DOGE
Anxiety Alleviated
REAP Grants Came Through After a Stressful Delay
Behold, a statement I (holder of a business degree) would consider to be a universally agreed-upon principle of business integrity:
When a contract is signed and two parties agree on terms, those terms should be honored in a timely manner.
Is this statement controversial? I don't know how anyone could think so.
Elaborating further, let's say one party partners with another party, and a binding contract is agreed upon and signed. In the contract, Party #1 is promised matching funds for an expensive project by Party #2 in exchange for proof that the project is completed in accordance with the specifications laid out in the contract. With the agreed upon contract in place, Party #1 proceeds with the project as planned, expecting that the matching funds would be delivered at the conclusion of the project per the agreed upon terms. Without said funds, Party #1 would approach the project with an entirely different perspective, and may not even proceed with the project at all. While it might still be a long-term smart investment, it would be far less financially feasible in the short term at double the cost.
So shortly after the project completion when Party #2 unilaterally decides that the terms should be revisited, the rules revised, and the previously agreed-upon funds are "frozen" and doesn't specify when or if the funds will be unfrozen, this causes much undue stress and anxiety for Party #1. It violates the aforementioned universally agreed-upon principle of business integrity.
It is not sound business to threaten the funding of projects with signed contracts after the fact, no matter who you are. If you want to analyze programs and viability for the future, sure. Go for it. Maybe your vision doesn't align with past decision-makers. That's fine, but past agreements should be honored without introducing new hoops or "gotcha" terms that might jeopardize expected funding.
I can't be any more apolitical than I've been here, and I don't know how anyone with a functioning moral compass could argue with any of this. To be clear, Party #1 in this scenario was me and Party #2, the United States Government, specifically the USDA under the direction and scrutiny of DOGE, headed by Elon Musk. There were many articles about folks in the exact same boat I was in the months of January through March, when an avenue finally opened up to release funding. Here's one such article:
But as the subheading of this post implies, the funds that were agreed upon through my federal REAP grant were released to me, and all is well. The folks I worked with to write the grant and the people working at the USDA were 100 percent pleasant to deal with and I imagine they have tales to tell about the uncertainty of the last 4+ months. I hope these sorts of grants/initiatives are not killed completely, because energy independence is awesome, and a worthwhile pursuit! I was honestly not confident I would ever receive this notification in my inbox, and so relieved to see it.
The scars of uncertainty and fear remain, however, and I will not soon forget how supposedly "great businessmen" conducted themselves. How those in power could be so cavalier with their treatment of existing agreements - signed contracts! speaks volumes about their character.
Posted by:
-
Justin