Hurricane Forecasts Are More Accurate Than Ever – NOAA Funding Cuts Could

I don’t know what I can say about who’s getting fired. That’s clearly NOAA management (not DOGE) doing that and if they are doing what the article source says, then I suggest they are doing it wrong. Cuts always bring pain but everyone should wear it and move on. I had assumed probationaries were new hires and not yet confirmed as permanent.

But the whole premise of my presence here on this thread is that I saw clear indications of an organisation facing mandated cuts and deliberately doing those cuts as you say

That seems to be to garner public sympathy. I remain unsympathetic. There will still be a NOAA doing NOAA stuff.

Our local weather service office is now only open M-F, 8-4. They used to be available 24 hours for up to date forecasting, enabling us to move more ships in shorter windows with the knowledge of what the immediate forecast looks like. Now, that’s no longer an option.

Thankfully it happened right at the end of fog season, but who knows what the next one will look like. More delays, less movements.

2 Likes

Maybe they will save enough in the next year to pay for one of the SMOAT’s golf weekends.

2 Likes

I’m not sure why anyone thinks NOAA is mandating these cuts to either positions or services.

NONE of the recent terminations were in any way made with NOAA or Department of Commerce input. They were MANDATED by the Administration.

First, ALL federal civilian workers were offered the “fork in the road” (the same term Musk used in emails when we let go of Twitter personnel). It was a cryptic email announcement that many workers thought was a scam given there was no warning and the proposal was unprecedented and unfunded with an arbitrary short notice deadline to respond. Workers could leave and get paid for 7 months NOT to work. Imagine that, 7 months salary and benefits to do ZERO work, and they are even allowed to go get another job to “double dip” throughout that period. To date anyone who took this option has now received over two months of salary at taxpayer expense with 5 more to come while doing absolutely NOTHING. No “tax and spend” Democrat has EVER been so wild as to suggest offering Federal workers 7 months pay and benefits with ZERO work performed. Imagine if Obama or Biden had given Federal workers 7 months of pay for zero work! This was not a NOAA decision, but was across the entire Federal Government for ALL Federal civilians.

Then all probationary Federal workers were let go. That is anyone who had been hired in the last year immediately lost their job. This in no way allowed the agency to prioritize or preserve important positions or critical services, or reallocate or ramp down services as the firings were immediate and without warning. The individuals were let go via email notification that didn’t even include their supervisors. Fired employees had to turn around and inform their own bosses at NOAA when they had been fired as their supervisors were otherwise not informed. Ironically even some long term employees were fired if they had happened to ascend to a new position within the last year. In those cases some of the best performers who were the most experienced and productive subject matter experts who had been given deserved promotions were suddenly given their walking papers.

At the same time a hiring freeze was instituted across the entire Federal Government, meaning NOAA could not backfill ANY existing or new vacancies, including those deemed most critical. Nor were they allowed to transfer ANY employees within the Agency to fill these critical roles.

The subsequent offering of programs like Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments (VSIP) also caused significant departures across the Agency, often of the longest serving and most knowledgeable personnel, all while there is a still ongoing hiring freeze with no ability to backfill vacancies or bring in new people to be trained prior to senior people with knowledge and skills leaving, so things only continue to get worse. The increased workload for those that remain further incentivizes leaving rather than staying and severely degrades the level of service being provided, given that people are now and for an unknown timeframe going forward, tasked with doing the work of multiple positions, this may even include duties they are unfamiliar with or even unqualified for. The more attrition, the harder it is on those that remain, and the more likely they too will choose to leave. None of this is a NOAA decision or a NOAA specific directive.

Finally this week the National Weather Service, but no other NOAA Line Office, has at last been granted the ability to transfer personnel within the Agency ONLY, to potentially fill the most critical positions (which then creates new vacancies). However, there is still no outside hiring allowed by any NOAA Line Office in spite of the increasing needs. This has NOT been NOAA’s choice or an effort to play victim. This is the administration’s policy and it is similar across Federal Agencies.

I’m sure NOAA would love to hire qualified personnel to fill its most critical vacancies and help restore and ensure the most critical public services, but it is NOT allowed. THIS IS NOT NOAA’S FAULT. This is the current administration willfully impeding a taxpayer funded public agency from executing a mission that directly impacts public safety, as well as the safety of mariners and ships. NOAA has applied for exemptions to the hiring freeze and some of those have been approved all the way to the Secretary of Commerce, only to then be DENIED by The US Office of Personnel Management.

So in summary NONE of these decisions are being made by NOAA. All of these decisions and directives ARE being made by this administration.

6 Likes

First, thanks for the long and detailed description. I remain unconvinced that NOAA can’t be required to tighten its belt. I understand that blunt instruments are sometimes used for quick results and there are unintended consequences. Managers will have to manage.

In which case the administration bears the blame, but bear in mind the administration wants to cut costs and no amount of special interest pleading about how wonderful the services of NOAA are should detract from a mission to get government to live within its means.

Nobody here has responded to the big picture items some of which I’ve raised above - $1.2 trillion interest bill each year, criminally wasted taxpayers funds found by DOGE probably hundreds of billions by now, oh and $21 trillion missing from government coffers over many years (see Catherine Austin Fitts interviewed by Tucker Carlson for that one), a Defence department that’s lost billions of dollars worth of munitions and hasn’t passed audit for years (DOGE not allowed in there), a Federal Reserve controlling you money and not being even a government entity under government control (it’s a private bank) and finally doubt over whether Fort Knox actually holds the gold it says it has - no audits for many years.

In short, your nation is cold, stone broke - the brokest of any nation ever, and you should fix it. Your government has been a gold mine for the baddies to milk for too long and it’s time that came to an end. A few cuts to NOAA is small stuff indeed.

1 Like

1 Like

This is so untrue. California’s economy alone is bigger than most other nation’s including yours.

Yes, our nation has a great deal of debt, but if we simply went back to the tax rates under Bill Clinton of the 90s I bet we’d come a lot closer to a balanced budget. If we went back to the tax rates when “America was great” we’d likely balance the budget in short order.

It is the artificially low taxes that are the problem. Why oh why are capital gains taxed at a lower rate than earned income made from wages? We’ve protected the investor class at the expense of the Nation’s debt and our middle class. Investors have also managed to run amok in the housing market.

The USA still has the most powerful economy in the world. You can wish for us to be broke but our economic dominance remains a global force that often helps generate economic stability for much of the world, except of course when people who don’t understand economics start f’ing around with tariffs and then it just makes a mess for everybody.

4 Likes

Big economy but a shitty place to live. Oh, and it ought to be bigger than Australia’s economy. It half as big again as Australia’s population.

I don’t see any effort to stop spending money you don’t have. You’re spending about 2 $trillion a year more than you collect.

You are broke. You have a big economy, but you are still broke. Look out when you can no longer borrow the 2 $trillion a year.

2 Likes

Well , someone forgot to tell the tourists that. They spend nearly $10 billion a year in SF alone. About 2.5 million foreign tourists a year.

Presumably one of those was you, because you have so much first knowledge of CA. I forgot— when did you live there? 2015?

https://www.sftravel.com/media/press-release/san-francisco-travel-announces-2025-tourism-forecast-2024-results

Maybe you should worry about things closer to home. Our mutual friend A. I. shared this with me. Care to comment?

“The 2023-24 New South Wales Government budget, which includes Sydney’s portion, projected a deficit of $7.8 billion”.

I wonder how empty my life would have to be before I obsessively involved myself in the right wing propaganda of a country I don’t live in that is over 10,000 nm from where I claim to live. Nah, I don’t want to imagine that sad state of life.

@Jughead, A little more analysis on my part shows that CA has a GDP five times the size of that of New South Wales but a projected deficit only three times the size of that owing to your great Australian state.

In other words the wonderful state of CA has less deficit per capita than your noble state.

If CA is broke then you must agree that your state of NSW is even more broke. And you must spend more time on Internet forums complaining about it, correct?

CA GDP $4.1 trillion. Deficit $12 billion.
NSW GDP $821 billion. Deficit $3.6 billion.

Well they poured in over the border with Mexico. Nobody’s sure how many “tourists” came to San Francisco but the Poop Map sorta indicates it’s a shitty place to live.

And that $10 billion they estimate they spent? Well they probably stole that first or you generously subsidised them, so not actually income.

I had a great time when I was there in my navy days mid 1976 for some celebration or other. Happy memories. Not so good now.

Don’t you worry. I am very worried. But I’m on the west coast and we regard the eastern states almost as a foreign country and thankfully sufficiently remote for us to point and giggle at their idiocy.

Let’s just compare.
US debt per person US$107,653
Australian debt per person A$33,796 = US$22,102

You are broke.

1 Like

Every time you post something you put me in mind of your favorite cable channel, Fox News.

Fox hates New York. Fox commentators go on and on about how filthy NYC is. How crime-ridden it is. How unlivable it is.

Where is Fox broadcast from? Where do those same commentators live? Houston? Louisville? They could broadcast from Salt Lake City, right?

But where do they all choose to live?

NYC.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

1 Like

Why? Because the USA spends 80 times more on defense than Australia does. And who do we defend? Australia. Our debt is greater because we purposely fund our military so as to be the arsenal of Democracy, defending your parsimonious ass.

I’ll accept your kind words of gratitude in advance. :wink:

Shout out to that time Australia waged war on Emus and lost.

1 Like

After reading that article on the Emu War I gotta tell you Australians: if you ever go to war with them again, you’re on your own. They seem like bad-asses.

1 Like

Not as bad as cassowaries!

2 Likes

So all this money you’re spending on defending Australia is wasted? But thanks anyway.

And meanwhile your US debt per person has gone up to US$107657. Tick, tick, tick …Boom.

1 Like

The federal budget deficit is not really relevant in this case. The costs of these cuts to the U.S. economy will be higher then the money saved.

3 Likes