Anyone who thinks putting money into the National Parks System through the 2009 Stimulus Package and that is going to revitalize the national economy is, quite frankly, high on their patchouli oil. There is certainly localized income generated by gateway cities to National Parks but the billions being put into infrastructure and programs is a waste that will ultimately be harmful through this venue as opposed to a separate vote. But that is not how politics works.
I love our national parks and I love the state parks surrounding my house, especially Lost Dutchman State Park. However, the amount of bureaucracy and all the hands that hold the money before the Park Service or even the Forestry Service get to implement necessary plans is too great. Only fractions will actually be used by the boots on the ground to improve trails, facilities and workers areas. If the money could go straight to the services themselves, there would not need to be as much spent or nearly as many fingers needed to touch it.
$1.7 billion is dedicated to the National Parks and Forestry Service. The issue touched on by radio conservatives is the amount of money being placed in Washington DC for projects around the Mall area. which is really pennies of this whole package. I don't begrudge those accusations that the money is excessive for sodding the area. What spent in government is not excessive to some extent?
People who take even a moment to notice our parks system know that there is a severe backlog of maintenance issues that need to be funded and completed and for that I am happy that money will come into these areas. of need. Bridges, trails, signage, roads, all have been in disrepair for years. Usage in parks are up but the infrastructure has not met demand. Every park that needs them has bear proof this and that, but not enough restrooms. Not enough proper housing for staff that often live far away from comfort.
For too long the parks have relied on volunteers and park time workers to band aid issues that need professional help. Any movement to improve systems in parks and forestry with dedicated construction companies and knowledgeable architects is a good thing.
The earmarks for pet projects like condoms and locating global warming habitats is frustrating to wade through. What has truly amazed me is how little this package covers renewable energy. Our new president has promised 5 million 'green sector' jobs yet with this package there is barely a mention green projects that the government can control like say renewable energy sources.
$18.5 billion is dedicated to the Department of Energy but the way in which that money is to be distributed is impossibly unclear as opposed to how say money for the Parks Service is being used. In all 1,588 pages there is not one mention of the word, 'nuclear' and solar and wind capacities are coached into vague paragraphs only describing the need for infrastructure.
My two cents on this whole thing. Make it simple. Our economy is based on the income of the common family and the purchases they make. The largest being a home mortgage for their primary residence. Every family owning a home in America on January 1, 2009 gets their entire mortgage paid for and they keep the title to the house. Second homes and rentals do not qualify, primary residences only. The amount of money being passed in this bill, almost one trillion dollars would easily do that.
The the average family can take that money and reinvest in our economy through starting a business, having a savings (which is an investment in the future), invest in the market, pay off debt which allows other businesses to profit and grow, buy a new car. The possibilities are endless and much better than what this stimulus package is trying to achieve.
I love our national parks and I love the state parks surrounding my house, especially Lost Dutchman State Park. However, the amount of bureaucracy and all the hands that hold the money before the Park Service or even the Forestry Service get to implement necessary plans is too great. Only fractions will actually be used by the boots on the ground to improve trails, facilities and workers areas. If the money could go straight to the services themselves, there would not need to be as much spent or nearly as many fingers needed to touch it.
$1.7 billion is dedicated to the National Parks and Forestry Service. The issue touched on by radio conservatives is the amount of money being placed in Washington DC for projects around the Mall area. which is really pennies of this whole package. I don't begrudge those accusations that the money is excessive for sodding the area. What spent in government is not excessive to some extent?
People who take even a moment to notice our parks system know that there is a severe backlog of maintenance issues that need to be funded and completed and for that I am happy that money will come into these areas. of need. Bridges, trails, signage, roads, all have been in disrepair for years. Usage in parks are up but the infrastructure has not met demand. Every park that needs them has bear proof this and that, but not enough restrooms. Not enough proper housing for staff that often live far away from comfort.
For too long the parks have relied on volunteers and park time workers to band aid issues that need professional help. Any movement to improve systems in parks and forestry with dedicated construction companies and knowledgeable architects is a good thing.
The earmarks for pet projects like condoms and locating global warming habitats is frustrating to wade through. What has truly amazed me is how little this package covers renewable energy. Our new president has promised 5 million 'green sector' jobs yet with this package there is barely a mention green projects that the government can control like say renewable energy sources.
$18.5 billion is dedicated to the Department of Energy but the way in which that money is to be distributed is impossibly unclear as opposed to how say money for the Parks Service is being used. In all 1,588 pages there is not one mention of the word, 'nuclear' and solar and wind capacities are coached into vague paragraphs only describing the need for infrastructure.
My two cents on this whole thing. Make it simple. Our economy is based on the income of the common family and the purchases they make. The largest being a home mortgage for their primary residence. Every family owning a home in America on January 1, 2009 gets their entire mortgage paid for and they keep the title to the house. Second homes and rentals do not qualify, primary residences only. The amount of money being passed in this bill, almost one trillion dollars would easily do that.
The the average family can take that money and reinvest in our economy through starting a business, having a savings (which is an investment in the future), invest in the market, pay off debt which allows other businesses to profit and grow, buy a new car. The possibilities are endless and much better than what this stimulus package is trying to achieve.
No comments:
Post a Comment