Pause on Federal Grants - MD25-13

[WyoCoalMiner]

That is where we disagree. This isn't a small business or household budget. The complexities at a national federal level are exponentially more difficult, painful, and politically charged than simple mathematics.

Right on with the bold part. But math is still math.

 

[SAJ-99]

There is nothing stopping you from paying more taxes than you are required to under current tax law. Neither is there anything stopping you from donating $'s to any particular initiative(s) you feel you want to support.

Can I also choose who gets to benefit from my additional taxes? Is a Go-Fund-Me for the US Government really the path forward? It may be a solution for Nameless and his VFD's radios, but those paying for the radios are going be those people with homeowners insurance, functioning smoke alarms, and some common sense. Those whose house is most likely to burn down will donate nothing and then bitch and moan when the VFD gets there. I have seen it happen.

You can't stop stupid and there seems to be a lot of it these days.

 

[ismith]

That is where we disagree. This isn't a small business or household budget. The complexities at a national federal level are exponentially more difficult, painful, and politically charged than simple mathematics.

This post, compared to some other posts above, makes me regret any shade I’ve thrown your way.

 

[Alpine01]

I'm glad I didn't take either.

Ditto ...

 

[Alpine01]

Can I also choose who gets to benefit from my additional taxes? Is a Go-Fund-Me for the US Government really the path forward? It may be a solution for Nameless and his VFD's radios, but those paying for the radios are going be those people with homeowners insurance, functioning smoke alarms, and some common sense. Those whose house is most likely to burn down will donate nothing and then bitch and moan when the VFD gets there. I have seen it happen.

You can't stop stupid and there seems to be a lot of it these days.

Yes. Don't donate via "taxes", donate directly to support those things you support. You just articulated what many folks (on all sides of the political spectrum) are unhappy about - "Their" tax dollars going to support ideas, causes, priorities, etc, that they don't agree with. The end result is the US has been spending (via both political parties) on all causes, priorities, etc. Hence the $32T+ federal deficit. Some argue that a scalpel would be a better tool, others are of the opinion that we have to cut everything and start from scratch on the stuff that matters. That sitting congress-critters are just now beginning to cheer massive waste and abuse that is being exposed to sunshine rings hollow, they have been there for years/decades and done nothing. Likewise, those that reject ferreting out waste and abuse because "the other side" is exposing it is equally disturbing. Given how bad things "appear" to be (and Democrats have often stated that the seriousness of the (fill in the blank allegation) dictates that the (fill in the blank allegation) be fully investigated), I am of the opinion that an axe is better than a scalpel at the moment. If projects are truly value-added, they will (likely) be re-instated but it will take time to sort the wheat from the chaff. And yes that will be painful in the short-term. That or keep kicking the can down the road for the next politician to take the heat on.

 

[Beignet]

I don’t think anyone’s gonna change anyone else’s mind on here about the current administration either haphazardly taking a wrecking ball to government or if they’re fixing some sort of deep seated corruption in government. Americans live in two different realities with different sets of “facts” now.

I’d personally love to see ya’ll post more examples of where withholding federal grant monies has/will affect conservation projects.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

This one is for the people making retirement possible. Thank you.

 

[BuzzH]

I don’t think anyone’s gonna change anyone else’s mind on here about the current administration either haphazardly taking a wrecking ball to government or if they’re fixing some sort of deep seated corruption in government. Americans live in two different realities with different sets of “facts” now.

I’d personally love to see ya’ll post more examples of where withholding federal grant monies has/will affect conservation projects.

Not going to know about a lot of them for a while.

 

[ismith]

I don’t think anyone’s gonna change anyone else’s mind on here about the current administration either haphazardly taking a wrecking ball to government or if they’re fixing some sort of deep seated corruption in government. Americans live in two different realities with different sets of “facts” now.

I’d personally love to see ya’ll post more examples of where withholding federal grant monies has/will affect conservation projects.

Well, when you see how much money has gone to some media outlets, this makes perfect sense. https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...nally-have-access-american-propaganda/313305/

Unfortunately, I think it's going to have a major impact on our federal lands and hunting in the Western U.S. Nothing left but the crying (and the blame game).

 

[Potsie]

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Buffs35]

 

[Beignet]

Not going to know about a lot of them for a while.

Agreed. Reckon many of us won’t realize how far reaching grants are until we show up to our favorite meadow and find it covered in spotted knapweed or something.

On that note, ran a web search and the USFS “Invasive Species Grants: Funded Projects” page for R1 has been removed.

 

[SAJ-99]

Yes. Don't donate via "taxes", donate directly to support those things you support. You just articulated what many folks (on all sides of the political spectrum) are unhappy about - "Their" tax dollars going to support ideas, causes, priorities, etc, that they don't agree with. The end result is the US has been spending (via both political parties) on all causes, priorities, etc. Hence the $32T+ federal deficit. Some argue that a scalpel would be a better tool, others are of the opinion that we have to cut everything and start from scratch on the stuff that matters. That sitting congress-critters are just now beginning to cheer massive waste and abuse that is being exposed to sunshine rings hollow, they have been there for years/decades and done nothing. Likewise, those that reject ferreting out waste and abuse because "the other side" is exposing it is equally disturbing. Given how bad things "appear" to be (and Democrats have often stated that the seriousness of the (fill in the blank allegation) dictates that the (fill in the blank allegation) be fully investigated), I am of the opinion that an axe is better than a scalpel at the moment. If projects are truly value-added, they will (likely) be re-instated but it will take time to sort the wheat from the chaff. And yes that will be painful in the short-term. That or keep kicking the can down the road for the next politician to take the heat on.

I think we have found an area of agreement. As much as anyone I hate my tax dollars going to people who don't pay taxes. If I choose to support a program, I make sure it is effective. Overall it is stupid to try to balance a budget without looking at the revenue side. To your point, a lot of the expenses are small comparatively and they get spread out over 50 states and hundreds of programs. Doing it all at once causes significant harm in the inability of those programs to adapt. While they were "waste and abuse" to you, they were performing a valuable service for others. I'm not against cutting. All I want is for the Government to follow the process laid out in the Constitution. It will be slow, but it needs to be slow. A lot of "value-add" isn't clear and obvious and any harm might not be seen for 5-10yrs.

Cut them all and see who bleeds the most (hint: those will be the Repub states). Extending the TCJA will cost $5 Trillion over the next 10yrs, and this is ALL about that. A balanced budget is a wonderful idea, so I am also against ideas like not taxing overtime (cost $750B 10yrs) or not taxing tips (cost $100B). Those are just more of the political gifting. Cut the standard deduction. Get rid of the mortgage interest deduction ($1T in extra rev). The bottom line is, everyone wants their piece of the pie. It is hard to watch the pie being taken from someone who is hungry and given to a Billionaire.

 

[Doublecluck]

Jesus! You guys ok?

 

[BuzzH]

Agreed. Reckon many of us won’t realize how far reaching grants are until we show up to our favorite meadow and find it covered in spotted knapweed or something.

On that note, ran a web search and the USFS “Invasive Species Grants: Funded Projects” page for R1 has been removed.

I agree. These things need to be a measure twice, cut once approach in my experience.

I think as far as habitat and wildlife issues go, there isn't that much long term damage that can be done in 4 years. There is probably some carryover grant funding for the next year or two. That may buy enough time to keep things from going off the rails completely. May find some private funding for some of the most critical priorities, but I'm doubtful about that. Most states, counties, etc. are strapped, or think they are anyway. Most taxpayers would cut funding for everything and anything to save 50 cents on their taxes.

I believe your example of weed control is a good one. Save a penny now and have to pay a buck and quarter down the road.

Cutting funding without thought is a piss poor strategy, IMO. Conversely, well thought out cost savings only makes one thing, and that's total sense.