The argument is not that cutting funding caused the problem; the argument is that you have to use money to solve the problem.

Oh great, then the next admin can blame this one when the problem is still around. Why solve a problem when you can just blame the other guys.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Yes, the screwworm problem predates the funding cut. Surely that should prompt an increase or at least a maintenance of existing funding for monitoring programs though, certainly not a decrease.

I think atoav is saying the /stupid consequence/ is the cut in funding itself, not the screwworm resurgence.

it is the admin responsibility to protect its citizens.

has it done anything to prevent/mitigate this? or the opposite?

Umm, yes? The funding was put in place because of the problem.