Mt Whitney Zone Forums General Discussion Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering

All terrific comments. I especially like the attaboy to Reich and Krugman (and TVA? Who knew??). Both economists contribute the clearest writing on economics for us non-statistically inclined woodsy creatures.

I also like Bob's reference to presuppositions and politics article. But I hesitantly creep over into politics here. The article (and RenoFranks comment) can be interpreted along the lines of "why can't we all just get along?" And I think if the sentiments of Wehner's piece was strictly followed -- recognizing the humanity of the opposition -- then we could have actual and honest debate about public policy.

Variations on Wehner's theme are everywhere and, I think, misinterpreted. Too often it's represented as a false equivalence -- when two sides disagree there must be a center. The current narrative in much of the press assumes that both sides are equally responsible for any intransigence.

I veer into the politics of this because the overall issue is an important discussion worth having everywhere, even amongst this woodsy gathering: what is the role of government; what should we pay for it; and who should pay what? We are here because of a shared affinity for (publicly funded) National Forests and Parks. The "I hate guvment and I hate taxes" crowd is an ancient and venerable US tradition, yet more than a little hypocritical. Part of that crowd does wake up, usually when their social security checks or medicare is threatened; or a bridge collapses; or the murder rate goes up because police have been laid off; or a park is closed; & etc. However, a minority is currently holding the country hostage and has clearly stated there is no compromise. Any solution can only involve cutting government spending.

So essentially what we have is an influential group saying, yep, let the leper suffer, he's not our problem. But the radio that Bob & I carry costs money; there's an entire support staff behind both of us that costs even more money. The correct proposition is not "If the military and many domestic programs must tighten their belts, then why should the the park service be exempt?" but instead: can that very choice be avoided? Can we, through cuts (later, as most economists advocate) and increasing revenue, continue the services we've come to expect of government?

We can and will quibble about what to cut; and quibble about where to find the money, but both solutions are necessary. In that sense, both sides are not equally to blame and the hoped-for compromise requires just that, a real compromise and not absolutism.

g.