There are a lot of emotion based arguments here.
Does my company expect me to live in a shack? My company doesn't care. They pay me and I am responsible for my own housing.
So is providing housing now something that should be expected? Does that go for other public servants? How about private enterprise? It is expected for wardens? How about policemen, firemen, postal workers, teachers, non-profit mental health professions, dog catchers, on and on and on.
They have to work when they would rather be out hunting? Me too.
They didn't get a bonus for doing their job? Me either. I worked 293 hours last month and my salary stayed the same. There were 22 regular work days. At eight hours a day, that is 176 hours for the month. I did $4000 worth of redesign work on a project and saved a County $400k on construction costs. My salary still stayed the same.
Athlete's make a ton of money why? Because that is what the market is bearing. I understand that we may not value an athlete's contribution to the greater good just like 'animal activists' gristle at the thought of a profession that uses the term 'game' warden. I'd venture to guess that every game warden out there had a good understanding of the earning potential beforehand. Anybody who pursues that career path doesn't do so with dollar bills in their eyes.
They work in a field where almost every person is armed with a dangerous weapon. Well, my sister is a social worker who works in homes where she encounters convicted criminals that are bat-crap crazy with long histories of despicable violence. She goes to their houses when they are in crisis and she is armed with a DSM-IV book, notepad, and pencil What's your point? Wealth distribution? Take from these people over here whom I don't value and give to these folks over here because they chose a service-based profession that is publicly funded and tightly budgeted.
I thought the topic at hand was about another government agency publicly maneuvering to avoid living within their means. I shudder to think of the dire results stemming from the drastic measures they will be forced to take. Remember how bad that sequester stung? I would hate to see those dark days of inevitable disaster again.
Instead this discussion devolved into an argument by emotive language. If I wanted to be swayed by a fallacious argument in favor of expanding taxpayer funded programs, I wouldn't think to be on an Eastman's hunting forum. This simplification and leap to adverse consequences smacks of social engineering.
