doesn't, and a vast compendium of climate data has been collected by agencies other than NWS, who don't support the Al-Gorish conclusions either (Try the Weather Channel for an organization who does...they fire people who don't support that nonsense!).

But the bottom line is that Fox News has no vested interest in supporting the dissolution of Government weather agencies save the common sense one: reduction in the size and expenditures of Government.

Even at that, I wouldn't expect much rapid action on such a proposal to eliminate Federal weather services. They're still the best at what they do, and aren't as costly as some Government expenditures that have happened in the past 2 years.

[Doug1029]

I don't think you understand that this is an opinion piece on Fox news, not a Fox News position paper.

Opinion piece, position paper - if you're broadcasting it, it is, essentially, the same thing.

The problem with Fox is that who they are speaks louder than what they say. They are in the business of misrepresenting news - if they didn't do it, their right-wing backers (Think: Koch Industries) would put them out of business.

It should also be understood that although the author is unaware of a few great weather truths, what he speaks to is privatizing the weather service. That is a wise position, and I'm all for it (it's the principal. smaller Government).

If smaller government is what you want, start by downsizing the military. It's, officially, about 30% of the Federal budget and unofficially you can add another 30% to pay for things they've done/do (DOE makes nuclear warheads, for example; they're still trying to clean up the chemical mess at Rocky Flats (left over from WWII); Durango, Colorado was left a Superfund site because of contamination from uranium - used in atomic weapons - you have to wonder whose side the Pentagon is on.), interest on the national debt to pay for past needless military spending, veteran's hospitals and other benefits...the list goes on and on. If you're not talking about cutting the military budget, you're not talking about cutting the Federal budget.

One other thought: Osama bin Laden bought a few plane tickets, some knives and gave his people some travel money. Because of that, the US spent 1.3 TRILLION dollars. Bin Laden said he was targeting the US economy and with our help, he was highly successful. He's dead and still the money goes down the rathole. We can't even defeat a dead man! Just what is it that we're buying?

I'll get off my soapbox now.

What I am concerned about is the loss of NWS' volunteer network. People will gladly volunteer to help their country, but they'll want money to help a private company. That network provides most of our weather data. And, of course, the Mesonet, the automated stations, weather radar, etc.

Doug

Edited September 1, 2011 by Doug1029

[MID]

Opinion piece, position paper - if you're broadcasting it, it is, essentially, the same thing.

No Doug. I'm afraid you're in error there. However, it is somewhat well-known that people can interpret things incorrectly.

The problem with Fox is that who they are speaks louder than what they say. They are in the business of misrepresenting news - if they didn't do it, their right-wing backers (Think: Koch Industries) would put them out of business.

Like that. And now, I think it's clear where you're coming from...

If smaller government is what you want, start by downsizing the military. It's, officially, about 30% of the Federal budget and unofficially you can add another 30% to pay for things they've done/do (DOE makes nuclear warheads, for example; they're still trying to clean up the chemical mess at Rocky Flats (left over from WWII); Durango, Colorado was left a Superfund site because of contamination from uranium - used in atomic weapons - you have to wonder whose side the Pentagon is on.), interest on the national debt to pay for past needless military spending, veteran's hospitals and other benefits...the list goes on and on. If you're not talking about cutting the military budget, you're not talking about cutting the Federal budget.

Confirmed. I knew it. But that's OK. We won't get involved in a discussion of The Deapartment of Education, Department of Homeland Security, The EPA, OSHA, the FDA, and the many other Federal departments that can, and should be cut out, or sorely limited in scope, and budget. We'll listen to you air your opinion about cutting the Deaprtment of Defense, which is perhaps the PRIMARY responsibility of the government of the United States.

You're allowed...

What I am concerned about is the loss of NWS' volunteer network. People will gladly volunteer to help their country, but they'll want money to help a private company. That network provides most of our weather data. And, of course, the Mesonet, the automated stations, weather radar, etc.

Doug

You're worried about Volunteers?

Most people would be screaming about all the Unionized Government workers who'd be losing jobs. But no one has to lose a job, and volunteers will always volunteer for something they believe in.

Pennsylvania is actively pursuing eliminating the State Liquor Control Board, which is a hold-over from the prohibition era that is inefficient, and expensive. You'd think that they were trying to kill some people by cutting out an antiquated, outmoded, and expensive system for the approach that can make it competitive, keep everyone employed, and make it more profitable, increase sales, keep the government out of people's lives, and catch up with the rest of the nation's alcohol commerce(save one othr state that still regulates the sale of liquor)!

There's going to be resistance, but in the long run, all such changes, which result in getting government out of businesses it doesn't belong in, are beneficial.

That's what the talk about the NWS is about. Just that. Nothing else.

[ninjadude]

Part of the Government's responsibility is to protect the citizenry, so accurate, realistic forecasts logically, especially in severe circumstances (tornadoes, hurricanes, etc...) are a part of the government's duties where they are capable of doing so.

That being said, private industry can certainly manage these tasks. It's simply a matter that private industry will better manage the weather forcasting in a manner that insures accuracy and lack of hype.

I don't see how you can reconcile these two positions. It is simply not the case. The government does these this for the benefit of society at non-profit. A for-profit private enterprise will want to make money. Not "better". But to make PROFIT. They will cut, REPEAT CUT, what they feel does not make money. I hate to tell you this because I'm sure you already know, but not everything makes money. Bridges, R&D, deep space exploration, roads, NWS, fire, police, public ed, etc. don't make money. They are necessary for society to advance societies goals.. Giving up what private industry considers trivial is not acceptable for the fictitious goal of small government. The "founding fathers" were socialists.

[Von Bismarck]

Bridges, R&D, deep space exploration, roads, NWS, fire, police, public ed, etc. don't make money.

Wow you dont pay for crossing big bridges or to drive on your roads? I am amazed, how do you pay for a better infrastructure? Just through tax?

[Guest]

Wow you dont pay for crossing big bridges or to drive on your roads? I am amazed, how do you pay for a better infrastructure? Just through tax?

Public infrastructure was once considered a right of been a member of society - until the Neo-Liberals land grabbed your public resources.

As was said some things just don't fit the for profit business model - it doesn't mean they don't serve a valuable social function.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 2, 2011 by Guest

[Guest]

Confirmed. I knew it. But that's OK. We won't get involved in a discussion of The Deapartment of Education, Department of Homeland Security, The EPA, OSHA, the FDA, and the many other Federal departments that can, and should be cut out, or sorely limited in scope, and budget. We'll listen to you air your opinion about cutting the Deaprtment of Defense, which is perhaps the PRIMARY responsibility of the government of the United States.

What you have just argued for there is the automatic right of private industry to externalise the costs of their pollution on the public purse.

Ask the people of Bopal whether they would have liked an EPA to protect their interests.

Nice

Br Cornelius

[Rafterman]

I don't think you understand that this is an opinion piece on Fox news, not a Fox News position paper. It should also be understood that although the author is unaware of a few great weather truths, what he speaks to is privatizing the weather service. That is a wise position, and I'm all for it (it's the principal. smaller Government).I would however, like to point out a few things:

AccuWeather, as well as most TV stations and radio stations, get the bulk, if not all oftheir information from NWS.

NWS employs the best actual climatologists and meteorologists rthere are (you rarely see an actual meteorologist on your TV giving an "Accuweather forecast" They're Journalism graduates who have no idea what they're talking about regarding weather). It's a difficult business to be in, especially when translating data for a public that is un-knowledgeable about meteorology. Often, offices have to hype weather to get it through and have people pay attention to it.

Part of the Government's responsibility is to protect the citizenry, so accurate, realistic forecasts logically, especially in severe circumstances (tornadoes, hurricanes, etc...) are a part of the government's duties where they are capable of doing so.

That being said, private industry can certainly manage these tasks. No jobs need be lost. It's simply a matter that private industry will better manage the weather forcasting in a manner that insures accuracy and lack of hype. No one will govern the local TV and radio outlets, however, who will still do what they do to gain ratings.

There's another aspect here: Pilots rely on forecasts (not TV forecasts. REAL FORECASTS of conditions aloft, enroute, and at destination)provided by Flight Service Station meteorologists who are Federal employes working for the FAA.

I think this as well could be privatized, and I think that is what the author is talking about.

It doesn't have anything to do with what you're implying...which is that FOX News doesn't believe in MMGW and thus supports this because NWS does, as a great supplier of climate data that supports it.

But the fact is, they do not support it, they're data doesn't, and a vast compendium of climate data has been collected by agencies other than NWS, who don't support the Al-Gorish conclusions either (Try the Weather Channel for an organization who does...they fire people who don't support that nonsense!).

But the bottom line is that Fox News has no vested interest in supporting the dissolution of Government weather agencies save the common sense one: reduction in the size and expenditures of Government.

Even at that, I wouldn't expect much rapid action on such a proposal to eliminate Federal weather services. They're still the best at what they do, and aren't as costly as some Government expenditures that have happened in the past 2 years.

Thansk MID. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Just because the government stops doing something doesn't mean that no one else is going ot do it - and perhaps even do it better.

Of course without the NWS we might not be able to predict the high winds that would blow away all of the strawmen that are being made in this thread.

[Doug1029]

No Doug. I'm afraid you're in error there. However, it is somewhat well-known that people can interpret things incorrectly.

Technically, an op-ed piece is not the same as a position paper. I know that. But what a station is broadcasting is taken by the general public to be their official position on the issue. Fox is very much in the public-relations business and knows that. What people think is the truth is often more important than what is really true.

Like that. And now, I think it's clear where you're coming from...

I have been at a couple of "newsworthy events" reported by Fox: you'd have trouble believing that they were the same events. Of course, Fox isn't that much worse than the news media in that regard. At Kent State, I saw a "riot" staged for the TV cameras of WEWS Channel 5 out of Cleveland. Choreographed - the works (I'm in the background of one of those shots.). And that's what went out as "news."

Confirmed. I knew it. But that's OK. We won't get involved in a discussion of The Deapartment of Education, Department of Homeland Security, The EPA, OSHA, the FDA, and the many other Federal departments that can, and should be cut out, or sorely limited in scope, and budget. We'll listen to you air your opinion about cutting the Deaprtment of Defense, which is perhaps the PRIMARY responsibility of the government of the United States.

You're allowed...

I don't know exactly where you think I'm coming from. It's just math: you can't cut the Federal government by any significant amount unless you radically cut the war budget. That's the only pot of money big enough to make a significant difference. And, if the past is the key to the future, it will be the last one the conservatives will agree to touch. So, if you think economics and history is where I'm coming from, you're right.

You're worried about Volunteers?

Yes. I'm worried about losing the data they collect. Would you volunteer to help Exxon? Or a profit-making weather forecasting company? Not I. If they want it, let them pay for it - and that's how most people would react. The volunteers have done a magnificent job for over a century - since 1890 - the system ain't broke; let's not fix it.

Most people would be screaming about all the Unionized Government workers who'd be losing jobs. But no one has to lose a job, and volunteers will always volunteer for something they believe in.

I am not aware that NWS has a recognized union, or any union, for that matter. There are some Federal unions - the USFS has one - but they have no real authority. The professional folks don't have unions, anyway.

Unions really depend on a manufacturing economy. Ours has been pretty-much exported. So in the US, we buy cheap products made by Chinese child laborers - look at the tag on your shirt.

I have nothing against the unions - my grandparents were wobblies. The unions gave us the 40-hour work week and most of our worker-safety legislation.

Pennsylvania is actively pursuing eliminating the State Liquor Control Board, which is a hold-over from the prohibition era that is inefficient, and expensive. You'd think that they were trying to kill some people by cutting out an antiquated, outmoded, and expensive system for the approach that can make it competitive, keep everyone employed, and make it more profitable, increase sales, keep the government out of people's lives, and catch up with the rest of the nation's alcohol commerce(save one othr state that still regulates the sale of liquor)!

There are a lot of agencies and committees that I would abolish - specific liquor control boards among them. I'm wondering if we shouldn't turn rural fire-fighting responsibilities over to the local sheriff's office and abolish the state forestry agencies - just a thought - and a drop in the financial bucket - but a million here and a million there and pretty soon you're into real money. But again, if you're not serious about cutting the military, you're not serious about cutting government.

There's going to be resistance, but in the long run, all such changes, which result in getting government out of businesses it doesn't belong in, are beneficial.

There are still a few things that government does better than private business: like running the national forests, for example. Things that government does best, government should do; things that business does best, business should do.

That's what the talk about the NWS is about. Just that. Nothing else.

If all it is is talk, why bother airing it?

Doug

[Doug1029]

Wow you dont pay for crossing big bridges or to drive on your roads? I am amazed, how do you pay for a better infrastructure? Just through tax?

There are ways to make a profit on many services provided by government: Oklahoma has a system of profit-making tunrpikes, run by the state. If you drive down I-44 you'll pay for the privilege at a toll gate. The state uses revenue from the turnpike system to pay for a lot of other services, as well. In this way they can call the tax a "toll" and claim that they have lowered taxes - political double-talk.

It is possible to run a fire department at a profit. Remember that guy from Tennessee a few months ago who didn't buy a fire subscription? When he called the local department, they came and watched his house burn down. They didn't fight the fire because he hadn't paid his bill.

One could also make a profit by going to the fire with a private fire brigade: offer the owner $10,000 for his million-dollar house. If he signs the agreement, put out the fire; if not, let him put out the fire.

These things have actually been done. There's nothing personal involved - it's just businessmen doing business.

Police can also be privatized. If you pay the police company and someone robs your store, they'll come around and bust a few heads. Then nobody will bother your store. Saves on court costs and provides swift justice for both society and the accused. No jail costs, either. Oh, wait - the mob's already doing that. But we could reduce the costs of government and all we need to do is change a few laws. And while we're at it - vigilance committees are cheaper than police departments.

And these things have actually been done, too.

Maybe some things about government aren't so bad.

Doug

[Doug1029]

What you have just argued for there is the automatic right of private industry to externalise the costs of their pollution on the public purse.

Ask the people of Bopal whether they would have liked an EPA to protect their interests.

Nice

Br Cornelius

Bhopal - Union Carbide.

My hometown - Ashtabula, Ohio - was another one of their victims. Their pollution of Fields Brook turned it into a Superfund site. Another case of externalizing private costs onto the public.

When paying for the costs of their own destruction got prohibitive, Union Carbide took the proper business action and declared bankruptcy. You can't even sue them, because there is, technically, nobody to sue. Yet the former owners live it up on the proceeds.

West Kentucky Coal Field: Peabody Coal thought reclamation costs required by the Bureau of Reclamation were too expensive. When inflation eroded the value of the required bond, Peabody saw a way out. They created a bunch of shill companies: Blue Diamond Coal, being one. Peabody advanced Blue Diamond the money for a mining lease. Using Peabody's money, Blue Diamond posted the required bond, which was hopelessly inadequate to pay for the required reclamation. Blue Diamond mined the coal, selling it to Peabody. When the mine was exhausted, Blue Diamond declared bankruptcy and forfeited its small bond. The state now has the job of doing the reclamation, but little money to do it with. If that land is ever reclaimed, it must be tax money that pays for it. But ... it's just the way we do business.

Doug

[Doug1029]

It doesn't have anything to do with what you're implying...which is that FOX News doesn't believe in MMGW and thus supports this because NWS does, as a great supplier of climate data that supports it.

But the fact is, they do not support it, they're data doesn't, and a vast compendium of climate data has been collected by agencies other than NWS, who don't support the Al-Gorish conclusions either (Try the Weather Channel for an organization who does...they fire people who don't support that nonsense!).

I'm one of those evil climate scientists. Most of what you see Fox broadcasting on the subject of climate change is misrepresentations of research papers. And some of it is outright lies. They are not a news agency; their job is to misrepresent and distort news to support a right-wing political agenda.

Just one example: they had a "Dr. Smith" on, discussing the mistakes he thought he saw in global warming theory. I checked out his credentials: he is a psychologist with no qualifications in climate whatever. He doesn't know any more about it (or even as much) as Al Gore - the leading misrepresenter on the other side.

Doug

[MID]

I'm one of those evil climate scientists. Most of what you see Fox broadcasting on the subject of climate change is misrepresentations of research papers. And some of it is outright lies. They are not a news agency; their job is to misrepresent and distort news to support a right-wing political agenda.

Yes, I know.

Just as I know that many "climatologists" are out to promote a radical left wing agenda. You can argue that until the cows come home, but it's fruitless.

I gathered that opinion of yours rather clearly, as I indicated.

But that really is somewhat irrelevant to the premise of this thread, which was; do we really need the NWS.

The passion regarding "climate change" threatens to morph this thread into another ridiculous AGW argument (which is as fruitless as they get), and it's coming perilously close to another of those silly right wing, left wing nonsense threads as well.

Thanks!

Edited September 2, 2011 by MID

[ninjadude]

Wow you dont pay for crossing big bridges or to drive on your roads? I am amazed, how do you pay for a better infrastructure? Just through tax?

In most parts of the US yes it is thru tax. There are paid ones as well but a small percentage.

[Guest]

Yes, I know.

Just as I know that many "climatologists" are out to promote a radical left wing agenda. You can argue that until the cows come home, but it's fruitless.

I gathered that opinion of yours rather clearly, as I indicated.

But that really is somewhat irrelevant to the premise of this thread, which was; do we really need the NWS.

The passion regarding "climate change" threatens to morph this thread into another ridiculous AGW argument (which is as fruitless as they get), and it's coming perilously close to another of those silly right wing, left wing nonsense threads as well.

Thanks!

If you don't like the way the discussion is going - why did you start taking it there. Maybe because you have more interest in politics than actual science.

Br Cornelius

[MID]

If you don't like the way the discussion is going - why did you start taking it there. Maybe because you have more interest in politics than actual science.

Br Cornelius

I think you mistook me for Doug, but I understand as my remarks probably touched that environmentalist nerve you have. Actual science??

thanks brother. The thread was about privatizing the NWS (which was the actual import of the original posted document), not about nonsense.

I simply attmpted to show what it was really about. I'm not interested in seeing this morph into another AGW thread. I've stated that clearly.

If you fellows insist, well then, OK. See you later.

An attempt:

Do we really need a "National Weather Service" run by the Government?

That's the real question.

Edited September 4, 2011 by MID

[Guest]

I think you mistook me for Doug, but I understand as my remarks probably touched that environmentalist nerve you have. Actual science??

thanks brother. The thread was about privatizing the NWS (which was the actual import of the original posted document), not about nonsense.

I simply attmpted to show what it was really about. I'm not interested in seeing this morph into another AGW thread. I've stated that clearly.

If you fellows insist, well then, OK. See you later.

An attempt:

Do we really need a "National Weather Service" run by the Government?

That's the real question.

Your point that all services are best provided by private industry was just extremist Republican propaganda and hence you took this discussion to politics.

You then cemented your extremist credentials by suggesting we would all be better off without the EPA & OSHA (who's remit is to stop private industry from poisoning us all).

Again Nice work there

Br Cornelius

Edited September 4, 2011 by Guest

[Doug1029]

thanks brother. The thread was about privatizing the NWS (which was the actual import of the original posted document), not about nonsense.

I simply attmpted to show what it was really about. I'm not interested in seeing this morph into another AGW thread. I've stated that clearly.

If you fellows insist, well then, OK. See you later.

An attempt:

Do we really need a "National Weather Service" run by the Government?

That's the real question.

My apologies for introducing the political element. But if the objective (as you stated) is to reduce the size of government, then there are more-wasteful and less-productive programs that could (and should) be cut first.

Politicians of any stripe have no idea where the "waste" is. Why? Because they almost never run an inventory or an audit. They have no idea where the money is actually going. I worked for the Forest Service for 27 years and had only four of over 1300 projects "audited" and those audits never even asked what the benefit of the project was - all they wanted to know was whether the rules had been followed. Thinning programs done to increase stand productivity - and the auditors never asked for estimates of productivity.

We could get a much bigger bang for our bucks by running annual inventories and audits. Terminate the most-wasteful programs and fix the rest. But as it now stands, government people are not trained to keep records in such a way as to make audits possible - property owned by different accounts is all thrown together and expenses are haphazardly charged to whatever account has money in it.

NWS? Like all agencies, they run many different programs. If we're talking about saving money, we need to look at each program and decide whether it is one we need (or want). But that would require people who know what they're doing - and those people are a threat to political agendas of both left and right, so nobody actually wants to seriously look at cutting programs - that would interfere with political dogma.

Yes, government is screwed up, but no more so than business.

Doug

P.S.: The topic is Fox News' op-ed piece, which is politics through-and-through. The topic of this thread IS politics, of which NWS, is a tiny part.

Doug

Edited September 4, 2011 by Doug1029

[MID]

Your point that all services are best provided by private industry was just extremist Republican propaganda and hence you took this discussion to politics.

You then cemented your extremist credentials by suggesting we would all be better off without the EPA & OSHA (who's remit is to stop private industry from poisoning us all).

That's embarrasing, as you completely avoided my post, but in that I attempted to make no such point. I spoke strictly to the elimination of Government expense that is un-necessary in the present age.

Extremist Republican propaganda?

You have made my point Brother. I hit a nerve, a leftist extremist environmentalist one.

I amn neither extreme nor republican.

Again Nice work there

Br Cornelius

I echo that. There are other threads for what you want to discuss.

I asked if we needed an NWS. You fail to answer, and you also explain why.

I know that no real discussion of the real point here will be happeneing.

Edited September 5, 2011 by MID

[Guest]

That's embarrasing, as you completely avoided my post, but in that I attempted to make no such point. I spoke strictly to the elimination of Government expense that is un-necessary in the present age.

Extremist Republican propaganda?

You have made my point Brother. I hit a nerve, a leftist extremist environmentalist one.

I amn neither extreme nor republican.

I echo that. There are other threads for what you want to discuss.

I asked if we needed an NWS. You fail to answer, and you also explain why.

I know that no real discussion of the real point here will be happeneing.

The answer is we need one and its most effectively and cheaply provided by the state. It would not be cheaper to privatise it because much of its staff work is voluntary and that would become wages if privitised.Is that a direct enough answer for you.

You can go back to your extremist ranting now.