Ruth Rosen was just in my neighborhood and she didn't even bother to drop me a line:
On a recent vacation, I spent a week hiking with family and friends around Mt. Rainier National Park in WashingtonHey, I publicize her column almost weekly and give her access to a global audience, the least she could have done would have been to stop by for a cup of coffee so I could fisk her in person.
Ruth Rosen tells us that she loves Mt. Rainier so much that she wants it under the exclusive control of civil servants, no matter how ill-equipped they are to manage the resource
This much is clear: The National Park Service is woefully under-funded. Visitors have increased 50 percent while the department's budget has declined by 25 percent. Still, like the Smithsonian museum, these wilderness areas are part of our country's heritage and must be protected and preserved for future generations.Agreed -- Ed. Maybe we can start by raising admission fees and rents from concessions and outsourcing certain services?
But privatizing the National Park Service is not the answer. The reason there is a scarcity of public funds is that tax cuts for the wealthy have starkly reduced money for government services. That is why the Bush administration says we are too poor to support what we used to call, not so long ago, the common good.The National Park Service has been underfunded long before George W. Bush became President. Clearly, federal government is not the ideal way to fund the upkeep of the park system. But Ruth Rosen is so enamored with taxes and bureaucrats she would rather see the parks dwindle away than to explore economically viable solutions to preserve our natural heritage.
Meanwhile, Ruth Rosen also tells us she is so violently opposed to business that she would rather risk thousands of deaths in terror attacks than to see our national security agencies engage in innovation:
That the Pentagon would even think of using a business tool to predict terrorism boggles the mind.Next week, Ruth Rosen will call for prohibitions on all "business tools" anywhere in the federal government. No more issuance of "bonds" to finance the debt, no more "telephones", "staplers" or "hole punchers" in federal offices and no more using "money" to pay federal workers. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 06, 2003 07:00 AM
Shark-- Not often I disagree with you, but I think you are off-base here when you say the federal government is not the ideal way to fund the upkeep of the park system. I don't think we as a nation are so poor that we can't afford to federally fund our National Parks, preserve them and keep them accessible to everyone. This is not a job that states can do, nor can a business model do the job.
I think the 'outsourcing' solution will be economically unsound. It will appear to cut costs, but what will really be happening is that services will again be cut because the new workers will be less 'skilled' and capable than present park employees. And contractors will supposedly bid thus reducing costs, but they will still have to make a profit. Where will that 'profit' come from if not from using 'cheaper' labor? And what's to prevent bringing in work crews from Mexico or the Phillipines? I'm sure that would appear to be more 'profitable', but I doubt that such plans are 'viable solutions to preserve our natural heritage' when all hidden costs are included in the analysis.
Unfortunately, I think 'economically viable solutions' will be pursued in the end, and parks as they are today will be lost. Understandably people who own waterfront property on Lake Crescent might prefer higher fees and more profitable management to paying higher taxes to maintain Olympic National Park. But I don't consider upkeep and preservation of our 'natural heritage' a special interest, and figure everyone should contribute through taxes. I am such a strong supporter of our National Parks, that I am even willing to appear to be a fellow traveller with 'tax and spend' Donks.
Posted by: Wilinsky on August 6, 2003 08:31 AMI'm not opposed to using my tax dollars to support the National Park Service. But I also think that those who use them should pay higher fees. (And let's not have any of this nonsense about pricing poor people out of the parks. Anybody who can afford the journey to a national park can afford a few more dollars to park their car at the park).
I also don't trust the political process to allocate enough funds to manage the parks. My interest in privatization is mainly to ensure alternate and more reliable funding sources to maintain the park system.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on August 6, 2003 01:06 PMI'd like to suggest that maybe the problems with national parks has less to do with the funding going to the National Park Service and more to do with the fact that there are too many square miles of this country they have to oversee.
Posted by: Interested-Participant on August 9, 2003 12:42 PMthe national parks belong to every citezen of the u.s. today and for those of the future. we have a duty to preserve these treasures. i know this sounds like teddy roosevelt, but it was true then and is so now. i have been to some of them and there is nothing on the face of the earth like them. there is no man-made object that even comes close.
Posted by: marvin on August 9, 2003 01:58 PM