USDA to close 259 offices
http://www.omaha.com/article/20120110/NEWS01/701109921/0#usda-to-close-259-offices
DES MOINES The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Monday that it will close nearly 260 offices nationwide, a move that won praise for cutting costs but raised concerns about the possible effect on food safety.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the goal was to save $150 million a year in the department's $145 billion budget. About $90 million had already been saved by reducing travel and supplies, and the closings were expected to save another $60 million, he said.
The plan calls for 259 offices, labs and other facilities to be closed, affecting the USDA headquarters in Washington and operations in 46 states. Seven foreign offices also will be closed.
Some of the closings had been previously announced. The USDA said last year it would shut down 10 agricultural research stations, including the only one in Alaska, where scientists were seeking ways to use the vast waste generated by the largest wild fishery in the nation to make everything from gel caps to fish meal for livestock feed.
FULL story at link.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Then life will finally be the glorious reality that Republicans Vision it to be. Heaven on Earth, just like God wants.
CurtEastPoint
(18,638 posts)The USDA is a good example of our tax dollars actually working. Can some fat be cut? Probably. Mass closures are not a good solution.
Trillo
(9,154 posts)dana_b
(11,546 posts)Monsanto campaign contributions (so far) 2012 cycle:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2012&cmte=C00042069
fasttense
(17,301 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)CanonRay
(14,097 posts)marmar
(77,067 posts)Organic farm time.
Javaman
(62,510 posts)Upton Sinclare just laughed at us.
mucifer
(23,522 posts)Renew Deal
(81,852 posts)Probably the single worst cabinet pick by Obama.
Vilsack said he didn't expect widespread layoffs, in part because 7,000 USDA employees took early retirements over the past year. He said the department is trying to do more with less in light of federal cutbacks, and many of the offices to be closed had few employees or were near other offices.
"Our workload is at record highs, we have less money and fewer people and work to do, and we tried to address how do you do that without interrupting service," Vilsack said in a phone call from Honolulu, where he was speaking to the American Farm Bureau Federation.
The USDA manages a wide array of programs, from emergency aid to farmers to grants for rural development and food assistance programs for the poor. Along with the Agricultural Research Service and Food Safety and Inspection Service, six other departments will be affected by closings, including the Farm Service Agency and Rural Development.
<snip>
"The capability to collect data and do the behind-the-scenes activities that really help U.S. agriculture stay safe, that should be concerning," Babcock said.
<snip>
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)...and how many better places there are to spend the scarce funds that we do have.
glinda
(14,807 posts)unregulated but puppy mills also. (as if they are effective now....NOT!)
glinda
(14,807 posts)*Note the Natural Resources closures
Renew Deal
(81,852 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)CountAllVotes
(20,868 posts)I got my house via the USDA Rural Housing Program 10+ years ago. Without them, I'd still be living in a dump somewhere freezing my ass off! Said house was a mess and required lots of work but it is a house nonetheless. I'm glad to have it and so would many others out there.
is wrong with these people anyway?:
Renew Deal
(81,852 posts)SharonAnn
(13,772 posts)glinda
(14,807 posts)CottonBear
(21,596 posts)A federal USDA research station is slated for closure in the area of Georgia where I live. The state land grant university may take it over and continue the research. However, the state university also recently closed one of its local agricultural research facilities. The land is going to be sold to developers. Meanwhile, the Georgia state GOP continues to cut university system funding and technical college funding.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... and since neither is as important as cutting costs, they both had to go.
SOS
(7,048 posts)The luxurious Washington offices of appointed USDA officials will remain open
for business.
The former executives from ConAgra, Infinity Pork,
National Cattleman's Beef Association, Monsanto, General Mills,
The National Pork Board and Campbell's Soup will remain.
They have important stock prices to prop up.
OhioChick
(23,218 posts)Nikia
(11,411 posts)This is a horrible idea. They should be expanding, not cutting. Cutting that many offices is unacceptable.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)funded to the max. A better plan would be to shut down 259 military recruiting offices and close a couple dozen overseas bases. There is no more bloated department than the Defense Department.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)But wowsers, we cut $60 million out of a $145 billion annual budget. That's almost, uhhhhhh, well, it's a LOT! Percentages are irrelevant in a case like this.
Gosh, if only that wildly popular President Obama had some authority over the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
BumRushDaShow
(128,748 posts)Sorry to burst the bubble!
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Well, that's a relief! Wonder why there's a Department of Agriculture at all, since it apparently doesn't do anything worthwhile. Unless you eat some of that 20% of food regulated by the USDA, which apparently little girls do not.
BumRushDaShow
(128,748 posts)the (IMHO) mis-allocation of funds to the problem. You can throw money at something and watch it disappear into a black hole or perhaps close some of the entrances to that hole and shift the money to what has been assigned 80% of the oversight but only gets 20% of the funding, and continues to be perpetually starved (thanks to the Michelle Bachmanns of the world that would rather perpetuate the ag trough at the expense of the other major regulator - FDA).
My issue with your argument was the assumption that closure of these rural offices at USDA would somehow have a major impact on anything to do with the food supply (USDA doesn't only do food), whereas the outrage needs to be redirected to support of the primary regulator which was gutted during the Clinton years, when half of FDA's labs were closed, and that was left to wither on the vine under Shrub, and now, having only recently been given some resources, will surely be back under the chopping block once more if Cheeto has any say in the matter. Oh well...
kentauros
(29,414 posts)you mean the fact that $150,000,000 saved out of $145,000,000,000 equals 0.1% of the total budget? That irrelevant percentage?
So, with an estimated population of 312,827,000 in the U.S., that works out to about 48 cents per person. For those that can't spare those extra cents, I'll gladly pitch in some more to cover it
How much expenditure-waste is there at the Pentagon per day again?
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)The total savings so far is about $150 million. Yeah, I was trying to make the point that saving $60 million out of an annual budget of $145 billion wasn't very much, percentage-wise. So look for the "savings" to be trumpeted in dollars-and-cents, rather than percentages.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)At least until someone points out how minuscule that amount is in comparison. I doubt they'd get much airtime, though, and certainly none after the first time.
There are communications satellites (and military satellites) that cost more than the total savings! And that's just for one. The cost of those 259 offices works out to about $232,000 per year. That's really a bargain, considering that cost is also for salaries and whatever the other costs for operating an office like that. It's not like the people employed were getting rich off the government dole. It will be spun that way, of course, and that's just plain sad.
DeathToTheOil
(1,124 posts)hedgehog
(36,286 posts)squat and the information lost is vital!
philly_bob
(2,419 posts)You simply require manufacturers to certify that the food is safe and trust them to recall unsafe foods.
What could go wrong?
<SARCASM>
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)The corporations involved in our food supply do not want them government regulating them, inspecting their
farms, warehouses or production lines.
So we cut money for inspectors and regulators who ensure that our food is safely grown, processed and handled.
These big Ag and Big Food corporations want to cut costs. They want more profit at the top--and complying
with regulations and keeping the food supply safe--is just not cost effective for them.
Make no mistake--this is happening because the corporations want it to happen.
Festivito
(13,452 posts)That's if we're each paying $12,000 a year in taxes.
It saved me less. About five cents.
But, if I survive for another five years, that will add up to a quarter.