Update: President's FY14 Budget Proposal Would Get Interior "Out Of Ditch," Provide $2.3 Billion For National Park Service

Editor's note: This updates with additional details on the president's proposal for national parks, clarifies budget numbers, adds reaction from the National Parks Conservation Association.

Recent years of relatively sparse federal funding have left the Interior Department and its agencies "in the ditch," according to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who says President Obama's FY14 budget proposal for the department will reverse that trend if approved by Congress.

Under that proposal, Interior overall would receive $11.9 billion for the next fiscal year that begins in October, while the National Park Service would receive $2.3 billion to manage the 401 units of the National Park System. Additionally, the budget calls for full funding -- $900 million -- of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which helps pay for land acquisitions for the park system and improvements to the national trails system, by 2015.

"The president's budget is one that starts getting the Department of Interior out of the ditch. It's a thoughtful budget, and one that we are very proud of," Secretary Salazar said during a conference call with reporters Wednesday afternoon. "The budget makes smart investments in things that we need to grow our economy, create jobs, and strengthen the middle class while reducing the deficit."

However, a review of Interior's briefing document (attached below) on the Park Service budget proposal shows that it calls for a reduction of more than 100 full-time employees to an agency that currently has 900 full-time vacancies, and would cut $3 million from the agency's operational budget under park management, and another $2.2 million under visitor services. How those cuts would be absorbed was not immediately clear.

"I wouldn't call it the robust budget that the secretary called it this morning," John Garder, the budget cruncher for the National Parks Conservation Association said Wednesday evening after reviewing the budget documents. "It's good, but it's not going to do the job of getting the parks out of this worrisome trend that we're seeing, a slow march towards reduced park operations."

In total, the president's proposal would provide $2.6 billion for the Park Service. All but $300 million would be for "park operations," the main checking account, if you will, for managing the 401 units of the park system; the outstanding $300 million is earmarked for programs under the NPS, such as the National Recreation and Preservation program ($52 million) that supports local and community efforts to preserve natural and cultural resources; the Urban Parks and Recreation Fund ($10 million); the Historic Preservation Fund ($58.9 million); construction ($160 million) outside that provided in the park operations budget, and; Land Acquisition and State Assistance ($100.4 million).

The budget also calls for a reduction of 92 employees under park operations, and 30 from the construction programs.

At the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, Deny Galvin called the proposal for the parks "essentially a stand pat budget."

"It's not far from what the Obama administration requested in 2009, the first Obama request ($2.529 million vs. $2.6 million)," he said in an email. "So from there out it's just moving things around. The modest increase in operations is mostly offset by fixed cost increases of $30.5 million.

"Perhaps the most newsworthy thing about these numbers is that they ignore the sequester. That should provoke some interesting reactions on the hill," said Mr. Galvin, a former deputy director of the Park Service.

Interior Secretary Salazar told reporters that if approved the proposal would "put the nation on a path to live within our means by finding efficiencies and making some very tough choices. It is a strong blueprint for Interior's mission."

According to a synopsis of the budget provided by the department, the proposal calls for more than $600 million in programmatic reductions to offset spending. It also would sustain current administrative cost reductions in travel, contract services, and supplies and equipment that would save $217 million.

National Park Service Director John Jarvis did not participate in the call and was not taking questions from reporters, according to his staff. However, the agency said the agency's $2.3 billion operations budget proposal represents a $48.4 million increase over 2012 funding levels. But at the same time, the agency would need to cut nearly $21 million from elsewhere in its budget.

"Key increases include $5.2 million to control exotic and invasive species such as quagga and zebra mussels, $2 million to enhance sustainable and accessible infrastructure across the National Park System, and $1 million to foster the engagement of youth in the great outdoors. These increases are partially offset by programmatic decreases to park operations and related programs totaling $20.6 million," a Park Service release said.

Under the president's proposal, the Park Service would receive $110.4 million in LWCF dollars, of which $60.4 million would be set aside for use in park land acquisition. The budget also contains $5.5 million specifically to purchase Civil War battlefield lands within national parks, with another $9 million requested to help state and local governments and non-governmental organizations "purchase and protect threatened Civil War and other battlefields" outside the park system.

Regarding the Park Service's construction and maintenance account, the proposal requests $160 million, an increase of $4.6 million over 2012 levels. "This includes $83.1 million for line-item construction projects, a $5.3 million increase from 2012," the Park Service staff noted. "It provides funding for the highest priority construction projects critical to visitor and employee health and safety and environmental restoration."

In recent years, the president's budget proposal as a whole has gained little traction with Congress.

Back at NPCA, Executive Vice President Theresa Pierno said the proposal was lacking.

“The National Park Service is experiencing deep impacts from the sequester and other continued reductions. This year will be the most challenging in some time for national park superintendents who will have fewer rangers and smaller budgets to manage each park from Yellowstone to Acadia," she said in a prepared statement. "Funding the operations of the National Park Service needs to be more of a priority than it has been to date. We're pleased that the president recognizes the need to reverse the mindless sequester, but it will take more than that recognition to address the reality facing national parks.

“The sequester has already cut more than $130 million from the National Park Service budget, forcing places like Yellowstone, Acadia, Independence Hall, and Cape Cod National Seashore to delay seasonal openings, close visitor centers, picnic areas, and campgrounds, and eliminate ranger positions that are critical to protecting endangered species and historic buildings, as well as greeting park visitors and school groups. Further cuts will only impair the national park experience."

AttachmentSize
DOI-Budget in Brief.pdf288.47 KB

Comments

That is a misleading headline. The park service does not have the authority to create new monuments. It should really read, "Politicians Creating New Monuments Landsmarks Despite Sequester Cutbacks.

Also complaints about the creation of new national historic landmarks are complete BS. The park service doesn't own, manage or staff national historic landmarks. Basically they hand the property owner a certificate and walk away. Therefore, the cost have to be minimal. Maybe two or three federal employees for the entire country would be my best guess.

Someone needs to remind Senator Coburn that the cancellation of White House Tours is a Secret Service budget problem, not an NPS budget problem. The only thing that NPS does for WH tours, that I have observed, is to make sure people have a reservation when they come to the tour entrance and hand out Junior Ranger booklets.

Senator Coburn's lack of information is spectacular. That article is so full of misinformation and perhaps outright fibs that it's ridiculous. Dunno if it's all due to Coburn or if Faux News did some creative editing.

But considering both sources, it's about what one would expect.

Lee, how about some specifics on the "misinformation" and "fibs".

Lee, i did read it. Still waiting for you to tell us about the misinformation and fibs. Or is this your usual empty accusations?

You know I have sympathies for both of you but there is NOTHING that this administration does that is outside the prism of politics, nothing, I believe. Soulless and have no connection except as something to be used. They have done so much to prove me correct in that assumption. These Parks are sacred in many ways but only pawns to be played in their eyes. Very sad to see. Look at the realities of the fraud throughout the administration from one end to another. All being played or corrupted. My thoughts. I love these places! I hope I am wrong.

No, trail, you're not wrong. Ever since the parks first started they have been pawns for nearly every administration, every Congress, and every special interest with even the most remote connection.

As for Coburn and his misinformation and fibs -- read it again and do some research. Here's a hint, landmarks. Another hint, research Coburn's legislative history related to parks. But selective blindness is an ailment that's hard to cure, so anyone trying to point things out to one who chooses to turn a blind eye is wasting the time of everyone.

Lee, rather than "hinting" why dont you explicitly identify the misinformation and fibs and provide the proof of such? Why must you always dance?

I am a new member , but a long time reader of the Traveler. So you can take this or leave it.

After reading a great deal of comments on here I can say , Yes EC can be fairly stubborn and hard on his points. Personally I like that he is that way because if no one questions your beliefs or ideas then how can you really be sure that your ideas or beliefs can stand up against a fight. I can also say that Lee your statement of

" But selective blindness is an ailment that's hard to cure, so anyone trying to point things out to one who chooses to turn a blind eye is wasting the time of everyone. "

Can be aimed at you as well ! You are correct in one respect " Ever since the parks first started they have been pawns for nearly every administration, every Congress, and every special interest with even the most remote connection." it truly is a sad thing that it happens but it does. Politics are like that. I too would like to see the misinformation that you speak of. If your calling something bad info then list what is bad so that it can be researched to confirmed or denied.

For my thoughts I would love nothing better then for the parks to be fully funded.

Pachaniko: I agree, in a perfect world where people are all virtuous. If all the upper echelons were humbled down to the virtuous class it would indeed be a good thing to be fully funded. In my own experience, I see a lot to be encouraged about but facing and correcting the excesses of the past would greatly enhance the future:).

Good points, Pachaniko. I do make a real effort to remain among the sighted and have been known to change my mind when necessary. But, on the other hand, I'm an Irishman.

But Coburn's comments were typical political blame and bluster. For example, national landmarks require very little funding or oversight by the NPS. That is the biggest bit of misinformation in the Faux piece. Then there is the fact that Congress has been supportive of ALL the recent additions to our list of national monuments. In fact, in some cases, Congress was pushing the President to act. Coburn is trying to blame Obama for sequestration, yet Coburn was one of the Senators who voted for the most recent fiscal cliff deal last December. (He did, however, see the light when his colleagues voted in favor of the original sequester a year or two ago. He voted against it, although that may have been another political ploy. There have been some allegations that he supported it in the background, but cast his vote to deflect any possible future blame. Of course, whether one accepts that idea or not depends upon which sources one has read.) He has a long history of opposing any form of tax increases to boost revenue, and a long history of supporting ideas that will cause serious hurt to members of the middle class.

There's also the fact that many of the things the NPS must "waste" money on are things that were imposed upon the agency by Congress. Among those are deadlines for opening park roads or managing a multitude of policies that came about as a result of pressures from special interest groups of one kind or another. Remember that these are the same folks who are forcing the Air Force to accept and try to use a multi-billion dollar fighter plane that barely flies and the Army to buy still more Abrams tanks that the Army says they don't need. (Although, to his credit, Coburn has opposed those moves. A good record of Coburn's voting practices can be found here: http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/22085/thomas-coburn#.UYJzbUoWAmE )

His extremism is one of the reasons we have such a dysfunctional mess in Washington. Coburn, like many of his Congressional colleagues, is almost totally dependent upon the short memory spans of too many American voters. That showed up again in the Faux piece.

There is so much confusion and conflicting "information" floating in the sludge around the Capitol that it's almost impossible for anyone to make any sense of it. I wonder sometimes if that's not yet one more tactic deliberately employed by our politicos. They are very, very adept at hiding their handiwork behind such a convoluted pile of paper and verbal bombast that even they probably couldn't provide the truth if they ever had to.

If anything, I'm guilty as charged when it comes to trying to defend our parks. They are priceless, and I'll fight for them as any good Irishman should.

As I expected - just empty accusations. Coburn says these will cost "millions" you say that's a fib but all you can come back with is your own declaration that it will take"very little funding". How much is "very little"? $1? $1,000? a million, 10 million, 100 million. The fact is you don't know, yet you call Coburn a liar. And that's the "biggest piece of faux information"

You then go on to claim he blamed Obama for the sequester. Could you identify the sentence in the article where that claim is made? (not that it would have been invalid as the idea for the sequester did emanate from the White House)

Then you claim Congress has been supportive of all the acquisitions - something Coburn didn't opine on in the article - yet if Congress had been supportive - they would have made the designations and the President would not have had to do so.

This is yet another example of your baseless accusations. You certainly are free to express frustration or even disgust with Congress - I am all with you there. But please don't make up facts and quotes to go after your favorite boogy men.

ec-- most costs for landmarks and heritage areas are borne by local sources. As to the Congressional support issue for national monuments, most of the most recent designations by Presidential proclamation, including those by President Bush, were created with the full support of the state Congressional delegations; they just couldn't make it through the bitterly divided Congress.

Another thing we have to keep in mind. The President cannot declare a national monument on private land; designations can only occur on lands that already belong to the people of the United States.

Rick


most costs for landmarks and heritage areas are borne by local sources.


Maybe so, but what exactly are those costs and what are the costs borne by the NPS? Without the numbers, calling someone a liar is just a baseless accusation.


they just couldn't make it through the bitterly divided Congress.


So contrary to Lee's declaration, Congress didn't support all declarations.


designations can only occur on lands that already belong to the people of the United States.


I would hope so, but I wonder how long before some of these folks will want to appropriate private land as well.

From Fox News: "Tom Coburn says there's "no shortage of potential savings," pointing out that the department is nevertheless spending millions on newly created monuments and landmarks. "

National Parks Traveler: http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2013/03/updated-republicans-criticize-new-national-monumentsand-push-national-historical-park22984

"No out-of-pocket expenses were required by the National Park Service to take control of three national monuments designated this week by President Obama, and contrary to claims by two Republican congressmen many members of the public supported the designations."

"'As far as operating costs, they're going to be minimal at each of them. There are acting superintendents that are being assigned to each of the sites,' he said. 'Since they don't have the authority to spend money, since they don't have a budget, the long-term budgets are being formulated now and should show up when the 2014 budget comes out.'"

FYI, with regard to national landmarks: "The National Historic Landmarks Program, established in 1935, is administered by the National Park Service on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior. The agency works with preservation officials and other partners interested in nominating a landmark. Completed applications are reviewed by the National Park System Advisory Board, which makes recommendations for designation to the Secretary of the Interior. If selected, property ownership remains intact but each site receives a designation letter, a plaque, and technical preservation advice."

Coburn doesn't seem to understand how budgets or the sequester works, let alone understanding how the government works. The US Geological Survey and the Secret Service (flood warning system and white house tours) have absolutely nothing to do with NPS. So, I don't consider him a liar, I just consider him woefully uninformed for someone who thinks they know what is going on.

ec...I agree with out the numbers it is hard to dispute, but isn't the proposed National Monuments a matter of switching budgets from one agency of the gov't to the NPS? Not sure just wondering.

David, Presumably, the properties would be managed differently - else why bother.


The US Geological Survey and the Secret Service (flood warning system and white house tours) have absolutely nothing to do with NPS. So, I don't consider him a liar, I just consider him woefully uninformed for someone who thinks they know what is going on.


Do you have evidence that Coburn made any referense to the flood warning systems or white house tours? The article attributes those comments to the AP not to Coburn.

This is the actual letter that Coburn sent to Sally Jewell via email:

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=c5c26519-ec86-4239-8486-f781b4a78369

On page 3 in reference to the designation of new monuments and landmarks Coburn says:

"But, it makes little sense to expand the number of sites at the same time the budget of every other park is being cut and visitors are being turned away from visiting the White House."

It was the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service that shut down the WH Tours, not NPS. NPS doesn't fund the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service so Sally Jewell doesn't have the power to re-start WH tours. The White House Visitor Center, which NPS does operate, remains open.

Thanks for the letter. It clarifies that his comments about the USGS were in the context of overall Dept of Interior spending and makes no suggestion that it was a NPS spending issue (contrary to the impression some tried to convey earlier in this thread.

He also cites a specific $4 million number for the Delaware monument alone. He must of gotten that number somewhere - though it would be nice to know from where.

As to the White House Tours - he made no mention of where the monies for those were coming from nor that the NPS was responsible for shutting them down. He made the observation that it was silly to expand spending on new monuments when other facilities were being shut down. Could he have thought it was NPS budget? Possibly. Could he have just been showing the irony? Also a possibility.

Certainly there is nothing in that letter that suggests either a fib or misinformation.

" Coburn wrote in a letter to the newly confirmed Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. “The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is also threatening to shut down hundreds of flood warning gauges across the country.”"

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/296995-coburn-tells-doi-to-stop-funding-sheep-counting-studies#ixzz2SA51QtnH

My previous observation Re: Coburn and his lack of understanding regarding budgets still stands. In his letter to Jewell, he states that savings from one agency could be used to fund something in another agency (money from drones could be used to pay for flood warning systems). As these are two different agencies, Coburn obviously doesn't understand A. They are different agencies and therefore have different funding and B. That the sequester doesn't allow a Department nor an Agency to pick or chose where cuts are made.

Back in March, Coburn proposed an amendment(that was rejected) to the Continuing Resolution that would have redirected funding from Natural Heritage Areas(a NPS program) to amongst other things, WH Tours.

"This amendment would take the $6 million in savings garnered from implementing President Obama’s recommendation and direct it towards visitor services and maintenance needs at our National Parks, for example reopening the White House tours and using snow clearing equipment to open Yellowstone National Park on time"

While redirecting money from the Heritage Areas budget to NPS Operations and Maintenance budgets would help individual park units, it still wouldn't restore WH tours. The staffing reduction isn't on the NPS side.

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=733430ec-d662-45db-ab79-180e3692384d&ContentType_id=d741b7a7-7863-4223-9904-8cb9378aa03a&Group_id=7a55cb96-4639-4dac-8c0c-99a4a227bd3a

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=fa4e90b2-4ca4-427a-a12e-4746f53fc01c

Coburn: "...which is expected to cost taxpayers $4 million a year."

With regard to the $4 million per year, that was an outright lie.

"The Delaware sites will receive an estimated $1.5 million in federal funding for renovations to the Sheriff’s House, another $1 million to develop a general management plan for the sites and about $1.5 million a year for maintenance and operations that will include salaries for park rangers and a monument superintendent."

So, the Delaware site will receive $2.5m in one time funding then $1.5m yearly. Yes, it adds up to $4m, but not in perpetuity nor yearly.

He received this information from http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013304030008&nclick_check=1 the source he sited in footnote 16. I'm guessing he figures no one would ever look at footnotes.

Proof that he has no clue as to how the NPS nor the Department of the Interior operates:

From his letter:

"I would urge you to cease the designation of all parks, monuments and other sites and stop the expansion of existing parks..."

Congress designates all national parks. The President designates all National Monuments. The term, "other sites" is so broad as to be meaningless. But, from Wikipedia, "Derived from the Historic Sites Act of 1935, a number of Historic Sites were established by United States Secretaries of the Interior, but most have been authorized by acts of Congress."

Additionally, expansion of National Parks is done by acts of Congress and/or private donations. For example: "Legislation to authorize the expansion of the Vicksburg National Military Park has been reintroduced by U.S. Senators Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker, both R-Miss. The legislation would authorize the National Park Service to acquire about 10,000 acres of property deemed significant to the long-term preservation of historic Civil War battlefield sites in Claiborne and Hinds counties. The bill specifies that any purchases must be acquired through voluntary sales, donations or exchanges." or "Congress authorized expansion of Petrified Forest National Park, but forgot to fund It." I can site dozens more, but I'm hoping you get the picture.

This entire sequester thing is an in house fight and sadly we all fall for it.They use big words so we don't understand what it really all means.

They used the pick and chose method to make it look like a big deal.It's a drop in the bucky.Rather than fighting each other here we ought to throw everyone of these guys out of office and start over.

Maybe we can find a George Washington for president.

Dahkota, so many posts and so many mistatements its is hard to address in one post. I will just hit a few high (low) lights.


money from drones could be used to pay for flood warning systems). As these are two different agencies


He wasn't talking about military drones, he was talking about drones deployed by the Interior Department to track roaming animals.


The President designates all National Monuments


Wrong. Not to mention it is hard to fathom that any Park, Monument are other site is established without the encouragment of the NPS.


So, the Delaware site will receive $2.5m in one time funding then $1.5m yearly. Yes, it adds up to $4m, but not in perpetuity nor yearly.


Perhaps he erred saying yearly but this monument alone will cost $4 million in the first year and $1.5 million every year thereafter. What will the other 12 be on top of that? That puts his assessment of "costing millions" far more on target than Lees "Very little" or the "minimum" and "no out of pocket costs" you described earlier.


"He wasn't talking about military drones, he was talking about drones deployed by the Interior Department to track roaming animals."


I'm completely aware of that. You do understand that the NPS and and the USGS are two different agencies within the Department of the Interior, yes? And that those two agencies has separate budgets, yes? and that the funding for one is not at all related to the funding of the other?


"Wrong. Not to mention it is hard to fathom that any Park, Monument are other site is established without the encouragment of the NPS."


Actually, you are wrong. The Antiquities Act gives the President the power to create National Monuments. If you can show anything different, please do. And, who has input or encouragement is irrelevant. the NPS does not have the power to create National Monuments.


"Perhaps he erred saying yearly but this monument alone will cost $4 million in the first year and $1.5 million every year thereafter. What will the other 12 be on top of that? That puts his assessment of "costing millions" far more on target than Lees "Very little" or the "minimum" and "no out of pocket costs" you described earlier."


Perhaps he erred. If he did, he cannot read a simple sentence. Or, he was purposefully mis-directing people. The other twelve were not sited. The point in question was whether or not Coburn lied or mis-directed people. If he will lie about $4 million, or as you state, "err," then it is quite possible that he will lie or "err" about other facets of the NPS and its budget. You blindly accept anything Coburn might say and yet you dismiss what other people, including congressmen say.

Please feel free to point out other inaccuracies in my previous statements, since, as you say, "there are so many." At the same time, I will ask you for evidence (as you so often demand) of the millions of dollars the NPS will need to spend. I have supplied evidence to the contrary, and yet you dismiss my sources, even when they are Coburn's sources to begin with.


and that the funding for one is not at all related to the funding of the other?


All funding if ultimately fungible. Within the Dept of Interior, the department can ask for funds for A or B.


he Antiquities Act gives the President the power to create National Monuments. If you can show anything different, please do.


First sentence from BLM page: "National Monuments are special areas of public land designated by public proclamation by the President or by Congress.

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/content/ca/en/prog/monuments.html


If he did, he cannot read a simple sentence.


Yet he was far closer than your proclamations of "very little" or "minimum". Did you lie when you said those?

I find it ironic that the very people who think the Parks can and should be run with much tighter budgets, those who love to see the current "belt tightening", are the first in line to claim the high costs associated with running Parks.

Scott, it's called "entitlement." As in "I'm entitled to do anything I want to do anyplace at any time in any of our parks and if they try to make me pay anything for it I'll throw a tantrum. I'm a conservative and God bless the Tea Party."

And sincere thanks to Sara and Dahkota and Quiet Please and Rick and David and Jim for at least trying to stand up to one of our most prominent tantrum tossers. Join the crowd; you've just been ignored.

Far too many of our legislators of all kinds (and perhaps some news media and a few who post here ) are very expert at fibbing -- which by my definition includes telling just enough of the truth to avoid an outright lie, but shading or twisting it enough to fool people into believing something different enough that they will support whatever agenda is being pushed. That's why I wonder sometimes if our friend isn't really a politician in disguise.

Have a smiling day everyone!

ec - The wording of the BLM quote you cite is awkward, and would be clearer if it read something like: "National Monuments are special areas of public land established by Congress or designated by public proclamation by the President ."

Yes, Congress could establish a national monument if it wanted to do so, but in that case, it would be via the legislative process, not under the authority of the Antiquities Act.

The big complaint by some in Congress has been about the President's supposed "overreach" in using this authority to designate national monuments without congressional approval.
Here's the key language from the American Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 USC 431-433:

"Sec. 2. That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments,..."

As to your comment, "All funding if ultimately fungible. Within the Dept of Interior, the department can ask for funds for A or B."

You like to spar over definitions, so we don't know which one you're using in this case, but your context suggests you mean those funds are "interchangeable." That is correct only concerning funds which have been "asked for" by the Department, because a budget request is simply a point for discussion.

Funds which have been "asked for" have no real value to agency operations. Funds are useful only after they have been appropriated - and then they are no longer fungible.

Interior could not, for example, simply decide to move money appropriated to the BLM to the NPS, or even move money appropriated for one function within a bureau to a different function. That lack of agency discretion for use of funds is part of the current dust-up over the sequester.


Interior could not, for example, simply decide to move money appropriated to the BLM to the NPS, or even move money appropriated for one function within a bureau to a different function.


Perhaps they can't move after appropriations have been made but they can ask for before hand. They didn't. And suppose they didn't spend the money. The fact is as typical beaurucrats, they feel compelled to spend every dime they can.

And I see Lee, you are back to your fabricating of quotes.

"The fact is as typical beaurucrats, they feel compelled to spend every dime they can."

Speaking of fabrications, can you prove that one?