There was somethin’ funny about this but I didn’t quite get it until I read this analogy here…
Suppose your employer announced a 5-percent reduction in income and, because of that, a 5-percent reduction in pay for all employees.
Would you expect him to demand that you return 5 percent of the pay you’ve already received for the year?
Ohio Gov. John Kasich has yet to decide his response to the Forest Service demand for retroactive cuts.
But that’s the scenario facing the state of Ohio.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, the Budget Control Act of 2011, also known as the sequester, cut the budgets of three programs: the Secure Rural Schools program, the 25 Percent Fund and the Grasslands program.
But a bunch of these states voted for this Administration.. if this is how you treat your friends..??
A great opportunity to tick off governors…
Ohio wasn’t the only state told to return funds. Forty other state governors received similar letters. New Mexico Watchdog discovered that state’s amount was nearly $600,000.
The National Governors Association sent a letter to Tidwell challenging the legality of the demand.
“Other than general references to the March 1, 2013, sequestration…,” the letter stated, “… the March 19 letters provide no specific legal citation to support this demand to return obligated funds.”
Despite the “Forest Service” title on this, I wonder where the decision was really made. Forest Service folks don’t have the culture for generally ticking partners off for the heck of it…