NOAA, USCG and CDC - privatize or essential functions of government?

[tangent4ronpaul]

It seems NOAA needs a new bird or there may be a blackout of some weather information we've become accustomed to as of 2016. Little things like 5 day forecasts and the track of hurricanes. Congress in it's infinite wisdom cut the 1 billion budget for this in half.

It appears reasonable that private industry could step up here, but at the same time weather is incredibly important when it comes to fighting wars, so something the government would want to keep in-house.

NOAA: Weather satellites are in jeopardy
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/08/24/noaa.weather.prediction/

It's worth noting that all 3 are uniformed services. That means they are part of the military. The USCG was (and may still be) doing patrols off the coast of Iraq. That's not what most people think of when they think USCG.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes, the USCG has billets for that area -- PATFORSWA (Patrol Forces Southwest Asia). They handle security around the oil rigs, and harbors, and USN vessels. They are stationed out of Bahrain. Take it from a Coastie who is on Terminal Leave (thank god). The USCG formerly the TAX collecting agency of Alexander Hamilton's design (Revenue Cutter Service) and the hi-jacking of the non-Governmental Life Saving Service, that our functions (that which isn't even emphasized any more...) of saving distressed sailors can easily be handled by organizations that do not initiate force or steal from people. It is a wasteful bureaucracy like the rest of the Military, and that is saying a lot as the CG makes due with the most frugality of any of the leeches.

It always amazed me how we would pay 500$ for a piece of crap TV that doesn't really work, when I can get a functional, better built, TV at the local Best Buy (which isn't that low price of an outlet in the first place) for 1/4th of the price. Not to mention all the rest of the boondoggles like the Illinois Fish Barrier...

The services NOAA provides can easily be provided without Government involvement. Same as roads, infrastructure, you name it.

Also, let's be clear here. To privatize means to remove Government involvement, either with regulation, or funding. It means no Government interference. I'm sick of the fascistic bastardization that people think of as privatization today.

PS: NOAA and the CDC are not part of the military. The USCG is.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Interesting reply.

You say that NOAA and CDC are not part of the military, yet all three are uniformed services. How do you define the difference?

Also kind of curious how you'd rate their boot camp and service in relation to other services. People generally say the USAF is the easiest.

[erowe1]

1) Is this a joke?
2) Where's the option for "Just eliminate them."?

[fisharmor]

USCG is technically a law enforcement agency. It will never be officially declared to be "military" because one of their main jobs is federal law enforcement at sea, and they need plausible deniability to get around the Posse Comitatus Act (which severely restricts the military's ability to enforce laws - on paper, anyway).

None of the jobs of USCG are essential functions of government, and yes, I'm saying that foremost because I believe nothing is.
That said, I think the USCG is both one of the most insidious agencies out there, and the one that we need to pay least attention to.
As AED pointed out, it's relatively efficient by contrast. That makes it insidious because it's an example of how the system can, technically, "work".
But I also think that in the short term libertarians ought not to call for its abolishment because that puts us in the position of having to argue why the statist case study in how statism works should go away.
I think there's really low hanging fruit that should come first.

If we pay any attention to the CG I think it should be to point out two things:
1 - as mentioned, it is a branch of the military, and if Posse Comitatus means anything (we know the answer to that, of course) then we ought to either end its military involvement or end its law enforcement duties
2 - it ought to get moved to another department when, not if, we abolish Homeland Security.

[fisharmor]

1) Is this a joke?
2) Where's the option for "Just eliminate them."?

Also, I agree, poll fail

[foofighter20x]

The services NOAA provides can easily be provided without Government involvement. Same as roads, infrastructure, you name it.

...

PS: NOAA and the CDC are not part of the military. The USCG is.

Not so fast. NOAA provides seafloor and coastal mapping services utilized by the military. It was NOAA maps that gave the Navy the ability to plan their route to Japan in WWII. Further, NOAA may not be part of the military, but it does have a uniformed, commissioned officer corps (NOAA Corps) that is part of the uniformed services of the U.S. (The Public Health Service Commissioned Corps rounds out the seven uniformed services, to include the armed forces.)

Also, there's a practical reason, at least for NOAA Corps: any civilians caught making maps during time of war can be tried and executed as a spy. Having a uniformed service perform that function at least puts them under the protection of LOAC.

I wouldn't be so quick to rush to judgment on these services in the future until you know more about their history and what they do.

[foofighter20x]

You say that NOAA and CDC are not part of the military, yet all three are uniformed services. How do you define the difference?

CDC is not a uniformed service. PHSCC is.

[foofighter20x]

If we pay any attention to the CG I think it should be to point out two things:
1 - as mentioned, it is a branch of the military, and if Posse Comitatus means anything (we know the answer to that, of course) then we ought to either end its military involvement or end its law enforcement duties
2 - it ought to get moved to another department when, not if, we abolish Homeland Security.

Point of order: USCG is only a branch of the military in time of declared war, by statute.

[specsaregood]

It seems NOAA needs a new bird or there may be a blackout of some weather information we've become accustomed to as of 2016. Little things like 5 day forecasts and the track of hurricanes. Congress in it's infinite wisdom cut the 1 billion budget for this in half.


I like Dr. Paul's gradual positions on things like this.
eg: instead of spending 1billion on the Libyan conquest; we could have put that 1 billion into NOAA.

This is something most americans would agree upon.

Let's start by cutting that stuff; then we can look into making cuts on things like NOAA.

[ronpaulfollower999]

NOAA and the NWS are essential for our military.

[erowe1]

NOAA and the NWS are essential for our military.

Essential for our military to do what?

[ronpaulfollower999]

Essential for our military to do what?

Provide weather forecast. Where do you think the weather guy on tv is getting the forecast track for Hurricane Irene from?

[erowe1]

Provide weather forecast. Where do you think the weather guy on tv is getting the forecast track for Hurricane Irene from?

I wasn't aware that he was with the military.

[fisharmor]

Point of order: USCG is only a branch of the military in time of declared war, by statute.

The fact that we're arguing about it shows that it's performing both jobs, in violation of the spirit of Posse Comitatus, if not its direct wording.
If we need law enforcement on the seas, let's do that.
If we need a navy, let's do that.
I disagree with the mixing of the two, and I did write "IF" before both of those statements on purpose.

At this point, I don't see a functional difference between the USCG and militarized police who use tanks and assault rifles and tear gas.
You can still call them "police" but the reality is that they're soldiers.
You can still call the USCG "not military" but the reality is that they are.

Frankly, I'm tired of finding out all the ways that previous generations have written down lame ass excuses for doing something they obviously ought not to be doing. Statute says all sorts of things. The state has proved time and again they don't care what statute says unless it's attempting to put us in the rape cage. So I don't much care what it says either.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Essential for our military to do what?

Look up the book:

Battling the Elements; Weather and Terrain in the Conduct of War

[erowe1]

Look up the book:

Battling the Elements; Weather and Terrain in the Conduct of War

Or you could just answer the question.

Sorry. I thought you were the other guy.

[ronpaulfollower999]

I wasn't aware that he was with the military.

He isn't but he gets his forecast from the NWS and NHC which are a part of NOAA.

[erowe1]

He isn't but he gets his forecast from the NWS and NHC which are a part of NOAA.

And you consider that a good thing?

[ronpaulfollower999]

And you consider that a good thing?

I don't see any reason to consider it a bad thing.

[tangent4ronpaul]

operate - partially, or at all.

There are countries in Africa where the roads become impassable for months at a time.
There are intense sand storms in Iran where you can't see - let alone move
Today the Navy issues a code ALPHA and every ship on the east coast set out to sea to avoid the hurricane
In extreme cold batteries stop working
Stuff like that.

[flightlesskiwi]

And you consider that a good thing?


i'd like to know if a tornado is headed my way. and, at this point in history, the NWS (part of NOAA) fulfills that role. imo, that's a good thing, at this point in history, imo.

could it be better? yes.

[erowe1]

i'd like to know if a tornado is headed my way. and, at this point in history, the NWS via NOAA fulfills that role. imo, that's a good thing.

Then spend your own money on that, not mine.

[erowe1]

I don't see any reason to consider it a bad thing.

Really? What if the government took over shopping malls? Would that not be a bad thing either?

[flightlesskiwi]

Then spend your own money on that, not mine.

unfortunately we're both being forced to pay for it. so i partake in the service provided.

[erowe1]

unfortunately we're both being forced to pay for it. so i partake in the service provided.

So do I. But I'd rather not be forced to pay for it. Isn't that what the question in the OP is about?

[ronpaulfollower999]

It should be noted that NOAA sent an aircraft to sample the environment around Hurricane Irene. This information went into computer models and gave the guys at the NHC a more accurate forecast. The NWS also increased the frequency that they send weather balloons up into the air. Again, this information went into the computer models, etc. At this point I see no private weather company doing that.

[erowe1]

It should be noted that NOAA sent an aircraft to sample the environment around Hurricane Irene. This information went into computer models and gave the guys at the NHC a more accurate forecast. The NWS also increased the frequency that they send weather balloons up into the air. Again, this information went into the computer models, etc. At this point I see no private weather company doing that.

Why would a private company do it when the government is already forcing us to pay them to do it?

If you have a public library letting people check out every movie that comes out on DVD for free at the taxpayer's expense, there's not much incentive for Blockbuster to open a store next door.

[fisharmor]

NOAA - founded 1968. Seems like we got through two world wars without it.
NHC - founded 1967. Sub-department of NWS.
NWS - founded 1870 for the express purpose of allowing the military to gain access to weather info within the US... Five years after the deadliest war in US history which was undertaken for the express purpose of eliminating local rule.

Color me suspicious.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Really? What if the government took over shopping malls? Would that not be a bad thing either?

Of course thats a bad thing but its apples and oranges. The government never took over weather forecasting and there are companies today that provide forecast. However, when it comes to tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, or whatever, the NWS issues those warnings to people so the local media, The Weather Channel, accuweather.com, or whatever can relay those warnings to people.

[erowe1]

The government never took over weather forecasting and there are companies today that provide forecast. However, when it comes to tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, or whatever, the NWS issues those warnings to people so the local media, The Weather Channel, accuweather.com, or whatever can relay those warnings to people.

If I'm reading this correctly, the distinction you're drawing is that the reason this isn't as bad as government-run shopping malls is because in this case the government hasn't taken over weather forecasts, it's only taken over the issuing of warnings?

I must be missing something here.

[flightlesskiwi]

Why would a private company do it when the government is already forcing us to pay them to do it?

If you have a public library letting people check out every movie that comes out on DVD for free at the taxpayer's expense, there's not much incentive for Blockbuster to open a store next door.

the kind of funny thing is that private scientists are getting more and more into studying the weather.

watch Storm Chasers on discovery... Joel and his team (privately funded) are LOATHED by Josh and the VORTEX 2 team (government funded). but Joel and his team are getting great information, and using crazy innovative ideas to gather storm data. and using only one (although now they have two) vehicle!

from that standpoint, i think that privatization of entities such as NOAA and NWS would result in BETTER technology and better results.

[erowe1]

the kind of funny thing is that private scientists are getting more and more into studying the weather.

watch Storm Chasers on discovery... Joel and his team (privately funded) are LOATHED by Josh and the VORTEX 2 team (government funded). but Joel and his team are getting great information, and using crazy innovative ideas to gather storm data. and using only one (although now they have two) vehicle!

from that standpoint, i think that privatization of entities such as NOAA and NWS would result in BETTER technology and better results.

Of course it would be better. I'm having trouble understanding how anybody here even questions that.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I think we get a bargain w/ NOAA

I was more thinking that if Congress can't/won't fund this bird, maybe private industry would and sell the results to NOAA or whoever. Kind of like how we are renting rides to the space station from the Russians now.

I don't think they are obsolete and they have a very unique skillset.

I do see them as essential to the military as well as the population.

-t

[ronpaulfollower999]

I can see a point for getting rid of NOAA, but no way should we get rid of the NWS or NHC. Look at how accurate weather forecasting has gotten in just the last decade (forget all the Global Warming BS but stuff like blizzards, hurricanes, tornadoes). I doubt weather forecasts have improved because companies like The Weather Channel or Intelicast.com came into the picture.

I think we can have a true Libertarian society and the NWS if we are keeping the military.

[erowe1]

I can see a point for getting rid of NOAA, but no way should we get rid of the NWS or NHC. Look at how accurate weather forecasting has gotten in just the last decade (forget all the Global Warming BS but stuff like blizzards, hurricanes, tornadoes). I doubt weather forecasts have improved because companies like The Weather Channel or Intelicast.com came into the picture.

I think we can have a true Libertarian society and the NWS if we are keeping the military.

How should it be paid for?

[tangent4ronpaul]

How should it be paid for?

C-SPAN receives no gvmt funding. They get donations, and I'm pretty sure get paid by cable chains that subscribe. The cable chains charge their customers.

AP charges their member newspapers for their feed. Those papers charge the end user.

In an ideal world.

[erowe1]

C-SPAN receives no gvmt funding. They get donations, and I'm pretty sure get paid by cable chains that subscribe. The cable chains charge their customers.

AP charges their member newspapers for their feed. Those papers charge the end user.

In an ideal world.

If it is to be funded voluntarily, then why does the government need to be involved at all?

[ronpaulfollower999]

How should it be paid for?

Print the money. :p

Taxes, but would that then be a true Libertarian society? :o

[erowe1]

Taxes, but would that then be a true Libertarian society? :o
Nope.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Nope.

Figured.

And I thought about the user fee idea, but its unlikely unless we can get real change in DC.

[erowe1]

Figured.

And I thought about the user fee idea, but its unlikely unless we can get real change in DC.

Sure. But the question isn't about what's likely. It's about what's right.

[fisharmor]

Somebody else say something astute so I can +rep erowe1 again!

[ronpaulfollower999]

Somebody else say something astute so I can +rep erowe1 again!

Haha. I could make a real fool out of myself and defend the CDC. But even I'm at a loss as to where I would try and start. :o

ETA: I don't think the CDC should exist. :p

[foofighter20x]

NOAA - founded 1968. Seems like we got through two world wars without it.
NHC - founded 1967. Sub-department of NWS.
NWS - founded 1870 for the express purpose of allowing the military to gain access to weather info within the US... Five years after the deadliest war in US history which was undertaken for the express purpose of eliminating local rule.

Color me suspicious.

U.S. Coast Survey - signed into existence by Jefferson and founded in 1807, names changed several times, later absorbed into NOAA.
http://www.lib.noaa.gov/noaainfo/heritage/coastandgeodeticsurvey/index.html

[tangent4ronpaul]

Somebody else say something astute so I can +rep erowe1 again!

We really do owe the CDC a great deal of gratitude, were it not for their wholly discredited. politicized research into gun violence being a public health issue, gun control might be taken seriously on the House floor these days.

Further, their vaccine work has given us so many kids with aspergers and autism that will be the leading force in this nations creativity and innovation for years to come.

We really do owe them a great collective thanks!

-t

[XNavyNuke]

NOAA and the NWS are essential for our military.

You do realize that the military has their own satellites and meteorologists, right?

[ronpaulfollower999]

You do realize that the military has their own satellites and meteorologists, right?

Yes. The Navy especially. I realized that later on.

http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/tc_pages/tc_home.html

[foofighter20x]

You do realize that the military has their own satellites and meteorologists, right?

And having been a military meteorologist, I can tell you for fact that the focus of those weather personnel squarely falls on operations. If it doesn't deal directly with their mission, they don't do it, for the most part. They don't do atmospheric research. They don't do the meteorological model runs. They don't own the weather radar systems. So, sure, defund all that... And then ask yourself with what forecast capability the military will be left?

[XNavyNuke]

They don't do atmospheric research. They don't do the meteorological model runs. They don't own the weather radar systems. So, sure, defund all that... And then ask yourself with what forecast capability the military will be left?

I know that private and public universities work with the NRL to do research and develop computer models. There's no reason to assume that it wouldn't continue at some level even in the absences of grants from NOAA. There is the potential of the private sector to provide the services. Since the 70's MSC has been leasing private-owned, private operated shipping for strategic provision prepositioning. There is a current debate on whether private shipping is the way to go for the services that AOT's provide (transport oilers).

Do I think that you can defund at a stoke of a pen and not have some repercussions, no; however I think that these particular services could be devolved over a 2-3 year period (a single term administration) with minimal impact. If you can build a government service in that period time then you can reverse it in the same.

XNN

[youngbuck]

Something ought to change with both the NOAA and USCG, but I only voted for the CDC because it's a much better example of something that ought to be privatized, and NOT government operated/controlled.

[Revolution9]

I must be missing something here.

I agree with this assessment.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

Of course it would be better. I'm having trouble understanding how anybody here even questions that.

If privatized the data acquired becomes intellectual property. They are obviously going to be in it to profit. What if a number of counties in a given area are hard struck economically and they are down to essential services or less. They do not have money to pay the private company. Are they in their right to demand data for residents to know to get ready for a duck and cover because a tornado is coming, or a hurricane is going to breach their area? If so, who will enforce that and deny the company the profits which are the reason they pursued the acquisition of data, the data interpretation manpower, the satellites and their launchings and myriad other expenses in the acquisition and transmittal of said data? If not, then what good is it to privatise that which is useful to everybody at some point?

Rev9

[Revolution9]

Something ought to change with both the NOAA and USCG, but I only voted for the CDC because it's a much better example of something that ought to be privatized, and NOT government operated/controlled.

I agree on the CDC being privatized. The issue I see is what model of business would it use to make a profit and sustain its viability as a research and data acquisition company. Would its work then go to the highest private bidders and if so, what is to stop it from being private data that is not available for public access and vetting? As it stands the CDC is an arm of the MIC and pharmacidal complex. Having said that, do we even need the data and research or can this come better from University labs and thinking groups, whom by their inherent nature publish such data in competition with other University labs?

Rev9

[CaptainAmerica]

Why should the U.S. Coast Guard be privatized? the u.s. constitution permits having a navy.

[Revolution9]

Why should the U.S. Coast Guard be privatized? the u.s. constitution permits having a navy.

One of the very few mandates on The Constitution is to enforce Piracy laws. Seems you need a boat to do that.

Rev9

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Why should the U.S. Coast Guard be privatized? the u.s. constitution permits having a navy.

The US Constitution also permits a Postal Service, but it doesn't mean that we should have the Government provide postal services. You should read up on Lysander Spooner and the American Letter Mail Company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company

The US constitution also permits an Income Tax, doesn't mean we should have one.

[XNavyNuke]

hxxp://www.frumforum.com/ron-pauls-spaced-out-plan
Ron Paul’s Spaced Out Plan


Ron Paul has unveiled a fiscal plan that would eliminate the Commerce Department, among other departments. The Commerce Department includes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and one of NOAA’s functions is operating the nation’s weather satellites.

Paul’s plan would zero out Commerce immediately, which means NOAA would also go away.

Oh no! We're all going to die of heat stroke and blizzards under the Paul plan.:p

XNN