Donald Trump deserves accolade for his eagerness to save taxpayer money and leave no boxes unchecked. However, similar to how his first travel ban, despite having constitutional merit, was prematurely rolled out, there is a need to ensure policy changes are done dutifully and only after deep reflection. Corruption, duplication and unnecessary career work are all too common in our federal agencies. And many of them could use a good fiscal shakeup. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is now in the Trump administration’s fiscal crosshairs, is no exception.

According to The Washington Post, “The [Office of Management and Budget] outline for the Commerce Department for fiscal 2018 proposed sharp reductions in specific areas within NOAA such as spending on education, grants and research. NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research would lose $126 million, or 26 percent, of the funds it has under the current budget. Its satellite data division would lose $513 million, or 22 percent, of its current funding under the proposal. The National Marine Fisheries Service and National Weather Service would be fortunate by comparison, facing only 5 percent cuts.” All told, NOAA’s coffers could be slashed by 17%.

No doubt there are a few areas — specifically “climate change” mitigation — that need to be on the chopping block. However, other services deserve some introspect. This across-the-board pruning has rattled meteorologists on both sides of the political divide, like Dr. Marshall Shepherd, who believes “American lives and property” will be jeopardized. Meanwhile, WeatherBell’s Ryan Maue suggests “we must be careful to ensure that research programs that provide enormous value to the public for a relatively low cost are maintained and, if possible, expanded.”

Consider this: According to NOAA, “For about $3 … [the National Weather Service] provides each person in the U.S. with timely and accurate basic weather, water, and climate forecasts and information, as well as life-saving watches and warnings when severe weather strikes for an entire year [emphasis added].” That’s a steal when compared to other agencies. And unlike most of them, weather forecasting is an integral part of keeping the public safe. And that data is crucial for public and private sectors alike.

The difficult part is that, on the one hand, every government agency thinks it should be exempted from budget cuts. That’s why it’s so remarkably difficult to rein in our bloated bureaucracy. On the other hand, there are government services that are vital and should be spared from monetary trimming. The problem then becomes delineating the “needed” from the “wanted.” As far as NOAA is concerned, climate change mitigation falls into the latter category. But satellites and weather monitoring most assuredly don’t. A better option would be to redirect most of these budget cuts to the EPA, whose regulations place an enormous and gratuitous burden on every American.