Mt Whitney Zone Forums General Discussion Yosemite, Congress & Sequestering

tdtz: I'm always a little leery of these memos that show up in the conservative press. It's not impossible and could be that some departments are toeing what they see as a company line, but I doubt it's very widespread.

I know there's now a hiring freeze in NPS. That's for both permanent and seasonal. The hope, of course, is that it's just temporary until they get budgets figured out but this is now the main hiring season for us summer workers -- the majority of field staff in summer. Also, to correct a comment above, the cut is not 2%. Because the cuts are hitting halfway through the fiscal year (which ends on Sept. 30th for the government) it's at least 5% and actually higher in many cases.

Anyway, if we seasonal types are not there, and not hired in a timely manner before some take other jobs, then a logical conclusion is some areas would have to be closed because there's not staff to handle restroom cleaning, operating campgrounds, emergency response etc. My guess is that some areas may cut right now and try to save for when they feel the need is higher later on. For instance, the White House (operated by NPS) stopped giving tours for the moment. As I said, this is a slow moving train wreck.

If anyone can stand yet another reference, there's actually a fairly good -- and mostly civil -- discussion between Krugman and Joe Scarborough (Morning Joe -- never heard of him before last week) on CharlieRose.com. Pretty good explanation of both sides of the debate; the difference between debt and deficit; why spending cuts now are a bad idea (and Scarborough seems to agree with this); projections for SS & Medicare debt and why they're important -- or not. I actually didn't see all that much difference between their two positions. So, since both "sides" are well represented, I think it could serve as the semi-last word -- in the factual debate here anyway.

George,
The NPS is part of the Department of the Interior. The budge for the Department of the Interior barely registers on the budget. The whole Department of the Interior has a budget of about $12B. The total amount of the budget cuts is a minuscule $85B. You could cut the entire Department of the Interior budge and still have to find another $73B in cuts.

So why is our government targeting the NPS for cuts? The answer is simple, it is visible.

You can check my numbers. It's all out there on the internet. You don't even need to go to conservative media sources. Go the the government websites.

Health and Human Services has a massive budget. Minor cuts in that department would cover the whole $85B. Hell, split the cuts between the DoD and HHS and we barely have a ripple effect on government jobs. Throw in some cuts from the Department of Education and Department of Labor, where the federal government shouldn't even be playing and we can double the cuts and nobody would know the difference.

But instead, we are going to go for the TSA and NPS...seriously, it's important to know when you are being manipulated. And this is one of those times.

BTW: there are more than two sides to this. Especially if both sides agree that cutting spending is a bad idea.

Now Salty Dog, what have I written that is not factually correct?

FDR did double the size of the federal government in 4 years. The Depression of 1937 did happen.

Tax rates were reduced in the 4 decades mentioned the end result were increased revenues to the federal government.

The sequester reduces the increase in new spending but doesn't cut TY over LY spending. In other words we will spend $15bn more rather than $100bn in 2013.

I know it is easier to be a wise-ass than to tell where I am wrong.

What did Morgenthau say about the New Deal..."We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work." Oh, that is Secretary of the Treasury's testimony before congress.

I've read Krugman on 1937 and 2009 in the past and find his argument politically stupid. You just doubled the size of government during a depression over a four year period...try that one today. Just few more dollars and it everything would have worked. The fact is he has no proof that it would have worked because the money was not allocated.

What is the reliable Hoover Playbook? Tell me because I don't know what you are talking about.

If the number of government employees measures the size of government, and I assume we all want government to be as small as possible, then Carter, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Obama should be your favorites. They all CUT the number of federal nonmilitary employees according to the Office of Personnel Management. Despite the rhetoric and mantra fed to you, Reagan increased federal nonmilitary employees by 230,000 1980-1988 and he started this country on a steep budget deficit trajectory. Bush Jr increased fed staff by about 50,000. By contrast, Clinton reduced the size of government by almost 400,000 federal nonmilitary employees during his 8 years. The government now has about 300,000 FEWER employees under Obama then in 1988 when Reagan left office. If you're looking for an economic model that reduces government, balances budgets, and leads to the largest economic expansion in US history, then follow what Clinton did. Unfortunately, it requires a balanced approach founded in arithmetic, not dogma founded on wishful thinking.

everybody loves Clinton. Everybody remembers the boom of the 90s and give him credit for it. Everybody forgets what happened 13 years ago today...and that is that the equities market topped out. They forget that six weeks later, the equities market crashed and crashed hard. This was all under Clinton's watch.

Now, I'm not a big Bush fan as he was a big government guy too, but when you look at all of the slack cut for our current president based on "we inherited a mess", you have to say the same thing for Bush. Clinton left Bush a mess that makes the mess that Obama inherited look like a simple bounced check.

Government interventionalist policies have unintended consequences. They cause the normal economic cycles to become exaggerated. They increase the amplitude of the cycles and decrease the period.

And just to be clear, there hasn't been a free market in this country in many years. Both sides are guilty of putting us in the economic situation we are currently in. And it isn't good, no matter how hard the starry eyed believers want it to be so.

If presidents get credit for economic conditions, then Clinton deserves the greatest amount of blame for our current situation.

So we shouldn't look back 4 years to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Instead, lets look back 14 years to the dot com bubble and blame that president.

Typical political rhetoric. Never ending - I'm right, you're wrong. Maybe when spring is here we'll be talking about hiking.

Yes. Maybe once spring is here all of this will magically go away, won't interfere with our plans, and all of our favorite destinations will be open & ready to explore. (and we can all wave to George as we file down the JMT)

If you have ever driven in the snow and gone into a slide/skid and over corrected and put the car even further out of control, you can draw the parallel to economic cycles.

I made a point to identify both parties as guilty of detrimental market intervention. You brought up Clinton. If you give him credit for the boom of the 90s, you have to give him blame for the bust. There was a very nice economic cycle during the Bush administration that most people seem to forget. Of course, the Bush Administration and Congress over-steered in their response to the dotcom implosion and created yet another bubble that inevitably had to pop.

My argument is intellectually consistent across political parties. Can you say the same for yours?

Frankly (pun intended), I think it is insane to encourage political discussions on WZ. And I kept out of this one until I saw that there was a strong argument to keep this thread alive.

Meanwhile, I have never climbed in the whitney zone in March or April, so I am going to plan a day trip up in both months just to add those months to my whitney diary (I have been in the WZ in June, July, August, Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec and Jan).

Stolen from a sister forum:

Dear Yosemite Community Members and Partners:

We wanted to keep you informed as we begin to feel the impacts of the March 1 sequestration just enacted. Sequestration and resulting budget cuts will have an effect on park operations and we want to keep you informed.

First and foremost, it is the park's goal to keep you updated as this situation evolves and we receive additional guidance and direction from Washington and the regional office. At this time, we want to pass on to you several pieces of news.

With respect to the National Park Service (NPS), the sequestration calls for a 5% cut in the operating budget funds of each park; in the case of Yosemite, this represents a cut of $1.4 million in base operations. Though our park will have to cut this amount, we will not have to furlough any permanent employees. Basically, we are absorbing most of the budget cuts by lapsing positions. This budget cut will result in fewer ranger programs, reductions in resource programs, and elimination of some services from our Facilities Division. There will also be some effects on our seasonal workforce, whose contribution we heavily depend on during peak visitation throughout the summer.

Last week, Director Jarvis also indicated that a hiring freeze is now in place in NPS for both permanents and seasonals and that only mission critical travel should be undertaken; all other travel is canceled until further notice.

The Washington Office is now seeking an exemption from the hiring freeze for all seasonal hiring, including base funded seasonal positions that were included in the park's sequestration plan. We hope to receive this exemption this week. With this exemption, we anticipate filling many of our seasonal positions in preparation for the summer season.

At this point in time, all Yosemite facilities remain open with normal operating hours. However, we will continue to evaluate the impacts of not filling the vacancies identified discussed on park operations and programs and make adjustments as necessary. Since our park partners are private entities and not government funded, services provided by them will not be affected by the sequester and will continue normal operations.

In the meantime, I want to personally thank you for your continued commitment to Yosemite during these uncertainties and hope you will reach out to me or others in the park if you have additional questions. We hope you understand we are doing everything possible to limit impacts to visitors and our employees.

Don Neubacher, on behalf of the Executive Leadership Team

Thank you, eeek.

There are plenty of threads (or start a new one) to talk about any and all trip plans (definitely welcome conversation) but there is no need to flush this thread. It is one of the great priviledges of this country that we CAN talk about what we do not agree with regarding our government (especially when it DOES relate to the parks that we love so much), and in many cases, a movement is started and change follows. How convenient for all if we would just bag this insantiy, shut up, keep our heads down, and settle for whatever is handed down.

Thank you Bee - did you read my mind?
Look at the NASA petition on We The People. (I signed it)

Here is the White House site.

How about we put our heads together and do our bit to advance the cause of the NPS?

Note:

This country is a representative Republic, and it is our duty to advance the cause of our interests. There is a fondness for NASA activities on the board, but our overarching interest is to protect our Parks.
And there is the detail that the NPS and NASA promote economic activity far in excess of the budget number. That is a great topic for discussion there.

My comment about my trips was in direct response to something that was posted in regards to talking about hiking now that spring was here.

As I am certain you understand, the first amendment doesn't apply to a private forum such as this. It is Steve's site and he can say yea or nay on any topic he chooses. And he has obviously said that this one is ok. I think it's a bad idea. And until Steve says that I am not allowed to post that I think it is a bad idea, I have the right to do so.

But let's talk about sequestration and how it applies to the park system. I posted some numbers about the paltry amount of $85B. I posted that the whole budget of the department of the interior is about $11B. The department of health and human services has a budget of about $850B. Why aren't we hearing about a 10% cut in the department of HHS that would take care of that $85B and leave all other government services intact? Why is our government focusing on outward facing services which, in the whole grand scheme of things have meaningless budgets in the first place?

An $85B cut is meaningless and yet it is being touted as a national tragedy where white house tours are cancelled, yosemite is going to close and the lines at the airport are going to be longer. It boils down to a political stunt.

The reason that I think it is crazy to encourage political discussions in this forum is that one's own views tends to blind them from the insults that are being tossed about when the views match their own. So while there have been comments about how the we have kept the "discourse civil" and that we have been "respectful and on topic", you might keep in mind that there are "tea party" types here. And if you go back and read the thread again, you will see that there are quite a few insults thrown around (most of which are completely off base and inaccurate).

So let's talk about legitimate powers of the US Government as defined by the US Constitution.

And let's talk about the fact that the federal government is required to have a budget and yet hasn't done so for several years.

Let's get to the core problem of too damn many entitlement programs sapping the finances of our government while legitimate government services get dumped.

Let's talk about the fact that servicing the interest on our national debt is only behind the DoD and Health and Human Services in real costs to our country and we are adding to the debt with every day that we operate on deficit spending.

All of these thing tie into the cutting of the budget.

I come from a different background than most here, so I will admit that my filters as to when to shut down a thread are always way behind the other moderators (were punches being thrown? Naw, it's not a fight....carry on the "spirited" discussion) I am usually Thor's Hammer when it comes to Trolls -- ahead of the crowd.

I admit that I am taking away a lot of great info (I have looked up many of the $$$ comments & have used the results in further discussions)The queries listed in your post are excellent -- ones that I had not even pondered, yet. Everyone's post reveals yet another layer of the onion (aside from the sniping, which I find distracting)

In the past, I have participated with mass inundations of letters to congress, marches on the state buildings, & I vote, vote, vote. Perhaps I am paranoid....correct: I AM paranoid that someday the population will become disinterested and complascent, and things will get a whole lot worse. I don't want to be the one who shuts down a conversation about the future of the country.

tdtz, we sure try to follow the First Amendment ideals here. How many people would remain here if I or other mods shut down very sensitive topic? It's a good way to kill off a community.

And it's not my site, either. We have a working non-profit organization, with five board members: Myself, Bee, CaT, Mike Condron and Versatile Fred. We keep the paperwork up-to-date with the IRS, the CA Franchise Tax Board and the CA Secretary of State. When it comes to spending our precious contributions, you can be sure the board members agree first, and the money is handled properly. I can assure you I cannot do as I please with this site.

We have four moderators, three have weighed in on this thread and watch it. Of course it is a touchy subject, and it helps that there is a spectrum of opinions and backgrounds represented by different participants. So it keeps bubbling along.

I myself am not one to add much to political discussions, since I grew up watching a family member try to argue politics with too many people, only to see tempers flare and opinions never change. I doubt any opinions of people here will change, either. However, when people present information, and post a link or two to their sources, it helps us all become better educated/more informed on all the issues. And a more informed people is far better than a bunch of "disinterested and complacent" sheep.

As long as individuals don't become too inflammatory, and don't make personal attacks, I think this discussion is beneficial. Please do understand -- I am but one of the moderators, so several people work together before deciding what to limit or shut down.

Can we even balance the budget?


and it is because of this....note the deficit spending
Monthly Treasury Statement
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0113.pdf

Federal outlays - Graphically represented
http://www.federalbudget.com/chartinfo.html

Keynesian Based Economic policies, which have been espoused on this thread, are the root of our current economic situation. Deficit spending during hard economic times is analogous to running up credit card debt when you lose your job. You may get yourself out of hard times in the short term, but eventually you have to pay the piper. Unless you decide to go bankrupt, in which case, it becomes somebody else's problem. And then, who cares, right?

If we practiced keynesian economics in our personal finances we would go to jail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

We can quote all sorts of statistics forever, and posts links to whatever supports our viewpoint. Some are helpful, some are spoonfeed to us by either side, us sitting biased-to-one-side-or-the-other at our computers. None of these facts (real or made-up) are going to change too many minds.

At some point, one's decision-making is more of a gut feeling, having separated some of the wheat from the chaff. Some of the greatest decisions we ever make in our lives are not based on fact alone, but experience and intuition. Some of us here have real world business experience. Some are likely Ivory Tower. Some just like to argue. I would like to invite everyone here to think about the topic in these terms: does "it" (several "its") pass the smell test? Is "it" the right way to take and redistribute other people's money and when we do, what do we do with it?

I'm not sure the "gut-feeling method" will be more successful than the "fact and pseudo facts" method, but it may help.

Paul Krugman has an interesting piece today in the NYT -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/opinio...130308&_r=0