Jeffrey D. Sadow is an associate professor of political science at Louisiana State University Shreveport. If you're an elected official, political operative or anyone else upset at his views, don't go bothering LSUS or LSU System officials about that because these are his own views solely. This publishes five days weekly with the exception of 7 holidays. Also check out his Louisiana Legislature Log especially during legislative sessions (in "Louisiana Politics Blog Roll" below).
Search This Blog
27.3.17
LA Sea Grant cut illustrates undue alarmism to come
Look no further than Louisiana’s Sea Grant program for a
microcosm of issues involved in the battle to restrain government spending
growth.
Based in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, 33 universities allied with states and territories oversee these
programs that award funding meeting various criteria and provide other support
services. The program’s mission is to enhance the practical use and
conservation of coastal, marine and Great Lakes resources in order to create a
sustainable economy and environment. Louisiana State University runs Louisiana’s
version.
The Pres. Donald Trump
Administration’s initial budget zeroes
out federal funding for these, as it seeks to curtail spending and to shift
monies from domestic to defense concerns. By the beginning of the federal
fiscal year’s midterm U.S. debt will
exceed $20 trillion.
It notes that the kinds of things done by Sea
Grant awardees primarily benefit industry and state and local stakeholders,
which are a lower priority than core functions maintained in the NOAA budget
such as surveys, charting, and fisheries management. For example, industry
could have performed the research for or funded a series of grants given last
year to study
acidic changes in northeastern states’ oceans. Additionally, individual
states affected also could have chipped in. While helpful information, the
federal government would benefit least from whatever results manifest, so why should
taxpayers nationally have to pony up to pay for it?
And that’s an example of something with obvious
practical benefit. A number of activities, judging by the specific things
Louisiana’s version seeks to do, seem very low priority. For example, tomorrow
Sea Grant resources will go to courtesy checks of
commercial fishermen’s turtle excluder devices, while a couple of weeks ago
Sea Grant LSU experts discussed with fishermen, chefs and culinary students methods
to provide premium seafood products. Then there are outreach efforts such
as distributing a handbook
for homeowners to deal with disasters and teaching people to fish
commercially. Also, it has prepared
various lesson plans for schooling.
No doubt useful information comes from these
events and products, but are these really things federal taxpayers ought to
foot the bill for? Why don’t the industries that, for example, try to avoid
fines for improper equipment to avoid catching turtles or who find and prepare
seafood do these on their own, passing any costs on to specific consumers
rather than to everybody through increased federal spending? Does the public
really need disaster handbooks, and why can’t its interested members use their own
resources to learn about commercial fishing? Shouldn’t state and local
governments compile for teaching purposes curricula on oysters, manatees, and
native fish?
Understanding that makes hollow complaints that
the federal budget cuts would make the program inoperative. Only about a third
of its dollars come from the federal level, with the rest comes from donations
from business, nonprofits, and communities equally matched by the state. It
spends about half of its money on research and two-fifths on extension and
education, so excising all of the low-priority functions – those that interests
who benefit directly from these should pay for instead of taxpayers across
America – still might leave some matters of more importance unfunded, but
surely a small paring of research opportunities, for example, would bring
things into balance.
In short, the draconian assertion that Louisiana’s
Sea Grant program would cease to function stems from budgetary gamesmanship
that perpetuates the untrue notion of the indispensability of all federal
spending. Further, note that if such functions truly are so important, then
there’s no reason that state and local residents would not pay more in taxes
and/or policy-makers would not find higher levels of appropriation to keep
these going.
Nevertheless, be prepared for false alarmism like
this replicated across many entities that find funding reduced or eliminated in
the Trump budget, but do not buy it. If serious about deficit reduction, not
only do federal policy-makers have the capacity to make wise choices related to
the genuine functions of government, but bureaucrats running the affected
agencies have the knowledge and ability to do the same to keep essential
operations going. A real commitment to begin the process of right-sizing the
federal government will overcome such scare tactics and cause no interruption
of important services for the nation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment