President Trump on Monday put a freeze on federal government hiring, an action that could have wide-ranging impacts for the National Park Service as it moves to hire thousands of seasonal rangers and other employees for the upcoming summer.
Beyond seasonal positions, there are many vacancies involving permanent positions that parks are trying to fill. Then, too, there are personnel who have been offered permanent jobs but haven't begun working and are wondering how the hiring freeze will impact them.
At the National Parks Conservation Association, President and CEO Theresa Pierno said the hiring freeze would adversely affect the National Park System.
“Protecting our national parks requires the dedicated efforts of tens of thousands of rangers and other Park Service employees every day, but much of their staffs are edging closer to retirement. Parks already have 10 percent fewer rangers and other staff compared to a few years ago," said Theresa Pierno in a prepared statement. "They cannot continue to be hampered by low staffing, and that’s exactly what will happen with this hiring freeze.
"Park rangers are already forced to do more with less because they don’t have enough staff to handle record-breaking crowds. If Congress and the administration don’t work together to better staff our parks, this will only make it harder for those remaining park staff to care for and manage America’s favorite places.”
Traveler has reached out to Park Service officials for their interpretation of the scope of the hiring freeze and will update the story when possible.
Comments
May I remind President Donald Trump that allocating federal dollars to build "The Wall" at the U.S. border with Mexico has no upside to the overall economy. Eliminating Park Service positions, which would detriment the operation and safety at all of the National Parks - if they remain open, would negatively impact the tourist industry and states' economies across the country. Just ask restaurant owners and gift shop owners, the motel and hotel industry, the airline industry, etc., and see how they perceive this move when their profit margins disappear and revenue streams dry up. Americans don't easily forget when politicians rush to judgement to totally eliminate a sector of the economy that includes the sensitive nature and existence of the National Park Service.
Yes - "General Welfare" not specific welfare.
Huge difference, one you are letting someone keep the money they earned - to the harm of noone. The other you are taking money from someone who earned it and giving it to someone that didn't.
Your comment makes no sense. I don't see you offering any solutions, but rather you just typed a bunch of buzz-word laden generalities that have nothing to do with the fact that this is the year 2017, and the USA is a much more complicated place than it was in the late 1700s. The population in the first census in 1790 was found to be just under 4 million. Now, we're around 320 million. Most of the things that constitute the current beaureacracy didn't exist when the constitution was written. So unless you're making the point that we shouldn't have anything that didn't exist post 1776, then solutions for how to meet the needs of the current time on earth are what is needed.
Also, there is zero evidence to say that federal agencies are overstaffed and need trimming, unless you're talking about the military, which is the sacred cow of conservatives and will never be touched regardless of economic need. Past analyses of previous hiring freezes (such as Reagan's) showed no positive effect on the economy or on delivering of services. In fact, most economists would agree that past hiring freezes wound up costing us money in the long term, and caused economic suffering of workers in the short.
Wondering if you can make the case that enormous tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations somehow align with the "founders' intent"? How do these help the average American? Personally, I find the NPS service, the EPA, and other such agencies much more worthy of financial support than I do a corporation whose primary goal is to make as much profit as possible while moving American jobs overseas.
Right. Like I'm going to let someone defined by the same attributes as our new fuhrer try to presume to teach me.
Luke - perhaps you haven't read all the comments, let me summarize. Yes, the country is different than it was in the 1700s. But the basic principles of limited federal government and personal liberty are just as valid today as they were then. Do we have too many employees? Maybe not for the work we have granted the federal government. The point is, the federal government shouldn't be doing that work. The vast majority of federal government activities we see today fall outside the designated powers of the Constitution. The Constitution specifically says that what ever powers are not granted to the federal government belong to the states. So solution one is to shut down all the departments and programs involved in non-designated powers.
The founders were also brillant in their concept of seperation of powers. The concept is also just as valid today. Unfortunately the vast majority of "laws" (actually called rule making) fall to the Washington buearucracy which acts as legislative, executive and judicial when it comes to making, enforcing and ajudicating those rules. There is no seperation of power. Solution 1 above would address that problem.
Any yes I can rectify tax cuts with the "founder's intent". First because the founders didn't even contemplate a federal income tax on individuals or corporations. Second, they made no provisions for massive transfers of wealth from one group to another. It would have been anathema to them. Finally, the primary beneficiary of a cut in corporate taxes will be the "average american".
I would rather you made the effort and taught yourself. I will give you a hint. Check out Federalist Paper 45.
I've taught myself well, however unlike you there were classes on compassion, humanity, and ethics. Go away. If my son offers me a gook of manga, of which I have no interest at all, I'm more likely to read it than anything you mention.
OK, folks, getting close to that time when the moderator institutes that "three comment" limit on individual posts....you know who you are.