USAID approach to NOAA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:P2025 was explicit about killing NOAA

Did you read the entirety of its supposedly thousand pages? Do you have a link to the specific chapter where this is stated?

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/sep/26/jared-moskowitz/what-does-project-2025-say-about-the-national-weat/

This is one of the many opinion articles "summarizing" and "interpreting" stuff. I want to see the proof in the original document. I am taking the answer to my first question is no.

Pg 674, dumbass! Try and use Google yourself. It's not that hard!!

NP and it's literally in a section titled "break up NOAA."

"NOAA today boasts that it is a provider of environmental information services, a provider of environmental stewardship services, and a leader in applied scientific research. Each of these functions could be provided commercially, likely at lower cost and higher quality."

NOAA isn't just a provider of environmental services. Also these functions are already provided commercially and "likely" doesn't mean NOAA will be discontinued like USAID, which is likely due to other reasons outside of cutting costs. Could some of its functions be absorbed by other agencies or having it merged with other agencies? It's possible. But I don't think comparing it to USAID is fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe that they aren't trying to kill NOAA, but instead move it to other agencies that are better aligned with it. Thus perhaps reducing admin or redundant positions. There are definitely economies of scale when reorging.

That's possible and will likely happen to every agency. They are doing a major "re-org" and treating Fed like a private corporation undergoing merge/acquisition, optimizing and having new upper level execs implement their whims. This is what all of us working in private sector are very familiar with and none of this is shocking.

NP in the private sector with fed spouse and it's not really the same, this whole thing is pretty chaotic. You have this buyout offer that expires on Thursday and the details are still rolling out. Rather than identifying certain functions to get rid of in a thoughtful manner they are just trying to cut headcount without regard to function.

Could this have been done in a thoughtful way? Absolutely but it's not being handled that way.

This literally happened in banking industry (as an example) multiple times. Many mergers, banks going under, huge numbers of employees getting laid off. In some buyouts they even offer employees packages and you can put yourself on the "list" for the next layoff. Maybe if you want to be dramatic you can compare this rift to what happened to many banking and RE related industries in 2008. There are other industries like retail where this happens all the time, companies (giants) close down and many brick and mortar chain giants selling all sorts of goods had closed down. What do you think happened to their many many thousands of employees? Maybe if you are in the private industry like law or healthcare there hadn't been a lot of chaos and your employment had been more or less stable, especially in affluent and law firm heavy areas like DC metro. If you had been in banking, Tech/IT, retail, real estate, marketing, etc, all these industries had been very volatile and largely effected by any rifts in the economy and also massive outsourcing and replacement of American jobs with foreign workers and automation.

There has never been job security in the private sector, your spouse is lucky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

USAID is targeted for very different reasons than just cost cutting. Can anyone verify if tax spend on USAID funding so vastly exceeds all the other agencies? I thought HHS was the one most heavily funded

If you were serious about cost-cutting, USAID would be the last place you'd look, not the first. It's less than 0.01% of the federal budget. According to Treasury's website below, Social Security is about 21% of the budget. The national defense is about 15% (although some funds are missing from that estimate). "Health" is about 14%. Net interest alone is about 13%. Etc.

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/#spending-categories

Now... why WOULD someone look at USAID?
I'm not a USAID or foreign affairs expert but... Think about who, around the world, opposes it. By the way, one of its top recipients now is Ukraine humanitarian aid.

Exactly, it's pretty clear USAID wasn't targeted for cost savings alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe that they aren't trying to kill NOAA, but instead move it to other agencies that are better aligned with it. Thus perhaps reducing admin or redundant positions. There are definitely economies of scale when reorging.

That's possible and will likely happen to every agency. They are doing a major "re-org" and treating Fed like a private corporation undergoing merge/acquisition, optimizing and having new upper level execs implement their whims. This is what all of us working in private sector are very familiar with and none of this is shocking.

NP in the private sector with fed spouse and it's not really the same, this whole thing is pretty chaotic. You have this buyout offer that expires on Thursday and the details are still rolling out. Rather than identifying certain functions to get rid of in a thoughtful manner they are just trying to cut headcount without regard to function.

Could this have been done in a thoughtful way? Absolutely but it's not being handled that way.

This literally happened in banking industry (as an example) multiple times. Many mergers, banks going under, huge numbers of employees getting laid off. In some buyouts they even offer employees packages and you can put yourself on the "list" for the next layoff. Maybe if you want to be dramatic you can compare this rift to what happened to many banking and RE related industries in 2008. There are other industries like retail where this happens all the time, companies (giants) close down and many brick and mortar chain giants selling all sorts of goods had closed down. What do you think happened to their many many thousands of employees? Maybe if you are in the private industry like law or healthcare there hadn't been a lot of chaos and your employment had been more or less stable, especially in affluent and law firm heavy areas like DC metro. If you had been in banking, Tech/IT, retail, real estate, marketing, etc, all these industries had been very volatile and largely effected by any rifts in the economy and also massive outsourcing and replacement of American jobs with foreign workers and automation.

There has never been job security in the private sector, your spouse is lucky.

PP here and it's not the lack of security it's the sheer chaos of how it's happening. My spouse got laid off from Boeing and it was a smooth seamless process. All agreements ready, thorough FAQ, Q&A sessions. Nothing like that is happening here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe that they aren't trying to kill NOAA, but instead move it to other agencies that are better aligned with it. Thus perhaps reducing admin or redundant positions. There are definitely economies of scale when reorging.

That's possible and will likely happen to every agency. They are doing a major "re-org" and treating Fed like a private corporation undergoing merge/acquisition, optimizing and having new upper level execs implement their whims. This is what all of us working in private sector are very familiar with and none of this is shocking.

NP in the private sector with fed spouse and it's not really the same, this whole thing is pretty chaotic. You have this buyout offer that expires on Thursday and the details are still rolling out. Rather than identifying certain functions to get rid of in a thoughtful manner they are just trying to cut headcount without regard to function.

Could this have been done in a thoughtful way? Absolutely but it's not being handled that way.

This literally happened in banking industry (as an example) multiple times. Many mergers, banks going under, huge numbers of employees getting laid off. In some buyouts they even offer employees packages and you can put yourself on the "list" for the next layoff. Maybe if you want to be dramatic you can compare this rift to what happened to many banking and RE related industries in 2008. There are other industries like retail where this happens all the time, companies (giants) close down and many brick and mortar chain giants selling all sorts of goods had closed down. What do you think happened to their many many thousands of employees? Maybe if you are in the private industry like law or healthcare there hadn't been a lot of chaos and your employment had been more or less stable, especially in affluent and law firm heavy areas like DC metro. If you had been in banking, Tech/IT, retail, real estate, marketing, etc, all these industries had been very volatile and largely effected by any rifts in the economy and also massive outsourcing and replacement of American jobs with foreign workers and automation.

There has never been job security in the private sector, your spouse is lucky.

So what? None of this explains why it’s good policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:USAID is targeted for very different reasons than just cost cutting. Can anyone verify if tax spend on USAID funding so vastly exceeds all the other agencies? I thought HHS was the one most heavily funded..

It’s DoD and the distribution of contracts. Let’s see if some of those will be cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe that they aren't trying to kill NOAA, but instead move it to other agencies that are better aligned with it. Thus perhaps reducing admin or redundant positions. There are definitely economies of scale when reorging.

That's possible and will likely happen to every agency. They are doing a major "re-org" and treating Fed like a private corporation undergoing merge/acquisition, optimizing and having new upper level execs implement their whims. This is what all of us working in private sector are very familiar with and none of this is shocking.

NP in the private sector with fed spouse and it's not really the same, this whole thing is pretty chaotic. You have this buyout offer that expires on Thursday and the details are still rolling out. Rather than identifying certain functions to get rid of in a thoughtful manner they are just trying to cut headcount without regard to function.

Could this have been done in a thoughtful way? Absolutely but it's not being handled that way.

This literally happened in banking industry (as an example) multiple times. Many mergers, banks going under, huge numbers of employees getting laid off. In some buyouts they even offer employees packages and you can put yourself on the "list" for the next layoff. Maybe if you want to be dramatic you can compare this rift to what happened to many banking and RE related industries in 2008. There are other industries like retail where this happens all the time, companies (giants) close down and many brick and mortar chain giants selling all sorts of goods had closed down. What do you think happened to their many many thousands of employees? Maybe if you are in the private industry like law or healthcare there hadn't been a lot of chaos and your employment had been more or less stable, especially in affluent and law firm heavy areas like DC metro. If you had been in banking, Tech/IT, retail, real estate, marketing, etc, all these industries had been very volatile and largely effected by any rifts in the economy and also massive outsourcing and replacement of American jobs with foreign workers and automation.

There has never been job security in the private sector, your spouse is lucky.

Nobody cares if a random company goes bust. However they might care if passports stop getting issued, disease and food borne illness outbreaks makes you sick, water is polluted, bridges start falling apart, planes are massively delayed, a national security disaster occurs, entitlements stop being paid and processed etc. Government workers play a variety of public interest functions. Get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:P2025 was explicit about killing NOAA

Did you read the entirety of its supposedly thousand pages? Do you have a link to the specific chapter where this is stated?

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/sep/26/jared-moskowitz/what-does-project-2025-say-about-the-national-weat/

This is one of the many opinion articles "summarizing" and "interpreting" stuff. I want to see the proof in the original document. I am taking the answer to my first question is no.

Pg 674, dumbass! Try and use Google yourself. It's not that hard!!

This is the problem with MAGA. You don't actually want to do the reading yourself, but you're fine taking the "opinion" and "summarization" of other lunatics that will drive the US to a total state of despair.

I am not MAGA, and this doesn't mean I have to be buying into the project 2025 hysteria either.

Did you just post to brag about being independently ignorant, separate from a political group? Weird Flex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID is targeted for very different reasons than just cost cutting. Can anyone verify if tax spend on USAID funding so vastly exceeds all the other agencies? I thought HHS was the one most heavily funded..

This is OT, but since you asked - USAID IG was investigating Starlink in Ukraine

https://gizmodo.com/elon-musks-enemy-usaid-was-investigating-starlink-over-its-contracts-in-ukraine-2000559365

Fake News.

See what I SAID itself says:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA17/20240926/117696/HHRG-118-FA17-Wstate-MartinP-20240926.pdf

USAID OIG was inspecting's USAID itself (just like Musk is doing!), regarding contracts in Ukraine and potental for waste, fraud, and abuse. They were not 'investigating Starlink".

Think about it, if you can. USAID's or Mar function is to give money away.
We
Why would Musk close an agency that was giving him money, instead of letting it give him more money?

I hate everything unelected President Musk is doing, but this particular accusation is bullsht.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USAID is targeted for very different reasons than just cost cutting. Can anyone verify if tax spend on USAID funding so vastly exceeds all the other agencies? I thought HHS was the one most heavily funded..

This is OT, but since you asked - USAID IG was investigating Starlink in Ukraine

https://gizmodo.com/elon-musks-enemy-usaid-was-investigating-starlink-over-its-contracts-in-ukraine-2000559365

Fake News.

See what I SAID itself says:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA17/20240926/117696/HHRG-118-FA17-Wstate-MartinP-20240926.pdf

USAID OIG was inspecting's USAID itself (just like Musk is doing!), regarding contracts in Ukraine and potental for waste, fraud, and abuse. They were not 'investigating Starlink".

Think about it, if you can. USAID's or Mar function is to give money away.
We
Why would Musk close an agency that was giving him money, instead of letting it give him more money?

I hate everything unelected President Musk is doing, but this particular accusation is bullsht.

Why does Musk need to “investigate” any agencies if we already have OIGs and GAO to do it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they kill NOAA, kiss GPS goodbye.

Also weather radars every weather app uses. I am surprised Elon isn't eyeing it for the "acquisition" given starlink and sat tech is his field too.. But it looks like they focus on other priorities which will keep their hands full. So far they likely just want other agencies to "downsize" themselves by means of RTO and package offers to the federal employees.

I think he thinks he can do all of it through starlink. I think it’s well established that Musk and MAGA don’t know what the government does. They’re only familiar with one tiny aspect, like OIG apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe that they aren't trying to kill NOAA, but instead move it to other agencies that are better aligned with it. Thus perhaps reducing admin or redundant positions. There are definitely economies of scale when reorging.

That's possible and will likely happen to every agency. They are doing a major "re-org" and treating Fed like a private corporation undergoing merge/acquisition, optimizing and having new upper level execs implement their whims. This is what all of us working in private sector are very familiar with and none of this is shocking.

NP in the private sector with fed spouse and it's not really the same, this whole thing is pretty chaotic. You have this buyout offer that expires on Thursday and the details are still rolling out. Rather than identifying certain functions to get rid of in a thoughtful manner they are just trying to cut headcount without regard to function.

Could this have been done in a thoughtful way? Absolutely but it's not being handled that way.

This literally happened in banking industry (as an example) multiple times. Many mergers, banks going under, huge numbers of employees getting laid off. In some buyouts they even offer employees packages and you can put yourself on the "list" for the next layoff. Maybe if you want to be dramatic you can compare this rift to what happened to many banking and RE related industries in 2008. There are other industries like retail where this happens all the time, companies (giants) close down and many brick and mortar chain giants selling all sorts of goods had closed down. What do you think happened to their many many thousands of employees? Maybe if you are in the private industry like law or healthcare there hadn't been a lot of chaos and your employment had been more or less stable, especially in affluent and law firm heavy areas like DC metro. If you had been in banking, Tech/IT, retail, real estate, marketing, etc, all these industries had been very volatile and largely effected by any rifts in the economy and also massive outsourcing and replacement of American jobs with foreign workers and automation.

There has never been job security in the private sector, your spouse is lucky.

You don't want your government to be chaotic. You want your information to be reliable, true, transparent, and non-partisan. Markets only function with good information. Trump wants to get rid of the people providing the information that banks, the stock markets, private companies, and researchers all use and can trust. If you rely on the private sector for this info, no one will trust it. People will pull back from transactions. You get an economy that just muddles along.

[Anonymous]

What’s the end goal? Extort states, cities and towns that need accurate weather information?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s the end goal? Extort states, cities and towns that need accurate weather information?

I don't even know they have an end goal. At this point I think they're either insane, paid by Russia, or both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:P2025 was explicit about killing NOAA

Did you read the entirety of its supposedly thousand pages? Do you have a link to the specific chapter where this is stated?

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/sep/26/jared-moskowitz/what-does-project-2025-say-about-the-national-weat/

This is one of the many opinion articles "summarizing" and "interpreting" stuff. I want to see the proof in the original document. I am taking the answer to my first question is no.

Pg 674, dumbass! Try and use Google yourself. It's not that hard!!

This is the problem with MAGA. You don't actually want to do the reading yourself, but you're fine taking the "opinion" and "summarization" of other lunatics that will drive the US to a total state of despair.

I am not MAGA, and this doesn't mean I have to be buying into the project 2025 hysteria either.

So did you actually go read page 674? Or do you still think it's "hysteria"?

Is pretending like he wasn't going to implement Project 25 one of the ways you rationalized your vote?

FYI, he has already incorporated 37 concepts from Project 25 in his EOs.
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2025/trump-executive-orders-project-2025/