Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Almighty Buck Politics Science

Going Off the Fiscal Cliff Could Mean Missing the Next Hurricane Sandy 296

Posted by timothy
from the it's-all-so-simple dept.
Lasrick writes "Alex Knapp has an excellent article pointing out that NOAA satellites enabled NOAA to predict the 'left hook' of Hurricane Sandy into the Eastern Seaboard, which in turn enabled local governments to prepare. Those satellites are at risk and there will be a gap of about a year between 2017 and 2018, when the old ones fail and the new ones are scheduled to launch. There's no alternative to getting that data, and the so-called 'fiscal cliff' will drive an 8% cut to NOAA's satellite program, so that those replacement satellites may go up even later than 2018."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Going Off the Fiscal Cliff Could Mean Missing the Next Hurricane Sandy

Comments Filter:
  • North Korea (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 29, 2012 @02:30PM (#42420929)

    Just ask Kim YoungOne for some data from the North Korean satellites. They will clearly be ahead of NASA by then! :-)

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Give us more money, or people die.

    • Give us more money.

    • by Sique (173459) on Saturday December 29, 2012 @02:54PM (#42421105) Homepage
      If you have a better idea, please elaborate. For some reason completely oblivious to you, preparation against catastrophic events costs money.
      • by otterpop81 (784896) on Saturday December 29, 2012 @03:41PM (#42421361)

        If you have a better idea, please elaborate. For some reason completely oblivious to you, preparation against catastrophic events costs money.

        The problem I have is that when times are good, governments spend the excess on crap, and then when it comes time to make cuts, they whine about how they'll have to cut essential services. We see it all the time with local governments as property taxes fluctuate. When revenues are down they say they have to cut police and fire departments and teachers, but there's never any talk about cutting what was _added_ during the fat years. We always had teachers and police and fire departments during the previous lean years, so what's the problem with going back to how it was?

        We're seeing the same thing on the federal level, the difference being that there haven't been good times (ie: surplus) in over a decade. Replace "good times" with "when we're borrowing even more from China."

        We had money to fund NOAA before the current people in charge borrowed more money than all previous administrations combined, why can't we go back to that? I think that's what the GP is getting at.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 29, 2012 @04:36PM (#42421757)
          Well, the most recent spending boom by the Federal Government was for two badly executed invasions and a bunch "Homeland Security" BS. I agree with you, let's cut out that BS and get back to the 90's.
        • by guises (2423402) on Saturday December 29, 2012 @06:32PM (#42422435)
          Your assessment of how we handle things when times are good is valid: instead of investing surplus on paying down the debt or in infrastructure, we tend to blow it on the frivolities of the moment. However, this is incorrect:

          We had money to fund NOAA before the current people in charge borrowed more money than all previous administrations combined, why can't we go back to that?

          We blew the largest part of our budget surplus on the Bush Tax Cuts, the second largest part on the two wars, and the third largest part on stimulus and all of this, including the stimulus, was spent before the current people in charge took office. Under Obama we did spend additional money on stimulus, but all of that stimulus spending together, including stimulus tax cuts, are still less than the Bush Tax Cuts. Even if you believe that the stimulus spending was ill advised (which seems to be at odds with the results) the answer to the issue you raise about why we had money for NOAA before but not now is clear: we didn't. We never had the money to spend on those tax cuts, and all of the budgetary pain that we're going through now is the result.

          • by Artifakt (700173) on Saturday December 29, 2012 @08:51PM (#42423217)

            Plus, both the President Bush and President Obama Tax cuts were supply side biased, and the Bank/Mortgage bailouts were 100% supply side* Togther these represent 4 really huge commitments to test the theory behind trickle down/supply side and they have failed disasterously every single time. So listening to the people who backed and continue to back supply side at all is like listening to a doctor who still advocates bleeding the patients, shaking rattles at them to drive off evil spirits, and treating Malaria with crocodile dung. Whatever will actually help the economy, it's NOT going to come from the Supply-siders.

            * The tax cuts were biased about 2 to 1 for supply side - that is, economists on all sides of the issue agreed that the individual consumers were together driving about 69 to 70 % of all spending, and NOBODY who studied sales figures came up with another number, but both years tax cuts paid out about 35 % to individual consumers and 65 % to the supply side minority, in the form of accelerated business depreciation. The Mortgage bailouts were very close to 100% supply side - the only way they really could have been demand side was directly paying off bad loans to let people keep their houses. That's what supply side and demand side mean. You know all the right wing guys who are claiming these bailouts are socialist? That they are a bigger problem than the two off-the-books wars? They were also exactly what the right advocated, and got. When some idiots try something four times, for what they themselves have claimed were the four largest single expenditures ever by any nation, and then they themselves claim it made the economy worse in the end, why is anyone still listening to them?

            Note: I'm not claiming here that Keynesians or the real Socialists or any other particular economic theorists are definitely right and have all the answers, but if they are all wrong, at least in part, the supply-siders and trickle-downers and so on are definitively so much more totally wrong, we need some whole new ideas in economics. Deciding, for example, the Keynesians are wrong, without first spending as much as just one of the bailouts or stimuli to test it, and then testing supply side four times without learning anything, is all the proof anyone half rational needs that some of our economists and politicians are quacks at best, brutal, child-destroying, war-mongering monsters at the worst still reasonable interpretation, and criminals by the same sort of standards we would not hesitate to apply to a profession such as engineering or medicine.

      • by icebike (68054)

        If you have a better idea, please elaborate. For some reason completely oblivious to you, preparation against catastrophic events costs money.

        Preparation against catastrophic events?
        So these satellites are able to turn back the storm, and prevent damage?

        If they are so essential, why is there ALREADY a planned one year satellite gap?
        Did they shut down the Hurricane Hunters [wikipedia.org] as well?

        Look, its obvious that this is a posturing scare tactic, but if you can't see that and are content to be whip-sawed by bureaucratic scare mongering, just call your congressman and tell him to knuckle under and tax you more.

        • by mysidia (191772) on Saturday December 29, 2012 @03:51PM (#42421421)

          Preparation against catastrophic events? So these satellites are able to turn back the storm, and prevent damage?

          Preparation in this case means 'early warning'

          The idea is that if people are notified of the risk of a storm striking earlier, they will have more time to prepare, and therefore: their preparations will be more effective, and thus damage will be reduced.

          It won't be true in all cases -- sometimes the 'early warning' may be ignored, because it hasn't shown to be reliable. Also, the NOAA makes predictions, and predictions that far in advance have some inherent uncertainty, due to technological limitations and limitations of the science, modelling, and statistical techniques used in weather prediction.

          • by gagol (583737)
            Cant your government strike a deal with Germany (or another nation) for some time share on a weather satellite like last time?
        • If they are so essential, why is there ALREADY a planned one year satellite gap?

          You're operating under the flawed assumption that congress has the public's best interest in mind. There was no PLANNED one year satellite gap, you fucking fool.

          Here, from June, 2012: [federaltimes.com]

          Congressional budget cutting will delay the launch of a key weather satellite and hinder tracking of killer hurricanes, tornadoes and other severe weather, officials warn.

          The satellite, which had been scheduled to launch in 2016, will be postponed 18 months because of spending cuts and delays. The threat during that gap is that National Weather Service forecasts will become fuzzier, with the paths of hurricanes and tornadoes even less predictable.

          With more budget cuts looming, further delays are possible — something President Obama alluded to last week. ...

          "There will be a data gap. That data gap will have very serious consequences to our ability to do severe storm warnings, long-term weather forecasts, search and rescue and good weather forecasts," Jane Lubchenco, NOAA administrator, told members of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee in April. ...

          Forecasters issued warnings five days ahead of tornadoes that struck Tuscaloosa, Ala., and five other states in April. A barrage of 312 tornadoes swept across the Southeast, killing 321 people. On storm day, forecasters gave warnings averaging 27 minutes before actual touchdowns.

          Likewise, when a tornado struck Joplin, Mo., killing 151 on May 22, forecasters gave warnings averaging 24 minutes before strikes.

          "The satellites are an important part of that early warning process," said Christopher Vaccaro, a spokesman for the service. ...

          Lubchenco said without information from the polar satellite, forecasts for a massive storm nicknamed "snowmageddon," which hit Washington in February 2010, would have had the location wrong by 200 to 300 miles and would have underestimated the snowfall by 10 inches. Hurricane tracking would also suffer, she said.

          "Our severe storm warnings will be seriously degraded," Lubchenco testified April 1 before the House Appropriations subcommittee governing the agency.

          Lawmakers and scientists lauded the value of the program, which provides forecasts for military troop deployments, ocean search-and-rescue missions and farmers tending crops.

          "It's important for public safety," said Christine McEntee, executive director of the American Geophysical Union. Cutting the funding "would be penny-wise and pound-foolish."

          Lubchenco credited the satellites with helping save 295 people in 2010 by helping track rescue beacons aboard ships.

          "That's saving lives, that's saving money," said Rep. Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House panel that oversees NOAA funding.

          But reduced federal spending threatens all domestic programs. Congress cut spending $38.5 billion in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. House Republicans propose to cut another $30 billion next year.

          So, there was never a planned gap. The damn funding got cut, and now it's getting cut some more. What's the point of having scientists advise on these issues if they get ignored? Fuck them, and fuck you. Can't prioritize anything or even look at the data and reason for yourselves. Go sleep in a tar-pit, you dickheads are hindering the herd.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by demonlapin (527802)
            Drop the "fuck you" attitude until you come up with your own federal budget. It's hard; the money just isn't there to do all the things people want. What would you like to cut? Across-the-board cuts happen because they are much more politically palatable than targeted cuts.
            • How much does one launch cost? How much does it cost to blow up innocent people (women and children included though I value them neither more nor less than males) by drone just about every day of the year.

              I really don't know where my priorities are at -- what the fuck is wrong with me for valuing interesting scientific data over blowing up random people and making enemies of the survivors.

              Yeah -- a big FUCK YOU to that. It's totally warranted and really, not even a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction of percent harsh enough for the total FUCKHEADS in WA DC.

            • Homeland security, the world's most massive and expensive military, drones creating terrorists in other lands, off the books and off the charts spending on spying (foreign and domestic). Cut all that (save the *defence* force the USA actually needs) and you could easily balance the budget.

              • by Artifakt (700173) on Saturday December 29, 2012 @09:18PM (#42423353)

                For anyone who thinks domestic spending is the problem - please consider this:
                            It is possible to hide military and homeland security spending as black projects. Some of this is known to be hidden in civilian projects. (For example, it was recently revealed that a lot of National Endowment for the Arts spending, from the 50s through 80s or later, was hidden CIA funding for black projects to make the USSR look bad). There are many current examples, such as Dept. of Transportation roads that pass through stateside miltary bases and are heavily developed until the edge of those bases (or at least as far as the tank parking compounds and tank ranges), but are budgeted as being for special access to low income communities on the back sides of those bases (even though they are gravel from the base edge on). There is no evidence ever for a civilian agency being able to hide any funding in the military or security budgets.
                          If you look back at cases where people have admitted there exist black projects, there are many where the person has given the impression where the projects are hidden in other parts of the military budget but never has any government representitve openly stated that black projects are always confined to the military side, and there are known counterexamples. Some statements look carefully crafted to give the public the impression black projects aren't hidden in the civil side, without technically lying when testifying to congress.
                          It is literally impossible to prove that 'entitlement' or other civiilian side spending is responsible for the current economy, as the general public is not told what part of that entitlement spending is really black projects. It may be possible in theory to prove that even the open record military/security budget is driving the debt, since the real total must be greater, not less, but proving the reverse is impossible without having access to things the general public does not get to see. Anyone who advances the claim is either making it without enough real information to be sure, or has just violated an oath and revealed classified information.

      • Here's some ideas (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Okian Warrior (537106) on Saturday December 29, 2012 @04:04PM (#42421521) Homepage Journal

        If you have a better idea, please elaborate. For some reason completely oblivious to you, preparation against catastrophic events costs money.

        Well, then. Let's see what we have here:

        1) Reduce the number of aircraft carriers from 10 (+3 under construction) to 5
        2) Spend less on military [pbs.org] than the rest of the world combined. Reduce the amount by half.
        3) Stop waging war in Afghanistan. Pull out of Afghanistan entirely and bring our people home.
        4) Stop the war on drugs. Release everyone jailed for non-violent drug-related crime.
        5) Stop the war on immigrants. Allow an easy and expensive path to citizenship. (Note: Our population is declining and we need more taxpayers.)
        6) Stop the war on tourism. Disband homeland security, allow unencumbered and easy travel within the US. Redirect the TSA money away from worthless scanners and put it towards intelligence.

        That's just off the top of my head. Search for "ways the federal government can save money" and get a zillion hits. Google is your friend.

        (Ending Saturday delivery of mail would save an est. $1.7 - $3.1 billion alone. How much did you say those satellites cost?)

      • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Saturday December 29, 2012 @04:07PM (#42421547)

        I have a better idea. Stop spending money on stupid shit, and spend it on this instead. We have troops in over 100 countries at the moment. Cut that down to 50 (still ridiculous) and we'd have plenty of money for this program. End farm subsidies. Stop borrowing money so 30cents of every dollar isn't spent on interest anymore. This is a very simple problem, but the governments of the world are so addicted to spending money in the least efficient way possible that they have to invent a crisis like this to try and extort even more money out of us. Going over the "Fiscal cliff" will likely be one of the best things that could happen to this country.

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        The local government has plans here (mainly for earthquake reasons, as we aren't in a hurricane area). I would rather the local government handle it and the feds only step in when a military relief effort is needed - airlifts and such, that the government is still able to do after the Bush poison pill expires. Let it go. It's not that big of a problem. Fall off the cliff. It's an artificial cliff anyway. There's no reason that if the programs affected are that important, they can't just be added back
      • by Greyfox (87712)
        Well it's obvious! Just don't live anywhere there could be a natural disaster!

        Of course that excludes pretty much the entire east coast and south due to hurricanes. And just inland from there, they have tornadoes. Can't live there. California has earthquakes, mudslides and fires. Can't live there. The west and mid-west has been experiencing record dry conditions and fires, can't live there. That leaves... Canada. So there you go. Everyone move to Canada!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by icebike (68054)

      Give us more money, or people die.

      Exactly.
      When local governments have a shortfall the first to go is police officers and school teachers and firemen.
      Bureaucrats seem to hold on to their jobs some how. Rat hole money sponge projects seem to linger on forever.

      When the federal government has a shortfall (don't they always), its more of the same, with each agency finding the biggest scaremongering headlines they can possibly put forward.

      8% isn't that big, you can find that much fat in any departmental budget, and money can be siphoned off of o

      • by mrbluze (1034940)

        8% isn't that big, you can find that much fat in any departmental budget, and money can be siphoned off of other projects and moved to these satellites at a moment's notice. Worst case, take the money out of FEMA or the TSA and save everybody some suffering.

        If people's wages remain static, then it means 8% of adults (and some similar percentage of families) without an income. Sure, you might say those 8% were doing nothing important, but now they will be left with no money, empty stomachs and anger. This does have the potential to destabilize society.

        Then to argue that only the fat of a budget will be cut is too idealistic. If those departments can't run themselves efficiently (as a result of corruption, which is partly why there is a problem in the first pl

        • by icebike (68054)

          If people's wages remain static, then it means 8% of adults (and some similar percentage of families) without an income.

          Well that only works if you believe that EVERYBODY works for the federal government.

          A lot of people in this country took pay cuts over the last several years, I'm sure NOAA can as well.

        • Considering that the majority of the Federal government today *IS* fat, I have no problem asking for cuts across the board.

          But I go even further with "returning the control of money" to the people. The Fed needs to go away, for one thing.
          • by compro01 (777531)

            Across the board cuts will accomplish nothing more than cutting 8% of the fat, along with 8% of the muscle, bones, organs, and brains.

            • "Across the board cuts will accomplish nothing more than cutting 8% of the fat, along with 8% of the muscle, bones, organs, and brains."

              But whose fault is that? Not that of the citizens, but of government itself.

              If the people mandate cuts, and the government cuts important stuff rather than the fat, the government has nobody to blame but themselves. And WE have nobody to blame but them. This is not one of those "it's the peoples' fault" scenarios.

              They have to cut, sooner or later, and the sooner they do it, the less damage there will be. Just about everybody knows that. So why aren't you hounding your politicians about it?

              I do.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Joce640k (829181)

          If people's wages remain static, then it means 8% of adults (and some similar percentage of families) without an income. Sure, you might say those 8% were doing nothing important, but now they will be left with no money, empty stomachs and anger. This does have the potential to destabilize society.

          Government cannot keep growing indefinitely (which is what it's doing at the moment).

          At some point the system has to break down - when there's not enough people actually producing stuff to pay the government bills. Better to make a few functionaries miserable now than to make the entire population suffer through the meltdown (in 20, 30 years or whenever).

          Then to argue that only the fat of a budget will be cut is too idealistic. If those departments can't run themselves efficiently (as a result of corruption, which is partly why there is a problem in the first place), then how will they cut their budgets appropriately?

          There's no way to get past the layers of lies that have built up over the years to justify their existence so you just cut every department. Stuff like the

          • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 29, 2012 @05:09PM (#42421949)

            ]

            Government cannot keep growing indefinitely (which is what it's doing at the moment).

            Based on what metric?

            Peak government employment? That was back in the 70s or 80s. Even now, government employment rolls are DOWN. That's right, lots of government employees have been laid off since the economy went sour. And Obama still has less people working for him than Reagan did.

            http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp

            Per Capita spending? Adjusted for inflation, it's not actually significantly higher, unless you mindlessly include tax cuts as spending.

            So please, tell us how you've concluded government is growing, and on what terms. Give us some sources.

            Or just mindlessly claim something is happening, and don't make the effort to be sure your words are true.

    • Actually, I have zero problem with you dying. So it sounds good to me.

    • Give us more tax breaks or we will wreck the economy again.

      FTFY.
      • by AK Marc (707885)
        They are going to wreck the economy again whenever they can do so for profit, so why give them more incentive to break the economy?
    • Not so different from corporations in the end. No matter what it's all about power.

    • by lumbricus (936846) on Saturday December 29, 2012 @04:14PM (#42421599)
      How is this Insightful? How about -1 Trite. Is it that hard to believe that government can and does provide useful services, especially those that have such a long time horizon and capital investment that the market will not provide them? Is it also that hard to understand that these valuable programs and the people who run them (at a huge discount relative to the private sector) suffer under the vagaries of political brinksmanship?
    • Same old shilling from corporate scumfucks. "Lower our taxes, or jobs will be lost... bankers are too thick to jail... and now that you're in trouble, don't you fucking dare even look at us! It's the government! The only institution you at least have theoretical say in, the only way you can put us in our place, is to blame [for the things we lobbied it to do]!"

      Really, post from an account or shut the fuck up. Or even better, die.

    • by gagol (583737)
      You forgot the "resign all your rights" step...
  • by stokessd (89903) on Saturday December 29, 2012 @02:36PM (#42420969) Homepage

    The CrIS hyper spectral sounder is enabling much more precise forecasting. Proving once again that it's not the number of pixels, but the quality of them.

    http://npp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cris.html [nasa.gov]

    Sheldon

    • Oh great, they're going to start Photoshopping the weather.

      That should end well...

    • Multiple instruments (Score:5, Informative)

      by dutchwhizzman (817898) on Saturday December 29, 2012 @03:00PM (#42421135)

      Disclaimer: I worked on a sat program for a met office.

      Weather forecasts are usually made by combining many sources of data from literally thousands of instruments. Ground sensors, weather balloons, satellites and such all contribute. If the current weather forecasting models depend on a certain type of information from certain satellites, it will take years to re-calibrate them to data from other satellites that are constructed differently. It may be that some types of data from CriS under certain circumstances are more accurate, but that doesn't mean that it will be compatible or adaptable to the current software being used to make the forecasts.

      The second problem is that there is only one CriS that orbits the planet in 14 parts, only coming back to a location about once a day. The NOAA satellites are geostationary and there are two. Together, they can do 24/7 covering of the USA. For weather forecasts, especially for short term hurricane directions that matter for evacuation alerts and such, you can't have just once in 24 hour coverage, you want 15 minute updates.

      CriS is certainly a nice instrument, but it's totally inadequate to replace the geostationary satellites NOAA has, since it's function and trajectory are totally not suitable for what the NOAA birds are for.

      • by Trilkin (2042026) on Saturday December 29, 2012 @03:34PM (#42421321)

        The NOAA uses birds? Great. Now PETA is going to lobby even harder.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by ahabswhale (1189519)

        So you're one of those government money wasters?

      • by icebike (68054)

        So you issue evac alerts earlier, rather than waiting till the last possible 15 minute period.
        If you need updates every 15 minutes you're calling it too close anyway.

        Are the Orions still flying? Yup. Good. Gas them up, send them out.

  • by colin_faber (1083673) on Saturday December 29, 2012 @02:39PM (#42421003)

    These are cuts in the rate of spending increases! Not budget cuts as we all know them.

    This is such bullshit.

  • by Shinobi (19308) on Saturday December 29, 2012 @02:51PM (#42421079)

    The only reason NOAA even managed to predict the left-hook was because they integrate the so-called Euro Model predictions from the ECMWF. The Euro model predicted the left hook, while GFS, which is the NOAA's model, predicted Sandy to go NNE.

    So for example, on Sailing Anarchy, there were people who were preparing for the Sandy left hook days before NOAA started warning about it, thanks to DryArmor reading the euro model data before NOAA did.

    The Big Gray Ships headed out from Norfolk over a day before NOAA warned about the left hook too.

    • by Osgeld (1900440)

      you are allowed to say fucking on slashdot, and if blanking it out was an attempt to be a bit less crass, then you should have really chosen a different expression

  • Europe has our back (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ral (93840) on Saturday December 29, 2012 @02:55PM (#42421115)
    Cliff Mass, a University of Washington professor of meteorology, talks about the predictions around hurricane Sandy. He said [blogspot.com]:

    ... the best forecasting system for predicting Sandy was not American, rather it was the model of the European Center for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) in Reading, England.

    • ... the best forecasting system for predicting Sandy was not American, rather it was the model of the European Center for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) in Reading, England.

      Yeah, every model has a different track, and some hurricanes follow one model and other hurricanes follow other models. Hurricanes are unpredictable. Just because this one lined up with a particular forecast doesn't mean that forecast is better in all (or necessarily any other) cases. It's like this for every single hurricane.

      I know it's popular on here (and on the internet and media in general) to say that American stuff sucks and that Europe is better, but there isn't anyone pointing out the times when N

    • I'm pretty certain that would be the European Centre for whatever. Them being based in England and all that :)

  • you do have to be European to know, in advance, which way the wind blows.
    • by mysidia (191772)

      No... i'm sure private enterprise will take it up. For the low low subscription fee of $60/month to American Weather; you'll get a rough idea of what tomorrow's forecast should be like; with a few simple clicks from your web browser.

      Get the app for $50 + $100/month for the mobile phone version; or "The Weather Channel (Premium Cable TV Channel)" for $90/month.

  • by SomeKDEUser (1243392) on Saturday December 29, 2012 @04:11PM (#42421573)

    On others, that is. The fiscal cliff thing is just idiotic: basically, it came about because congress would not agree to pay for the budget it had voted for and set itself an ultimatum so terrifying that it would have to get its collective act together.

    It turns out that the amount of pain the Congress is ready to inflict on random individuals who were just unlucky is very, very large. And this thread is full of crazies thinking it is oh-so-brave to cut funding for weather (they leave far from the hurrican paths), to stop giving money to the unemployed (they themselves have a cushy job they think is entirely due to their hard work), to not give people health care (because cancer/car accidents are the product of bad lifestyle -- always. Also, they themselves have good insurance).

    So maybe the US deserves to go over the cliff and have a good 3 point of GDP recession. After all, the economy is doing so well... Or maybe the American electorate needs to pull the plug on the Republicans and the Libertards. Then the Democracts can be split into a centre right and a centre left party.

  • by 3seas (184403) on Saturday December 29, 2012 @04:21PM (#42421661) Journal

    Since the Government has failed accounting & budgeting, the people need to take it over.

    A sequence of Twitter posts made some time ago, feel free to re-post them to twitter or elsewhere.

    #taxes 1) The Declaration of independence recognized the peoples rights & duty to ... remove budgeting & accounting failed tasks from Gov't.

    #taxes 2) for proper representation, given all the budgeting & accounting fails, &more, the people must direct where their taxes R 2 B used.

    #taxes 3) For the people 2 voice where their taxes R 2 B used, forms R required to be created and made available by all Gov't tax collectors

    #taxes 4) each taxpayers direction of where their taxes R 2 B used is with the constraint of generating teamwork benefits they can share in.

    #taxes 5) for those who trust gov't, there is option of letting the government decide where their taxes, or some portion, R 2 B used.

    #taxes 6) Address political/election faild promises R replaced w/taxpayer direction. Elected R hired to sum & implement taxpayer direction.

    #taxes 7) For amount of taxes the taxpayers "trust" the government with, #voters not only help hire the elected but help direct these funds

    #taxes 8) For people 2 know where their taxes are needed, Gov't must become transparent 2 inform the people of funding needs. People decide.

    #taxes 9) Clarity, I decide on where the taxes I pay are used, you on yours, etc.. This is a republic where all voices are accounted for.

    #taxes 10) We have plenty proof this tax directing change works. Open Source Software, Iceland's recovery, & many crowd sourced projects.

    #taxes 11) either you trust the people 2 do the right thing, or you rig #elections 2 have some perceived unfair advantage over the people

    #taxes 12) We shall NOT vote on this right & duty of the people to direct where their taxes are to be used. It has already been established

    #taxes 13) The tax processor jobs are in position to allocate a taxpayer taxes according to that taxpayer's direction. And provide receipt.

    #taxes 14) Should Gov't fail this job, the people can set it up through Credit unions & provide receipts/proof to tax processors of tax paid

    #taxes 15) In event of going through Credit Unions, funding access will require proof of proper spending in accord with taxpayer directions.

    #taxes 16) #1 priority directing taxes is 4 creation & availability of required forms giving taxpayers voice, allowing proper representation

    #taxes 17) on the check you use to pay your taxes there is a what's it for line to fill in, use it to get the peoples voice forms produced.

  • The article is very misleading. While it is true that the budget cuts will hinder the satelites which will mean the predictions of storm tracks will not be as accurate, it does not mean there will not be storm tracks. In real terms, what it means is that the models will show a wider path a hurrican may take meaning more people may need to prepare, but not that the Eastern Seaboard will be caught by suprise.

    In the case of Hurrican Sandy, it would have made no difference. New Jersey and New York would have b

  • by SternisheFan (2529412) on Saturday December 29, 2012 @05:06PM (#42421925)
    ... because the name "Sandy" has been officialy 'retired'.

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?

Working...