Why the Department of Agriculture Is Closing Hundreds of Offices

More

Eliminating 7,000 jobs to save about $150 million every year could be enough to head off further budget cuts sometime down the line.

main shutterstock_74271124.jpg

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that it is closing 259 domestic offices and seven foreign offices "to meet the evolving needs of a 21st-century agricultural economy."

You have to love the government-speak explanation:

When fully implemented, these actions along with other recommended changes will provide efficiencies valued at about $150 million annually -- and eventually more based on future realignment of the workforce -- and will ensure that USDA continues to provide optimal service to the American people within available funding levels.

Huh? What is this about? I can only speculate.

Over the years, as a result of congressional earmarking -- putting government "pork" in the districts of members of House and Senate Agricultural committees -- the USDA's bureaucracy became highly decentralized into hundreds of offices staffed by just a few people throughout the country.

The USDA has wanted to clean this up for years. I'm guessing that the USDA is using congressional budget cutting pressures to do something its leaders have wanted to do for a long time. Are so many of those offices redundant? Some USDA oversight committee thought so.

The closures will not affect meat safety. The USDA still must maintain its legislated inspection responsibilities.

What surprises me is how little money this saves. The USDA's annual budget is $145 billion. If I have this right, this move will get rid of 7,000 jobs and save a mere $150 million, or just one-tenth of one percent of total annual expenditures.

This seems like a lot of trouble to go through for something so relatively small. Maybe USDA Secretary Vilsack thinks this is enough of a sacrifice to head off further budget cuts? In the meantime, expect cries of woe.

Image: hxdbzxy/Shutterstock.

TEMPLATEFoodPolitics02.jpg

This post also appears on Food Politics, an Atlantic partner site.

Jump to comments
Presented by

Marion Nestle is a professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University. She is the author of Food Politics, Safe Food, What to Eat, and Pet Food Politics. More

Nestle also holds appointments as Professor of Sociology at NYU and Visiting Professor of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell. She is the author of three prize-winning books: Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health (revised edition, 2007), Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety (2003), and What to Eat (2006). Her most recent book is Feed Your Pet Right: The Authoritative Guide to Feeding Your Dog and Cat. She writes the Food Matters column for The San Francisco Chronicle and blogs almost daily at Food Politics.

Get Today's Top Stories in Your Inbox (preview)

A Delightful, Pixar-Inspired Cartoon About the Toys in Your Cereal Box

The story of an action figure and his reluctant sidekick, who trek across a kitchen in search of treasure.


Elsewhere on the web

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

Juice Cleanses: The Worst Diet

A doctor tries the ever-popular Master Cleanse. Sort of.

Video

Why Did I Study Physics?

Using hand-drawn cartoons to explain an academic passion

Video

What If Emoji Lived Among Us?

A whimsical ad imagines what life would be like if emoji were real.

Video

Living Alone on a Sailboat

"If you think I'm a dirtbag, then you don't understand the lifestyle."

Feature

The Future of Iced Coffee

Are artisan businesses like Blue Bottle doomed to fail when they go mainstream?

Writers

Up
Down

More in Health

From This Author

Just In