Your government.
Posted on 12/26/2015 4:37:24 PM PST by OddLane
Congress rejected the Forest Service plan to give the agency access to up to $2.9 billion a year to suppress wildfires. In response, Secretary of Agriculture threatened to let fires burn up the West unless Congress gives his department more money. In a letter to key members of Congress, Vilsack warned, “I will not authorize transfers from restoration and resilience funding†to suppress fires. If the Forest Service runs out of appropriated funds to fight fires, it will stop fighting them until Congress appropriates additional funds.
This is a stunning example of brinksmanship on the part of an agency once known for its easygoing nature. Since about 1990, Congress has given the Forest Service the average of its previous ten years of fire suppression funds. If the agency has to spend more than that amount during a severe fire year, Congress authorized it to borrow funds from its other programs, with the promise that Congress would reimburse those funds later. In other words, during severe fire years, some projects might be delayed for a year–hardly a crisis.
(Excerpt) Read more at cato.org ...
What did the West do before the Forest Service?
So how much Arson can we expect in 2016?
A real President would fire the director and order the exec to do what was necessary, and fire the exec if s/he didn’t. We had a real President 30 years ago. The present occupant likes drama, because it advances the “transformation” agenda.
where the hell are all these people coming from?
reminds me of that parallel universe Star Trek episode.
So Vilsack wants to avoid active management of the finances of the federal agency he runs and, instead, simply DEMAND more money. I guess we can expect nothing less from a ‘RAT appointee in the Obama regime.
If he wants to let it burn, let it burn...he has money at his disposal already.
It appears that the Forest Service intends to let fires burn anyway.
Your government.
It burned. But forest fires are not necessarily bad as new growth replaces the burned out areas. What the Forest Service does by putting out fires is to make almost all succeeding fires in the general area of the one which was extinguished by people larger and larger because there is more fuel that should have burned but did not.
We would be much better off if we were to shut down the Forest Service’s firefighting arm and let nature take its course.
Yes, some people would lose homes, but that is why people need good insurance policies. Yes, some wildlife will die in the fires, but a lot of wildlife simply isn’t able to get out before the fire overtakes them.
Smokey Bear has done America a great disservice.
Arrest the bastard.
Logging creates fire breaks and provides habitat. Start logging.
The government is threatening to shut down the government - or part of it.
I’m sure the GOP will give him whatever he wants.
Vilsack is either planning on retiring in the next year, or he hasn’t bothered to look at the presidential candidate polling data.
He sure as hell won’t be Secretary of Agriculture 18 months from now.
Exactly.
We can solve two problems with one solution. A lot of money is going to handle the Syrian refugee problem. Instead of housing them in the cities (expensive), we move them to the western forests, supplying them with cheap tents. If the forest burns, the refugees can put out the fires or burn with them.
Indeed, there are many, many type of plants and trees whose seeds will not germinate until they are cooked, cracked, and opened up by fire.
Yeah, he’s basically admitting he is incapable of budgeting and prioritizing the resources he has. Sounds like more than enough grounds to relieve him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.