Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, November 07, 2017

Timothy Egan, New York Times: A president who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing, as Oscar Wilde had it, wants to make it prohibitively expensive for many to enter the most popular national parks. You may have missed this, between the indictments, the terrorist attack, the Civil War revisionism. But the Trump administration has proposed nearly tripling the entrance fees to select national parks, to $70. The man who loves nothing so much as his gold-plated bathroom fixtures wants to gouge people who want to experience something that all of Donald Trump's minions could never create. It's a teardrop in the federal budget, but is emblematic of the ocean of wrong coming from this president. First, we already own these parks -- Glacier, Olympic, Mount Rainier, Zion, Yellowstone, the names themselves music to lovers of magic in the natural world. They are a birthright of citizenship.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Second, the Trump administration wants to jack up the price of admission to our most spectacular public lands while moving to cut the Park Service budget by almost $300 million. The new fees would add $70 million. Go figure. His attacks on the parks would be the biggest cut to the agency since World War II.

Third, he not only wants to make it more costly to get into beloved public places, he also plans to take away land already protected in ways similar to national parks. He told Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah he's going to shrink two extraordinary national monuments -- "for you, Orrin." It's a corrupt-sounding gift to a senator, and a giveaway of a public trust. No drain of this swamp.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article:

The park service keeps that vital history alive. Trump's budget would drastically cut money for historic preservation, and eliminate more than 1,200 full-time employees... . Ryan Zinke, the thin-skinned and very strange secretary of the interior, says the price hikes for select parks are necessary to ensure their preservation. Yes, the parks have a huge backlog of things that need to be fixed. Broken toilets, pockmarked roads, untended trails. And yet, there were 331 million visits to these much-loved and abused places last year -- a record.

The solution is not to make it more difficult for those who are financially struggling to see their parks. Yes, again, their parks.

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-06 11:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Why can't we just add theme parks and rides? We can call it "Nature World" or "Park Land" or something. Add some concrete and asphalt, build some strip malls and chain restaurants, and problem solved!

Sometimes I just don't get liberals. You want to whine about everything.

#2 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-06 11:23 PM | Reply

People are destroying the parks anyways. asshats are everywhere.

littering, trampling, chasing wildlife. ---- idiots.

#3 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-06 11:28 PM | Reply

#2 The preservation and conservation of national parks is antithetical to those things, but well-maintained national parks are an economic boon to the areas surrounding them, as the article explains.

#4 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-06 11:33 PM | Reply

#4 You... do know I was joking, right? I've been hunting and fishing since I was a kid. I insist on clean air and water, and lots of preserved nature. I remember what Los Angeles was like in the seventies: some days, you could see maybe 200 yards due to the yellow haze. It was just like Beijing is today.

Here is video they made of me canoeing back in the sixties: www.youtube.com

#5 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-11-06 11:51 PM | Reply

#5 | Posted by HeliumRat at

we must preserve our concrete Jungles!

#6 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-11-07 12:44 AM | Reply

Good! this will keep the poor people out of our national parks, I mean who wants to look at a bunch of poor people while pedaling there bicycle in the national park! Yick they're tacky!

posted by andreamackris

#7 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-11-07 05:18 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

You know, a Trump Hotel would look awfully classy in Yosemite!

#8 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-07 03:50 PM | Reply

You know, a Trump Hotel would look awfully classy in Yosemite!

Posted by danni at 2017-11-07 03:50 PM | Reply

The wildlife would scare him too bad for that.

#9 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-07 03:52 PM | Reply

Been to Yosemite valley many times. Too many people. Raise user-fees and let the visitors pay for the park. And double it for foreign tourists.

#10 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-07 03:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

Advertisement

Advertisement

Should do celebrity sponsorship.

Put Springsteens name on a rock, should do the trick.

#11 | Posted by Lohocla at 2017-11-07 03:59 PM | Reply

"Been to Yosemite valley many times. Too many poor people. Raise user-fees and let the visitors pay for the park. And double it for foreign tourists."

FTFY

#12 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-07 04:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He's gotta figure out how to pay for all his tax cuts.

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-07 04:02 PM | Reply

"Been to Yosemite valley many times. Too many poor people. Raise user-fees and let the visitors pay for the park. And double it for foreign tourists."

Simple fact of the matter is that Yosemite valley is inundated every summer by upper middle-class white people showing off their new Yves Chouinard outdoor clothing. And foreign tourists. Been that way for decades even when the fees were trivial.

#14 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-07 04:17 PM | Reply

So Andrea, there's no college kids visiting there? Families with kids? Realize, I had three kids so for us to visit the entrance would cost us $280.00. That would have made it impossible for us. It's just a mean spirited exclusion for most Americans and it's completely unnecessary. Our National Parks aren't the problem that costs too much, 2 F35s cost as much as the $300 million Trump wants to cut from the Parks Service budget.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-07 04:28 PM | Reply

We have to pay for all the baby mamma's.

#16 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-11-07 04:28 PM | Reply

We have to pay for all the baby mamma's.

#16 | POSTED BY FEDERALIST

We have to pay for Trump's tax cuts for himself.

#17 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-07 04:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump tactic;

Raise prices. Complain that no one goes to the parks anymore (while ignoring price raise). Ask Congress to remove the NPS and drill, drill, drill!

#18 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-07 04:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

A National Park Service report shows that 3,853,404 visitors to Yosemite National Park in 2012 spent $378,757.7 million in communities near the park. That spending supported 5,162 jobs in the local area.

The peer-reviewed visitor spending analysis was conducted by U.S. Geological Survey economists Catherine Cullinane Thomas and Christopher Huber and Lynne Koontz for the National Park Service. The report shows $14.7 billion of direct spending by 283 million park visitors in communities within 60 miles of a national park. This spending supported 243,000 jobs nationally, with 201,000 jobs found in these gateway communities, and had a cumulative benefit to the U.S. economy of $26.75 billion.

National Park Service

#19 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2017-11-07 04:51 PM | Reply

I had three kids so for us to visit the entrance would cost us $280.00.

Yosemite entrance fees are currently $15 per individual, $60 for a year-long pass that covers everyone in your vehicle.

#20 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-07 04:52 PM | Reply

We have to pay for all the baby mamma's.

#16 | POSTED BY FEDERALIST AT 2017-11-07 04:28 PM |

Sad that you think the $700/month TANF maximum for a single mom that costs $16.5 Billion a Year and helps MANY is a burden but think giving the rich and corporations $700 Billion in tax cuts is a good idea.

#21 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-07 05:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Yosemite entrance fees are currently $15 per individual, $60 for a year-long pass that covers everyone in your vehicle.

#20 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Not for long!

#22 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-07 05:40 PM | Reply

The biggest issue here is whether or not the fees are fully funding the costs. If not, fees need to go up.

I live close to a couple of really nice Metro Parks and a nice State Park. Season passes are pretty cheap and they are definitely worth it IMO.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 05:46 PM | Reply

The biggest issue here is whether or not the fees are fully funding the costs. If not, fees need to go up.

#23 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Why? No, seriously, why? The Parks aren't a damn business.

#24 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-07 05:54 PM | Reply

Why? No, seriously, why? The Parks aren't a damn business.

#24 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

One of our local Metro parks does canoe and kayak rentals and charges are pretty hefty fee for their services....

I get that a public park isn't a damn business, but public parks don't receive enough private donations to operate cost-free.

So, the question becomes, how do we fund them? Usage fees (with seasonal pass options) is how it's done where I live.

That seems logical to me.

How do you recommend funding them?

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 06:00 PM | Reply

The biggest issue here is whether or not the fees are fully funding the costs. If not, fees need to go up.

It's pretty obvious and economically and environmentally sound. Users should pay for the resources they consume. If it's good enough for carbon fees, it's good enough for the parks.

#26 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-07 06:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

One of our local Metro parks does canoe and kayak rentals and charges are pretty hefty fee for their services....

I get that a public park isn't a damn business, but public parks don't receive enough private donations to operate cost-free.

So, the question becomes, how do we fund them? Usage fees (with seasonal pass options) is how it's done where I live.

That seems logical to me.

How do you recommend funding them?

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 06:00 PM | Reply

If this damned country can't fund the national parks service we some poor folk. Hunny if we can spend unlimited funds on the war machine we can sure as hell fund the National Parks. Don't give me that cockamamie hornswoggle that we can't.

#27 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-07 06:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Laura,

Of course our parks can be funded. The question was what is the best way to fund them?

Nothing is free.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-07 06:16 PM | Reply

Of course our parks can be funded. The question was what is the best way to fund them?
Nothing is free.

#28 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2017-11-07 06:16 PM

And the answer is the same way we fund every other government service. With a mix of taxes and fees. We all pay a little and nobody has to pay a lot for public services.

Don't whine about taxes. We pay the lowest tax rates since WWII.

Don't come back with raw numbers being higher. Population is higher. taxes as a % of GDP are very low from a historical perspective.

Don't come back with tax rates before WWII. We aren't ok with letting our elderly and infirm go hungry and die anymore.

#29 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-07 08:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Theodore Roosevelt is spinning in his grave.

I doubt today's GOP would even recognize the man as a republican. And I doubt he would recognize today's republicans as conservatives.

#30 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-07 11:16 PM | Reply

Why? No, seriously, why? The Parks aren't a damn business.

#24 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
One of our local Metro parks does canoe and kayak rentals and charges are pretty hefty fee for their services....
I get that a public park isn't a damn business, but public parks don't receive enough private donations to operate cost-free.
So, the question becomes, how do we fund them? Usage fees (with seasonal pass options) is how it's done where I live.
That seems logical to me.
How do you recommend funding them?

#25 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Are you sure you get that they are not a business? Are you really sure? Because when you say entrance fees should be enough to cover expenses, you are treating them like a business... Are you really truly sure you get that they are not a business.

Here's a revolutionary idea: Keep doing what we are doing now. Some smaller fees which encourage people to get out and appreciate them. And otherwise use taxes to pay for them.

#31 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-08 10:53 AM | Reply

Here's a revolutionary idea: Keep doing what we are doing now. Some smaller fees which encourage people to get out and appreciate them. And otherwise use taxes to pay for them.

#31 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

I'm fine with that.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-08 11:07 AM | Reply

"I doubt today's GOP would even recognize the man as a republican. And I doubt he would recognize today's republicans as conservatives."

He quit the Republican Party and ran for his second term from the Bull Moose Party, and lost.

#33 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-08 11:14 AM | Reply

Typical Trump move.

Cheap, unimaginative and accomplishes little.

Will mostly harm local businesses and the working class.

Creates a negative out of something that was entirely positive.

The only thing missing is some nickel and dime kickback to one his businesses.

#34 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-08 12:20 PM | Reply

The only thing missing is some nickel and dime kickback to one his businesses.
#34 | POSTED BY SULLY

This is just step one. The ultimate goal is to privatize the parks and throw some trump towers on a few and oil derricks on the rest.

#35 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-08 12:26 PM | Reply

I think Trump should designate Central Park as a wilderness area.

#36 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-11-08 01:07 PM | Reply

The biggest issue here is whether or not the fees are fully funding the costs. If not, fees need to go up.
#23 | POSTED BY JEFFJ
Here's a revolutionary idea: Keep doing what we are doing now. Some smaller fees which encourage people to get out and appreciate them. And otherwise use taxes to pay for them.
#31 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
I'm fine with that.
#32 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You flip flop harder than Trump.

#37 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-08 04:13 PM | Reply

Very simple idea. Take approximately $10Billion/year from the defense budget and appropriate it for park management and upgrade.

Simple solutions are usually the best.

#38 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-11-08 04:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The biggest issue here is whether or not the fees are fully funding the costs. If not, fees need to go up.
#23 | POSTED BY JEFFJ
Here's a revolutionary idea: Keep doing what we are doing now. Some smaller fees which encourage people to get out and appreciate them. And otherwise use taxes to pay for them.
#31 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
I'm fine with that.
#32 | POSTED BY JEFFJ
You flip flop harder than Trump.

#37 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

There was no flip-flop there at all. There's more than 1 way to skin a cat. If funding comes from multiple sources - fine. My point was, nothing is free and funding for parks has to come from somewhere.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-08 04:39 PM | Reply

My point was, nothing is free and funding for parks has to come from somewhere.

That's not a point.

That's like saying "my point was, water is wet."

You're all wet. You don't seem to know it either.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-08 04:53 PM | Reply

Of course our parks can be funded. The question was what is the best way to fund them?
Nothing is free.

#28 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

How about the same way we fund our military? That's not free, either.

#41 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-11-09 10:53 AM | Reply

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

Address by REPUBLICAN President Dwight D. Eisenhower "The Chance for Peace" delivered before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16,1953

Can we have that Republican Party back?

#42 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-11-09 10:59 AM | Reply

Trump Wants to Triple Fees to Visit National Parks

...to pay for his plan to carve his face in El Capitan?

#43 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2017-11-09 08:17 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort