Editor's note: This version updates with reaction from National Parks Conservation Association President Tom Kiernan and adds remarks from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar concerning the National Park System's maintenance backlog.
President Obama's FY12 budget request, if approved by Congress, would give the National Park Service a $2.9 billion budget, an increase of nearly $138 million above current funding levels.
While the budget would slow the agency's attack on its staggering maintenance backlog, at a time when doom and gloom highlights talk around the federal budget the president seems determined to invest in the Park Service and its 394 units. Park Service Director Jon Jarvis, in a prepared statement, said investing in the country was exactly what the proposed budget does.
“Taxpayer investments in national parks result in far more than the obvious recreational and educational dividends,” said Director Jarvis. “National parks also are tremendous economic engines for their gateway communities. In 2009, park visitors spent $11.9 billion and supported 247,000 jobs.
"The budget includes tough choices to cut spending in construction and certain grant programs to address our nation’s critical budget deficit," he continued. "However, a proposed increase in investments through the Land and Water Conservation Fund will step up our commitment to states and communities, many of which are facing serious cutbacks of their own."
Among the highlights of the proposed Park Service budget:
* The overall request totals $2.9 billion, up from $2.75 billion the Park Service has been operating on under a Continuing Resolution.
* Base park operations funding would increase $39.5 million.
* It would provide $360 million for the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is tapped to make land acquisitions for the National Park System.
* A $5.7 million increase, to $19.2 million, to fund youth engagement and education programs in the parks.
* $1.8 million for the U.S. Park Police operations.
* $3.2 million for cyclic maintenance and $7.5 million for repair and rehabilitation projects, two areas that can help slow the growth of the Park Service's maintenance backlog.
* $7.2 million to strengthen the Park Service's staff recruitment, training, and retention programs.
* $8 million for the Everglades Modified Water Water Deliveries project.
* $4 million towards the settlement of the North Shore Road project in Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
* $61 million for the Park Service's Historic Preservation Fund.
At the same time, however, a review of the details shows a lot of red ink:
* Nearly $81 million is proposed to be cut from the Park Service's construction budget, a subtraction that would directly impact construction projects, equipment replacement, and planning.
* Both the Save America's Treasures ($25 million) and Preserve America ($4.6 million) grant programs would be zeroed out.
* Nearly $6 million in congressional earmarks targeted for projects in specific parks would be eliminated.
* Funding for Heritage Areaswould be cut by $8.8 million.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar acknowledged to reporters Monday afternoon that a freeze on new construction across the National Park System would slow efforts to reduce the Park Service's maintenance backlog, which is in the neighborhood of $8 billion.
“We have in this budget proposed what I consider to be a good investment in the National Park System. And we have made significant efforts over the last two years to cut down on that backlog, which, when I came into Interior, stood at some $9 billion. We were able to make some investments close to a billion dollars, from the (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) funds, and those have gone into our national park units all across the country, (and) the budgets over the last two years have allowed us to make some investments on that backlog," the Interior secretary said.
"But there’s no doubt that ... the existing backlog is in the billions of dollars. And so this will slow down the major initiative, which we’ve had under way, which has been a high priority for me, and that’s to address that backlog. We have to deal with the fiscal reality, we don’t have the money to deal with the backlog."
At the National Parks Conservation Association, President Tom Kiernan was supportive of the president's proposal.
“We’re pleased that in a challenging budget year the administration has prioritized investments in our national parks. From Yellowstone to Gettysburg, our national parks protect America’s heritage and deserve this modest investment,” Mr. Kiernan said in a statement. “We’re grateful that our national parks would have the funding they need to keep visitor centers open and park rangers on the ground. People travel from across the world to enjoy these special places, so this investment not only preserves our national heritage, but also protects jobs in communities that benefit from park tourism.”
It's doubtful, from congressional actions and discussions to date, that the budget will be warmly embraced by Congress. Already the House Appropriations Committee has targeted $51 million in cuts from the Park Service budget, and news reports have indicated some in Congress want large cuts in the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
“These aren’t just difficult times, they’re serious times, and you can just feel it in the air in Washington," Park Service spokesman Jeff Olson said Monday. "So yes, we’re grateful for the budget the president has proposed. There’s still a lot that we can do. We’ll meet the mission of the Park Service."
At the NPCA, Mr. Kiernan said proposed cuts in the Park Service's budget that have been discussed in the House of Representatives were disconcerting.
"The Park Service is already underfunded with an (annual) operations shortfall of $600 million,” he said. “We’re also quite concerned with the size of the House committee cut to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is critical to protecting national parks from the constant threats of development.”
With the 150th anniversary of the Civil War beginning to be commemorated, the budget proposal holds $10 million within the Land and Water Conservation Fund for American Battlefield Protection Grants. These grants, which require a dollar-for-dollar match with non-federal funds, go to help state and local governments and nonprofit organization partnerships purchase and protect threatened Civil War and other battlefields.
“The president’s budget will ensure that national parks continue to serve the 285 million visitors who come every year to relax in America’s great outdoors and learn about the people and places that make up America’s story,” Director Jarvis, who was unavailable for comment Monday, said in a prepared statement. “This is especially important as we prepare for the start of our second century in 2016 and begin commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, which we hope will bring millions of new visitors to our more than 70 civil war sites.”
Comments
Anonymous, you not only seem to know nothing about how the economy works, but you contradict yourself.
The private sector, that created the economic collapse and manipulated the politics at the same time by political money to eliminate essential regulation, is now sitting on billions and billions of dollars and not investing it or growing business in the US. The reason they have any money at all is the federal government propped up the economy and their business, particularly the Fed. Without that, their money would be gone or worthless, and the George Bush and the Congress when they did the bailout had every reason to assume (unfortunately without resorting to coersion) if the businesses were saved they would continue to invest.
You cannot say BOTH that the money is coming from Chinese investment/bond purchases AND say the money for the government programs is coming from taxes. If, as you said earlier, it is coming from purchasing of US bonds by foreign countries, then a significant amount of that WILL generate growth and WILL thereby generate increased tax revenue. Many government programs ALSO generate an expanded economy and lead to increased tax revenues.
The amount of taxes as a percentage of the economy is less than half what it was during World War II, when it was over 40 %. No one thought that was irresponsible, and it did not devastate the economy. Instead, as a result, the American economy expanded rapidly. When you consider that military expenditures are not even a great way to generate expansion, because much of the weaponry does nothing productive.
The parks, and especially programs like Heritage Areas and Save America's treasures may not generate as much expansion as some infrastructure projects, electric grid, or education programs, but they are more helpful to the economy that the military and many other public and private programs. Over $50 billion typically comes into the United States each year from international tourists who during their trip visit national parks. And that just goes to balance of payments; parks generate many other economic plusses as well. Not bad for a park service that costs around $3 billion.
You seem to think money spent is money gone. Money does not work that way. In fact, there is a well document multiplier effect that the RIGHT kind of expenses expand the economy, and pay for themselves. Already, most of the areas receiving the bailout have not only been paid back, but generated a profit.
Just chanting angry talking points will not make your points true. As Abraham Lincoln knowingly said, 'You can't fool all the people all the time."
What we are dealing with now is the most rapidly expanding divide between the extraordinarily rich and the rest. Many of these billionairs want to give back as little as possible to the Nation that enabled them to make so much money, but they are happy to spend to block regulation and to manipulate the courts and the poltical system. Including, elections. These people have many trillions of dollars more than the entire federal budget, and are a much larger drag on the economy when they take their money overseas and do not invest it in America than any US tax bill. American corporations pay less in taxes as a percentage of income than in any other developed nation in the world. The tax rates are irrelevant to them, because NO ONE in corporate america pays the rate, because of rigged deductions. In the meantime, their infrastructure is supported by the US government programs, and government regulations actually protect corporations from liability because one of the main point of such regulations today, alas, is to limit liability for corporations.
Your economic "analysis" has nothing to do with the facts, or what the squawking about deficits really is all about. The object now is to bankrupt the government, eliminate essential government programs and regulations so that a very small percentage of americans can walk away with unearned billions.
Thank you, d-2 for saying it far better than I could. And yes, Anonymous, you are right that "this is scary." What is scary is that there are millions of well-intentioned Americans such as yourself, who have fallen for the pernicious economic propaganda put out by self-serving big corporations and their political handmaidens -- including the scaremongering about the deficit.
Michael and D-2
An altered reality is pretty much opinion thoughts of your comments. Business is the villain here? Bush? Oh, yes Bush did it. Republicans want to starve children and kill old people, yes that's it! I agree that Bush did attempt to have Freddie and Fanny Mae to kick old people and children out of houses that they could not afford. Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer and the far left Congress that you obviously support would not allow it which eventually did lead those same old and young people being kicked out of their house but only after causing a WORLD meltdown and sticking the taxpayers with unbelievable debt and it's being double downed on. 70-80% tax rate is a REALISTIC possibility with the world coming apart without a strong US (weakness is a provocation).
I'm rejecting the one attempt of a compliment from you. "Well intentioned "is more associated with the political correct crowd and has grown to be the ultimate "mind set" that gives cover to chronically deluded or just plane failing attitudes. Of coarse, nothing personal is intended here but I just don't accept the premise of what's happening and where we are headed.
Okay, what are your solutions?
I don't support left OR right -- I support POLICIES and ACCURATE FACTS. Anyone who has supported the NPS for long knows some of the best friends to parks and the environment have been Republicans, and there were Democratic Administrations and officials who hurt the parks.
i think Bush did what he had to do when it all came down to the collapse of the economy. The government stepped in and -- just check your facts on this Anonymous ! -- and it is still true with notable exceptions the business community is not rising to the occasion. Compare that to JP Morgan in the Panic in the 1890's ! Or Pete Peterson in the 1980's ! As far as Fanny and Freddie, the recent commission to analyze the fall of the economy has all the facts in one place and it is clear it was not caused by Fanny or Freddie. Only ONE commissioner thought so ! And HE was abandoned by the other Republicans on this. The facts do not support it. Many of the people who were caught in the melt down with morgages representing more than 1/3 of their income would not have gone down had the whole economy gone down. There but for fortune go you, go I. We could be next, through no fault of our own. On the other hand, there were REAL fraudulent loans issued by the financial community, nothing to do with Freddy and Fannie. People went into baloon loans even though they did not need them or think they were getting them, because the morgage guys working for the larger morgage and finance giants had more to gain by exposing lower middle class people to these fradulent loans.
government policy was being pushed much more by those financial power houses, much more than the elected officials you cite. And, Republicans were as much part of it as Democrats. But they all were weak, but they didn't think up these ideas. WALL STREET DID, and they intimidate elected officials into supporting them. If you do not know what is going on these days, no elected official can stay in office if they completely disregard the control these giants have over the political process. Look what happened to the author of the McCain Feingold act trying to get rid of corruption in elections. Feingold is no longer Senator: they nailed him. And Sen McCain is keeping a very low profile these days, on issues he used to speak clearly on.
But the real thing was the high ratings put on the negotiable securities of these bundled morgages. They were rated AAA, not junk, and ultimately that is why the economy fell. With the loans alone for lower middle class families, clean loans that is, there would have been no collapse.
Only morons like FOX news try to set up a few government fall guys like Sen. Schumer and then try to blame it all on them. As the late Senator Moynihan once said, "you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to YOUR OWN FACTS !"
What really distinguishes comments, opinions and purported facts is the character of their proponents. If you instantly go to demeaning tactics directed at people personally there most usually playing fast and loose with the truth and are called out. There is so much that totally dominates the airways with what can only be described as a CON at worst and youthful naivete at best. The 60's are long past and can only hope that reality has the effect that it intends. Fox News and fall guys? That's laughable with the decades old unbecoming demonization of George Bush, Conservative Women and reality in general is really not effective anymore because eventually "untruths" appear just that when reality appears with crystal clarity.
Reality in the mortgage business? President Bush MANY times attempted to rein in the simmering mortgage crisis. At that time Liberal Democrats including Barney Frank as Congressman overseeing this very issue said, "It's fine, not a problem." For what reason is conjecture. Maybe on his death bed he'll confess his sins but I'm not counting on it the way character is honored in that body (Congress).
It takes awhile but the "well intentioned" effort on the outside of a goal of everyone owning a home while on the inside people were making fortunes with the path set by "everyone gets a home PR gimmick" has set the world on it's head. Good business practices would not allow giving money to people that can't pay it back unless it was supported by the government, Fanny and Freddie who guaranteed the loans.
I'm trying to bring you along fairly gently here. I appreciate the emotion the way I like Susan Sarandon but dismiss her politics, LOL!
Anonymous (not verified),
You have not yet presented any facts to back up your argument that we should be panicking about the deficit. The fact is, we have had larger deficits in the past -- larger proportionately than today -- and we have grown our way out of them. President Clinton inherited a huge deficit and by the end of his term we had a huge surplus. That turnaround was not caused by massive cuts in federal spending, but instead by some spending cuts along with tax increases and increased spending on federal programs that created jobs and stimulated the economy.
A lot of things have contributed to today's deficit. The Bush tax cuts and unfunded wars (which Obama has continued, though at least he includes them in the budget) are the single largest part of the problem. A lack of adequate regulation of the financial sector set us up for the worst Wall Street abuses. The economy is in bad shape, and there is plenty of fault to dole out -- that is not my point.
My point is that there is nothing but speculation to back the apocalyptic predictions of national bankruptcy and need for draconian spending cuts that today's deficit alarmists are spreading. The main proponents of this view are people who have always been against a large federal government, who believe that cutting taxes stimulates the economy and increases federal revenues, and who never supported Social Security and are jumping at the opportunity to slash or do away with it (even though they know full well that it has no impact whatsoever on the deficit). Forgive me if do not consider the deficit hawks to be credible advocates for a healthy economy.
My original point was that spending on our National Park System is a job-creating, economically positive thing to do. Cutting the NPS is short-sighted and counterproductive. I believe that is especially true when the basic arguments for the proposed massive cuts in federal spending are simply not based in fact. I am happy to acknowledge any facts that prove me wrong.
A little history on Clinton's success. Never one to deny credit for someone else's labors, shaming the office and setting a poor example for the young by setting a new low in behavior (and making it acceptable), Clinton arrived on scene as the economy was turning around on it's own. Two years in after the mid-terms after the public saw the direction under his leadership after 40 years his party lost both the House and the Senate. Ever the opportunist, he embraced "the end of welfare as we know it" and yielded to a conservative direction. It was Congress who held the purse strings that carried the water here and the country benefited. That's one.
There are actions that encourage the idea of investing that typically, civil service employed people don't have in their genes. People that are willing to take risk need at least a little bit of encouragement. They have to see a possibility of profit to take the risk. Cutting taxes is PROVEN to encourage the taking of risk (investments). Reagan greatly cut taxes and encouraged economic activity, letting people keep more of their money and brought the country out of the Carter malaise and it's 20+ interest rates. That's two.
We are talking about NPS Construction Projects that have to be cut back after a banner year last year while there is a real war on our border here in Arizona with better than 22,000 murders (beheadings) including Americans civilians and officers. Terrorists that mean to do us harm are pretty much able to enter at will as only 15% of the border is secured but there is more interest to look on Habib as a future Democratic Voter. I believe that we all might benefit by experiencing a bit of discomfort (not about me). Many have sacrificed in a very real sense throughout our history but I don't believe sacrificing for what this bunch is asking will only end in tragedy and disappointment. That's three:).
Man, this is some heavy stuff. I'm not being funny. I'm not sure if everyone is right or everyone is wrong or if we should call it a draw.
I do know that when you begin to politicise anything you are not going to win nor will you lose. You probably won't do anything. So, the best thing to do is get past that. We have had some good Republicans in every office and some good Democrats in every office. In fact, weren't the Republicans actually Democrats at one time or was it the other way around. Anyway< I think there is plenty of blame to go around and the mess we are in can be traced back many decades. these things don't happen overnight or result from the actions of a few people. We all know that. And the funny thing is, We won't really know what really happened or what real effect it has for another decade. Then you will hear a lot of "well, I'll be damned".
So, what are we going to do in the mean time? I say we put aside all the name blame, hatred, lies, science and opinions and come up with solutions. SOMETHING THAT WORKS. What do you say ?
Ron (obxguys)