Sequestration requires the National Park Service to take a five percent – $134 million – reduction in the funds we expected, and it must happen in the remaining seven months of this fiscal year.
In response to economic and political discussions on WZ, I would like to say
....and no comment required.
I sort of got into the habit of getting more than nervous when the system showed signs of avalanche breakdown, because I have lived in places where you just could not ignore the outcome of governmental cave-in (the most annoying was when the borders/boundary lines would change, and The Man would show up at the door and show you the way out)
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.
Bulldog, nice intelligent reply. I concur with you that we have a national debt problem and it is serious. I've been harping about this for about 30 years, which is why I say "Welcome" to those who are finally paying attention. Now let's be real about dealing with this problem logically vs trying to bring down a President at all costs.
Republicans in the senate have said they would agree to give Mr. Obama the ability to make targeted cuts, he threatened veto.
Mr. Obama wants more taxes this is his way trying to do it. You don't eliminate crappy inefficient programs, you cut back the visual programs that will get pain on the 11 PM news and in the compliant print media.
"I think some people may have thought sequester meant 'shut down of government.' No it means more like 'hold hostage all the things you care about so we can have across-the-board cuts'."
What's wrong with across-the-board cuts?
They are much better than continuing or increasing all the entitled and out-of-control giveaways that the Dems and their sanctimonious President refuse to cut.
There is no free lunch. Somebody has to pay for it.
Overall, I think all the posts here have been respectful and on topic, for the most part. Not sure if several of the above posts fit into that category.
There are people here who align their thinking with both of the major parties. Making less than respectful comments about one particular party's agenda / representative is just going to inflame people with opposite views. Lets leave those comments to the commentators who make money playing to their fans.
I hope everyone understands: This is a really tough time, and everyone's list of crappy inefficient programs and out-of-control giveaways is going to be all over the spectrum.
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.
Director Jarvis comes across like an intelligent hard working person who might actually contribute to society, but we know that can be true, he's part of our government, one of those "takers" milking us tax payers.
If you look really close in the background, I think I see one of those 2010 protest signs, "Keep the government out of our National Parks!" next to the, "Keep the government out of our Medicare" sign.
Grazie! Grazie!! That (and Hospital) is one of the great movie moments.
Jarvis' live comment was more interesting and better said than what seemed like a flack-written memo aimed less towards employees (which is who it went to) than the press. Part of the problem with this sequestration is that it's not a sudden loss of jobs, credit etc., it's a slow moving train wreck. So there's no dramatic "closed" sign for people to get upset and start writing their representatives.
Wbtravis is right that it's a circus. But how do you get people to realize that this is important and will have long-term consequences? Some years ago, FEMA was drastically cut and leadership turned over to patronage positions. This was not a problem until there was a disaster and the critical nature of federal emergency response and support was dramatically shown. To a certain extent, I'm sympathetic to tdz on a discussion of economics/budget in the outdoorsy pages of this forum, but you can't separate the future of our collective access and enjoyment of places like, say, Reflection Lake from what's going on in these endless budget crisis.
Everyone says to "cut government spending" but when asked about specifics, they actually support raising spending for almost every service that government offers. Everyone says cut waste and tax loopholes but seem unwilling to actually do it. Except for a small but determined band of tea party types, government is important (well until you try interfere with their medicare and SS...).
California went through this exact sequence over the last several years. (Yes, the "left coast" -- is that really helpful to a discussion?). After 2 years of shortened hours for government services, layoffs of teachers, police and fire, a stagnant economy etc., voters supported a temporary raise in taxes. In the process, the republican party -- who had uncompromisingly opposed any budget discussion that involved raising revenue -- saw their registration go down to 26%, lose both houses and have no representatives in higher office in the state. They were ultimately seen as the party of "no" and unhelpful to meaningful reform.
So, absolutely correct that there is no free lunch, but people want government services and, as Bulldog and others here say, are willing to pay parks a little more to get them.
Wbtracis is again right that "Europe is the wake up call everyone wants to ignore" but the lesson is that ignoring the importance of government spending in the midst of a serious recession just makes things far worse. Arguably, you can and should find ways to eventually reduce some types of projected government spending (e.g. medicare & SS), but to cut services & jobs in a recession is disastrous:
Which is all to say that a discussion anywhere on the importance of government in our day to day lives -- and how to pay for it -- is, however boring or controversial, an important one to have.
George Public Servant
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.
It seems to me that the NPS is being punished for doing an honest job with the funds available - i.e. being efficient. As far as I can tell, the Park Service has very little fat, and, because the bigger parks bring in tourist dollars, are in reality self-supporting.
Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
FDR doubled the size of the federal government in his first term...the result...the Depression of 1937.
Obama got his trillion and his administration said unemployment would not exceed 8%...the result was over 10% unemployment rate and lowering of the labor participation rate. I don't care what the unemployment rate is there are less people working today that 4 years ago with a larger population. If you call that a success, I would like to know what failure looks like.
The federal government is spending 25% of GDP. Mr. Obama does not want a tax increase to reduce the deficit but to increase the size and scope of government beyond what it is today.
So, don't tell me spending what we don't have works...it did not in 1933 or in 2009.
Hee-hee. I love Travis's material. Very creative. I wonder if he writes it himself. Cucamonga is pretty close to Hollywood, and always a great source of humor. Keep it up, man, you kill.
It seems to me that the NPS is being punished for doing an honest job with the funds available - i.e. being efficient. As far as I can tell, the Park Service has very little fat, and, because the bigger parks bring in tourist dollars, are in reality self-supporting.
I like to think so. I don't see much sign of huge waste in NPS. It's a common complaint among those of us below decks to say that we're top-heavy with middle managers; creeping in of specialty positions (I'll, um, not name names...) & etc. I think there's definitely some truth in that but it only shows up as a drain when we get into these cat fights over money. And, of course, those aren't the positions that get cut. One guess on who does get cut to save money?
I'm less sure of my facts, but believe this is what's happened to USFS over the years. Growing management & specialist positions and decreasing field people. As a result, not as much trail work; cleaning camps and taking care of wilderness & backcountry.
In another life, I'm Prez of one of our ranger organizations (Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police). When a clueless Congressman grumped about complaints of cuts in NPS, he said: "They just have to do more with less" one of our members said "no, I'm going to do less with less." At a certain point, you just get tired of putting in unpaid hours because there's no budget and some things just have to be done. Like teachers, I doubt there's a single ranger who doesn't put in at least a couple of hours of unpaid work each week -- whether it's finishing a report at home; coming in for training on a day off or just answering visitor questions on the way out the door.
Getting paid in sunsets is the old cliche, though it's used only ironically nowadays. Most of us want to get paid in, well, money... .
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.
Ah, I see Mr. Travis using the always reliable Herbert Hoover Playbook! I think this is where Santayana's classic: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" comes in. A teensy bit arcane (and only if you can stand yet another -- auugggghhhhh! -- Krugman reference) re 1937:
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.
