"cherry picking data" -- heh, heh, heh.

And, this just in, using volunteers to take up the slack is now out:

Quote:
The Associated Press obtained a Park Service memo Friday that detailed some of the planned Yosemite cuts. Staff reductions would end guided ranger programs at Wawona and the Mariposa Grove of Giant Sequoias, eliminate a program in which 3,500 volunteers provide 40,000 hours of activities and mean less frequent trash pickup due to loss of campground staff.

I would guess that most parks will eliminate extraneous budget stuff and pull back to the core of basic services: fire, law enforcement, medical and search. Even these, though, will be affected if seasonals (like, um, me) are cut. There aren't enough permanent staff, especially in the large parks, to handle incidents or even day to day stuff in the peak visitor season.

And on to the debt. While it's true that we are spending 25% of GDP, that's not a huge crisis, certainly not one necessitating drastic cuts in a tanked economy. The ratio got there because people are unemployed, they're not spending, businesses are not buying and hiring people, no one is paying as much in taxes, and the government paying for obligated expenses (SS, Medicare etc.) and also increased unemployment and other safety net costs. So debt to GDP went up. But, as the economy recovers, it's now coming down. Spending is not the main problem and cause; unemployment and a stagnant economy is.

Just hours ago Krugman had a pretty good blog post on why it's not a crisis and pointing out that Bernacke, in Congressional testimony, agrees.

Quote:
What's more, there really isn't any huge urgency about deficit reduction. Borrowing costs are low, and current projections show only a modest rise in the debt-GDP ratio over the next decade. Beyond that there are bigger issues — but these issues don't have to be solved right away, and should not be used to justify growth-killing austerity now.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/bernanke-of-hippo/


He's also got this one earlier:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/opinio...mc=rss&_r=0

Sorry to overdo Krugman, known leftist (though a Nobel prize in econ and teaching gig at Princeton gives him a certain authority) but he's a terrific and clear writer, provides independent data (e.g. GAO) and admits when he's unsure or <gasp> wrong.

Bob's right that his CPA could probably find a zillion legitimate cuts to make. But that's not the way it works, nor should. We have Congress and voters to do that. Having a single person decide what's "waste, fraud and abuse" is, to a certain extent, what sequestration is imposing. For all this caterwauling about spending too much, it's Congress who approved every bit of spending we're doing. Blaming a particular administration is partially correct, but misses the cause. We vote for them.

For the parks -- and government as a whole -- the question remains what is the role of government in our lives; what services are we willing to do without; what are we willing to pay; and how is that money going to be raised? The pie chart is correct in that sequestration cuts are a teensy part of reducing the debt. That can only come from working with things like social security and medicare (though costs for the latter are coming down and changing debt projections). Are we in an immediate crisis requiring austerity and a likely descent back into recession (e.g. Europe & Great Britain) or can a solution be part of a long range plan: get us jobs now and out of this weak economic doldrums and agree to long-range manipulation of earned benefit programs (aka "entitlements").


None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.