Interior Department staff on Monday tweeted this photo of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke presenting a check representing President Trump's first three months' salary to the National Park Service.
President Trump on Monday donated his salary for the first three months of the year to the National Park Service, a move quickly ridiculed as a publicity stunt by some groups.
The donation, of $78,333, pales in comparison to the estimated $12 billion maintenance backlog facing the National Park System, and comes in the wake of a $1.5 billion budget cut the president is proposing for the Interior Department, which oversees the national parks.
“If Donald Trump is actually interested in helping our parks, he should stop trying to slash their budgets to historically low levels. This publicity stunt is a sad consolation prize as Trump tries to stifle America’s best idea," said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club.
"It's a distraction that falls far short of the $12 billion needed to address the current backlog of park maintenance and does nothing to offset the almost $2 billion Trump asked Congress to cut from the Department of the Interior in his budget. America’s parks, and the people and economies they support, need real funding, not a giant fake check. Parks are a good investment and we must invest now if we want them to be around for our kids.”
At the Center for Western Priorities, Deputy Director Greg Zimmerman said, "President Trump and Secretary (Ryan) Zinke should be embarrassed by today’s publicity stunt. You can’t propose $1.6 billion in cuts to our public lands, then pretend a $78,000 donation makes it better. The White House needs to protect America’s parks and public lands, not pay lip service to them."
Interior Secretary Zinke said the $78,333 would go to maintaining historic battlefield properties in the National Park System. The Interior secretary's tweet of the donation included a note stating that after the president made his donation, an anonymous donor contributed $22,000 to the National Park Foundation.
Comments
ecbuck, try to keep up
Don't bother, argalite. Once they start to publicly suck on Trumps hind teat, they have to continually work to justify each outrageious thing they say, even if it would mean dumping coal waste in their own drinking water.
ebuck, One answer to your question, "What "dangerous chemicals" are on our crops?" is chlorpyrifos. "Chlorpyrifos is a toxin that can affect the nervous system; children are particularly vulnerable, according to the advocacy group Californians for Pesticide Reform. Its use in agriculture can compromise food safety, according to the group, but the risk is especially high for farmworkers and people living in rural areas." You can read more at The Sacremento Bee http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article141697754.html or google it. Just because you are unaware of examples doesn't mean they don't exist.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article141697754.html#story...
So alaska, how many people have died from chlorpyrifos? And while you are tallying up those deaths, tell us how many people ate better and cheaper because of the benefits of using chlorpyrifos. And finally, chlorpyrifos wasn't banned before so how is it any different now with Trump in office?
What has happened to simple manners? Just say "thank you."
Tammy - thank you for your civility.
Ecbuck - I don't have the answers to the questions you posed in your response to my answer regarding your original question about "dangerous chemicals on our crops." I gave you an example when you supposed there was none. You've expressed curiosity about the subject; why don't YOU research the answers to YOUR questions instead of relying on others or only the media you listen to or watch. It involves an open mind; you might encounter evidence that goes against what you have assumed to be true. Facts are like that.
Also, in answer to your final question...it is different now that Trump is in office because his "EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt pointedly announced he was "reversing the previous administration's steps" by allowing farmers to continue using chlorpyrifos."
I don't see why you feel a need to comment on this site, as it seems somewhat obvious you have little to no concern or respect for OUR public lands, including the National Parks. You don't seem willing to learn from others or be open to different views. You pose many questions but offer no factual answers. I will skip over your posts in the future.
Exactly. You blindly follow some organization with an agenda and have no concern for the actual facts. You don't care about balancing the risks against the benefits. You make claims and can't back them up so justify your short comings by challanging someone else to research your baseless claims. So typical. I am more than willing to listen to facts. Present them.
As to concerns for our public lands - I very much have them. I am an avid outdoorsman, enjoy our public lands almost on a daily basis and have been to dozens of our park units. But, I also recognize our public lands are not the be all and end all. There are many other things that need to be considered.
You say I offer no "factual answers". You have asked no specific questions. Do so and I will answer. Or you can just run and hide.
ecbuck, you sound like someone who believes that the current political situation is somehow going to be beneficial to you and your loved ones. This is a terrible but understandable mistake. Unless you are motivated principally by greed and ego, the current political situation will not benefit you. Just the opposite!
Of course there's lots of greedy and egotistical people who *are* benefiting from the current political situation and who are doing their best to keep people like you in their thrall. Like the "Washington Free Beacon" whose revenues have soared by publishing sophisticated propaganda like the article you linked to.
These propaganda articles lie and twist facts to shepard you into agreeing unthinkingly with their selfish views. Like when they claim "The Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications rule would have cost an estimated $108 billion." Omigosh, they are actually quoting the rule's estimated SAVINGS - not cost. Ouch! But if you are already programmed to believe that innovative initiatives like this will hurt instead of help, then you fall easily into their trap.
This is typical of the sophisticated way these organizations use carefully crafted misdirection to get you to return and jack up their advertising revenues. And there's no doubt that they're very good at what they do. So we should all understand how easy it is for you to be herded into unthinking conclusions that serve their purposes, not yours, when manipulated by these skilled and sophisticated propagandists.
But Eric, please remember that while they are getting rich selling your clicks to advertisers, that doesn't benefit you one whit. Your business is selling real estate there in Breckenridge, Colorado - where your neighbors voted overwhelmingly for Hillary and your Democratic Senator Bennet and Representative Polis. Eric, please remember that these are not just your neighbors: they are your customers. Understanding why they have done this will make a bigger difference to your success in your chosen profession than allowing yourself to be lied to and manipulated for someone else's benefit.
Talk to them, talk to the people around you who have chosen to celebrate what is good in their lives, who support restoring adequate funding to the NPS so it can keep our Nation's priceless wilderness land from being exploited by the greedy egotists that would use it to enrich themselves. Make a choice to share your neighbors' joy and confidence; choose to celebrate what is good in your life and your values, instead of embracing the hate and fear that the propagandists would use to enthrall you.
You don't have to be a pawn of those who lie and manipulate you. You don't have to support them in spreading their hate and fear. It's your choice.