More wildfires, fewer firefighters

  • Article by: Dale McFeatters , Scripps Howard News Service
  • Updated: April 4, 2013 - 4:54 PM

Because of the across-the-board spending cuts agreed on by the White House and Congress, the Forest Service will have 500 fewer firefighters than its usual. This is worrisome.

  • 7
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 7 of 7
rogue37Apr. 5, 13 7:24 AM

We have created the perfect storm with our wildfire fire fighting. By not letting some parts burn over the years, the fuel has built up to make giant fires. Let some fires burn to make natural wild breaks. We cant afford to put out all fires. This just brings on the mega fires.

2
0
jimjimjimjimApr. 5, 13 9:17 AM

Obama wanted a sequester. He proposed it. Why don't liberals ever think in terms of what the consequences are for their actions. Of course, Obama and liberals will blame the GOP as they always do, but you cannot change the fact that this is 100% on Obama.

0
3
hawkeye56379Apr. 5, 1310:31 AM

Facts, jim4? The fact is that if the Republican members of Congress had raised the debt limit as all Congresses have done in the past, there would have been no need for a compromise that included the sequester. So, no, it is not "on Obama" it is mostly on GOPers that care more about their party than the country.

2
1
jd55604Apr. 5, 13 1:40 PM

The Forest service is part of the USDA. 80% of the USDAs 132 billion $ budget now goes towards their food stamp program. Is our government trying to tell us that rather than slowing the rate of growth for the food stamp program; they'd rather endanger our lives by letting millions of acres of forest burn down just to teach us cash strapped peasants a lesson?

0
2
hawkeye56379Apr. 5, 13 3:02 PM

jd55604: The law that Congress passed creating the sequester didn't allow for food stamps to be cut, they were exempt. So, no, this isn't to teach anyone a lesson, the USDA just had to get its full sequester cuts from a relatively small part of their budget.

1
0
jd55604Apr. 5, 13 4:12 PM

hawkeye56379: So you're telling me that the USDA couldn't have cut any of their program specialists, senior managers, diversity coordinators, archaeologists, economists or hydrologists? Of course they could have. They could have but they instead chose to make cuts only affecting certain employees with important and highly visible roles in order to scare cash strapped tax payers and prevent future cuts.

0
1
hawkeye56379Apr. 5, 13 4:33 PM

jd55604: No, what I'm telling you is that your comment about food stamps was wrong and that the cuts have to come out of the remaining budget. I have no idea whether the USDA has the types of employees that you mentioned, and I doubt that you do either. Don't just make a comment about food stamps and then, when I point out that it isn't true, say "So you're telling me..." followed by something that I never said.

0
0
  • 1 - 7 of 7

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT