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
Ha! You want to go on a Mule Ride? Heard from my guide that anything can be solved by putting everyone on a mule and head into the Canyon. I believe he's right!
Catch you later:).
Anonomous, this is silly. Now Barney Frank is responsible.
You want facts: how about you just read the financial crisis inquiry commission report? Check out, when you see all the facts, how empty your arguments are. And it is not as if one of the commissioners did not argue your points, he did and the facts annihilate his, what turns out to be, ideological arguments.
Fanny and Freddie did not cause it. It would not have happened only due to Fanny and Freddie. True, the loose credit policies DID mean that when it unraveled, it really unraveled. But most of these people never needed to lose their homes
It is not so many pages long that you can't read it in two days. Here is the link:
http://www.fcic.gov/report
Personally, I do think the US deliberately loosened credit and rules on banks in an attempt to reverse the impacts on New York and the enconomy due to the events of September 11, 2001. However, the report also takes that point of view apart. And, I think the minority is wrong to say "no one caused this."
Read it. It will be good for you ! It is an impressive accumulation of facts.
Hi Anonymous (not verified),
I agree with Ron Saunders that this is getting out of hand. You clearly are witnessing many of the same things that I am, but often coming to diametrically opposed conclusions. That is your right, and there is nothing to be gained in arguing forever.
However, what we do seem to have in common is an affinity for national parks. If so, that is a good thing.
Take care.
Well, Michael, Ron, D-2, there is an obvious divide in how we see things which I understand and really don't have a problem with as we all have different life experiences. What's fun is to be in the specter of these great places (NP's ) and it not be about any of it. Bigger than us and puts us beyond self, from what I've seen. Lots can be accomplished in that kind of climate. OK, given that we aren't together in any of those great places (I am at least) we'll just have to be in a respectful conversation that could be kinda fun.
Can you answer this question?
Without naming names and getting defensive make the case that Liberal/Progressive policies have not had the most negative long term repercussions on the cultural and economic stability of this country. Our present state of things being the result.
I'm looking to do something different if what we have is the result. :).
This is a prime example of funding with borrowed money from the Chinese whether it's the Parks, SEIU Pension Funds or any deficit spending.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110217/bs_nm/us_wiki_china_treasury
Try trading in Krugman for Kudlow.
Sorry, I didn't look any farther that finding out who was on the committee. I knew what the outcome would be:).
Respectfully
Hi Anonymous (not verified),
I don't dispute that both liberals have shared in helping to cause our current economic problems. But I would argue that most of the things liberals have done wrong involved shifting toward the conservative or corporate end of the spectrum. In my estimation, the biggest things causing our economic problems are conservative- and corporation-driven: huge unfunded tax cuts -- especially for the rich, unnecessary wars and bloated military spending, slashed government regulations -- especially of big corporations and banks, the corporate dominance of political campaigns, union busting, resistance to any real health care reform (and efforts to repeal even the wimpy "Obamacare" reforms), resistance to renewable energy and efforts to address climate change.
The issue of our indebtedness to the Chinese is a symptom of this conservative shift. It was predicted and decried more by liberal economists than by conservative economists. I don't remember conservatives like Kudlow vehemently complaining about this when Republicans ran things. You may remember that it was Dick Cheney who said, "Deficits don't matter." Again, I think the major liberal mistake has been to cave in too much to the conservatives on these issues.
A big part of the problem is that much of what is now considered "conservative" would be considered far-right extremism before Reagan started shifting the goal post. And what is now considered "socialist" was once mainstream, even among many Republicans. Republicans such as Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford, who were not at all considered "liberal" in their day would now be considered "socialists" and booted out by today's ultra-conservative Republican Party. That's what happened to a number of mainstream Republican incumbents in the last election, such as Mike Castle in Delaware. The few responsible and moderate Republicans left in any positions of authority are silent, because they are deathly afraid (for good reason) of being defeated by the Tea Party.
Best regards.
Hey Michael,
I wish we were in proximity. A beer summit would be especially interesting...and fun. The best part of this, while there're diverse opinions, reality eventually raises it's head above the scholarly debates.
With the mention of "responsible and moderate Republicans" they do have their counterparts on the other side of the isle of which they were mostly cleansed from the party (Demo) by 111th Congress's actions. Actually (I think) it's not the time to be spineless and operate in purely political/agenda based arguments where the great majority of the public gets hammered.
As to your references to Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford as socialists (I don't think so:). The present day person that's channeling of one of the most popular Democratic Presidents (John F. Kennedy) is Republican Paul Ryan. What appears to be happening using that comparison is John F. Kennedy pitched in battle against the ultra Liberal wing of his own party, leaving the Republicans out of it completely.
These discussions, although seemingly diverging from the great news that NPS funding would grow in the President's new budget proposal (everyone would like more money), it would most definitely push us farther toward a so far unimaginably dire result.
I don't think the President expects the budget to pass. He's covered his political bases and either gets what he wants and the country gets screwed (nothing unusual or he lets the Republicans take the lead and make the hard choices that reality would suggest while taking away what we've grown to consider, entitlements.
Bless the country and the Parks, they are one and the same:).
Beer summit?
Thanks Michael