The title here is not hyperbole.
First, Mr. Trump sets out to move--break up, weaken--the Department of Agriculture by moving it out of Washington, to here in the heartland, to Kansas City and then, last week, he gets started breaking up, moving the Bureau of Land Management to a legitimately small town in Colorado, Grand Junction.
And sure, I recognize this could be good for the Kansas City metropolitan area, adding to our rented space and population, some growth, but consider the ramifications.
The people with experience at these jobs in the USDA don't want to sell their homes and go to some new area they've likely never been. Who would? Who can blame them?
And according to the Washington Post, it doesn't just effect the USDA, either.
Relocation could seriously disrupt the work of two agencies
The Agriculture Department is offering employees a rare choice: accept a forced transfer to a post 1,000 miles away or be fired.
The Trump administration’s plan to move two agencies from the District to the Kansas City area includes a document with two blank boxes on it, sent to employees on June 13. Check one, it instructs: Accept the transfer by July 15 or “be separated by adverse action procedures.”
That means getting fired, with an opportunity to appeal the dismissal through what could be an expensive process. Getting fired could also make it more difficult to find another federal job in an area where the government dominates...
Of the 547 employees the department wants to move for the two agencies combined, 253 are with the Economic Research Service, 77 percent of its 329-person workforce. An additional 294 are with the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, 93 percent of its 315-person staff. News of the move prompted a surge of support for the union. Employees at the National Institute voted 137-2 to join AFGE two weeks ago. Last month’s vote at the economic service was 138-4.
And it's not going to save us, the US, money, either, folks.
But the USDA estimate of nearly $300 million in savings over 15 years is way off, according to an analysis by the Milwaukee-based Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. Instead, it would cost taxpayers between $83 and $182 million, the analysis found. The USDA underestimated the true cost in part because it did not account for “the lost value of research from staffers who resign or retire rather than move,” the association reported.
Divide and conquer, folks. It's what he's doing.
And breaking up the USDA, weakening it, is just the first blow against regulating industry.
This has at least two effects on the agency and its work.
..as excited as Grand Junction is, many people outside this high desert city are deeply skeptical of the move. The Public Lands Foundation, made up of mostly former BLM employees, opposes it, saying it will likely gut the agency as many of its workers won't want to move. And Democratic Congressman Raul Grijalva of Arizona sees another worry. Moving to Colorado means the BLM will be that much closer to the oil and gas industry.
It makes it easier for the special interests to have access without a lot of accountability and light somewhere else than here in D.C. And I think that works to their advantage.
This fits in perfectly Mr. Trump's work and attempts to both weaken government and assist business.
83 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump
As air pollution increases in US cities, the Trump administration is weakening clean air regulations
Then, as if all this, above, weren't enough bad news, there's yet more this week from The Orange Man in the White House. Check this out for mind blowing:
Nuclear commission considers fewer plant inspections
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission thinks it's a good idea to have FEWER inspections of nuclear power plants.
You read that right, folks--fewer inspections and less oversigh of nuclear power plants.
This is not good for clean air, folks. This is not good for the people, you and me.
It's fantastic for big business.
Links:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment