Well, at least itās costing taxpayers rather than corporations.
Donald Trumpās reaction- "Fake News! I Beat Hillary Clinton in the biggest upset ever. My inaugural crowd was the largest in history. Larger than Alexander the Greatās. "
Scott Pruittās reaction- āHow dare those two senators commission a report on my area that relies on Science!ā
Ryan Zinkeās reaction- "Please have my flag raised to signify that the Commander is āIn Garrison.ā this morning. Oh and yes, Fake News. Carry On. "
I think thereās an error in the article ā or at least something that needs explaining.
"A Government Accountability Office report released Monday said the federal government has spent more than $350 billion over the last decade ā¦ "
āThe report predicts these costs will only grow in the future, potentially reaching a budget busting $35 billion a year by 2050.ā
Which is it: $35 billion a year over the least decade, or āa budget bustingā $35 billion a year by 2050?
Definitely a mistake somewhere. Congress is working on a $36.5B bill right now for three storms and itās hard to believe the countryās costs wonāt be much higher.
But, the EPA needs to spend more resources protecting Pruitt - not the environment. Silly scientists and economists. ~sad sigh~
I wouldnāt be surprised if it were $350B a year by 2050. Of course, at current inflation rates that would only by about $200B in current dollars, so maybe we can just tack it on to the defense department.
Canāt find anything on the actual totals per year, but the report is saying that the costs are expected to rise each year and I think by $35 billion a year in 2050. I know itās already more than this in 2017 but the way itās worded Iām guessing if it was $35 billion this year by 2050 itād be $70 billion.
Well, I found the national fire suppression costs data base. enlightening to say the least.
Source page: