Bagism: Web Board
[Show Followups] [Post New Message]
 [Search Web Boards] [Web Boards Menu] [Letter Box Web Board]

Re: so the National Parks are Closed

Posted by **comic relief** on Oct 2, 2013 at 2:14:47 PM:
In Reply to: Re: so the National Parks are Closed posted by **pycb** on Oct 2, 2013 at 11:39:23 AM:

***what would be the big deal if the National Parks were permanently shuttered anyway?
***
***taken away from Federal control?
***
***why not simply turn them over the states that they are in to administer?
***
***the Feds could allocate the money that was in the budget to run that particular park for the 1st year & give it to the host state - after that it would be up to the state to decide how & if it should be funded with any proceeds coming from tourism going back to the state
***
***perhaps giving the state some sort of ongoing partial & time limited tax credit to help with the funding
***
***after all - isn't the Federal government's job to oversee & protect the nation as a whole (the common good/external threats) rather than overseeing acreage that resides within an individual state's boundaries?
***
***let the states determine the best way to handle & administer them in a way that's best for the state
***
***how did the Feds become "the groundskeepers" with the rest of the nation funding their operations for areas of land that reside within a given state & who benefit from the land being where it is?
***
***just a thought...........
**
**Greed will take over and the protected land will be sold off and developed. The state would look to 'benefit' from the land, and the land would be lost.
**
**Just a thought*
*
*a possibility but I would think it remote - a large section of upstate NY (the Adirondacks) is currently under NYS control as a State Park & always has been - no exploitation there - very little development
*
*think of how much land in each state is already under the administration of a State's Park Department - these would simply be folded into that Administration & handled the same way
*
*they could always be deeded over with the caveat that they are not open for development & are to remain in their current undeveloped state
*
*it would take the burden of funding them away from the Federal government thereby reducing Federal Spending by the same amount
*

Do you really think that the state governments are in better financial situations?

Sorry to burst bubble, but they're not. Most states are already in the middle of their own budget crises and are making cuts across the board. State parks have already been hard hit by these cuts: "During the past five years, state park systems across the country have taken disproportionately large hits to their budgets compared to some other state functions."..."Closing state parks has been a tactic of last resort, but more and more states are turning to that solution to make up for critical budget losses."


*if I understand the intent of the division of powers between the state & federal government correctly - the states were to have control of their own destinies with the federal government being established to deal with issues that effect the nation as a whole
*
*somewhere along the line we seem to have allowed the Federal government to assume more & more control over local issues that probably should be in the State's control - hence the name UNITED STATES
*
*it's the federal government that unites them & it's role is primarily common defense against external threats & to regulate business between the States - not to control things within the state's borders - I could be wrong in that & perhaps it's overly simplistic - but the states following the Civil War were reluctant to give up control but realized they needed a central government to resolve issues between states
*
*I think regulation & administration of parkland belongs with the states who benefit from that land being in within their boundary


The National Parks Service was established to protect national treasures. The nation needs to continue to protect those treasures.

The money that needs to be cut is military spending. Billions of dollars of equipment is going to just be left all across Iraq and Afghanistan simply because it's expensive to ship it back. I'm OK with a couple billion spent on national parks, I'm not OK with trillions being spent on occupations and the 'war on terror'. The US spends more on its military than the next 11 countries combined. According to that chart, we account for nearly 40% of the entire planet's military expenditure. That's obscene.

Followup Messages:

top of page

 

Home Web Chat Web Boards Discography Library Quiz Art & Poetry Links Store

Image Map -- text links below

Home | Web Chat | Web Boards | Discography | Library | Quiz | Art & Poetry | Links | Store

Produced by Sam Choukri
Frequently Asked Questions
Last updated on Oct 4, 2013