By Robert E.L. Walters
Image By Adobe Stock
A few days ago while reviewing daily content for The Socratic Review, I came upon an intriguing article by Nick Bowlin in Vox entitled: "Leaked recordings detail a major environmental agency quietly gutting its workforce." I was intrigued and hopeful (even though this was Vox). Secret recordings? Gutted environmental workforce? A major agency?
Turns out that any hope of pragmatism within the Federal government or the American populace was quickly quashed a few paragraphs in.
The gist of the piece centered on the travails of the U.S. Forestry Service and budgetary restraints which are hemming in their hiring of seasonal temps. I should start by saying, I have great respect for the National Forestry Service as well as our National Parks system and as such, I would rather see money spent there than in sending arms (or anything else) to a foreign power, whoever that foreign power might be.
This notwithstanding, the tenor of the article bothered me. Consider this section [links retained]...
Due to a looming budget cut, the agency will not be hiring seasonal staff for the next fiscal year, leaving thousands of people out of work and putting essential conservation and biodiversity work at risk.
The spending bill recently passed by the House gave the agency around half a billion dollars less than it requested, meaning that the Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture, faces a large budget cut. Most other environmental and science-based federal agencies also face large cuts. Meanwhile, the money the agency received from the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration’s signature climate law, has already been spent.
Firstly, "essential conservation and biodiversity work" as determined by whom? The agency themselves? And what makes this work "essential?" That is never quite explained to my satisfaction. Secondly "the money the agency received from the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration’s signature climate law, has already been spent." Again I ask, on what? As most know by now, the Inflation Reduction Act (itself an Orwellian misnomer that did just the opposite) was an immense boondoggle of negligible positive effect. The fact that Congress denied their budgetary request should be applauded not bemoaned.
But herein lies the issue. For all we hear about "corporate greed" (And by the way, companies exist to make money) we rarely hear about governmental greed, which is to say, the concept that budgets must always go up and never be cut.
The endless lament of special interests (whatever they may be) for funding, avoids the very simple fact that the federal government (or even the states for that matter) cannot fund everything that everyone wants regardless of how "noble" or well-intended that spending may be.
As it pertains to the federal government, the mandate is clear. Projects that benefit two or more states, expenditures for common defense, and spending that promotes the general welfare. It's that last part that gets us into trouble. We have so stretched the concept of "general welfare" that everything from cell phones to public housing slides under its wire. The insatiable governmental thirst for tax dollars to spend on increasingly expanded government programs never ends and as a result, things that do fall under government mandate like interstate roads, bridges and railroads, fall by the wayside. But it is the bureaucracy's indignation and disconnect from reality that is most disturbing. Consider this passage, bolds are mine for emphasis:
News of the hiring freeze left longtime seasonal and permanent workers shocked and angry. In a recording of a mid-September staff meeting shared by an employee and reviewed by Vox and High Country News, staff at the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in southern Washington stressed the importance of seasonal labor. One man, who identified himself as Trevor, said his “entire program” relies on a “large seasonal crew” and wondered how he would be able to do his job in the future. Another employee referenced years of insufficient funding from Congress that have diminished agency morale. She added the loss of temporary workers would have “agency-wide” negative impacts.
Angry? Diminished morale? Negative impacts? Do these civil servants not realize we are $35,000,000,000,000 in debt and counting, and that perhaps the country is in need of not spending so much money on trail maintenance and visitor centers?
Libertarians are often accused of being "selfish" and "stingy" for pointing out the simple fact that government has neither the mandate nor the resources to either improve nor indemnify the world. And whereas I sympathize somewhat for the civil servants who bought into the "good job" narrative of job security, how can they expect to be anymore immune from the vagaries of the economy than the private sector?
In the coming weeks we will elect a new head of the Executive Branch but I am not hopeful. There will still be bureaucracy swirling below the surface of accountability, padding budgets and greedily asking for more, with neither the inclination nor the patriotism to do what is right or prudent with regard to spending.
Comments