I reject the premise that some program budgets can not or should not be cut.
It's the same thought process that our legislators work under in order to
get re-elected they must authorize more spending and bring home the bacon. Here are some ideas. Reduce park hours, raise fees, solicit volunteers
as caretakers and don't expand expand existing parks are just a few actions
that could shave a few percent from park budgets.
Simple answer: stop blowing people up in Afghanistan and save our parks. (Also,
I look forward to the day when DN gets a proofreader. Misspelling
"minuscule" on your editorial page?)
Whatever happens, let's make sure we increase the defense budget and maybe
add a few dozen more bases in Timbuktu.
Across-the-board budget cutting is often touted as the fairest way to attempt to
reduce government spending, but is actually the worst way since, as the article
stated, it doesn't take any kind of program prioritization into account and
it penalizes the leanest, most efficient programs and agencies, since they are
least able to absorb the cuts. In contrast, bloated and inefficient programs
and agencies tend to be generally better able to absorb budget cuts as they
eliminate waste and become more efficient out of necessity.The
preferred way to reduce government spending is to prioritize and analyze
programs, and then to target duplication, waste, and the lowest priority
programs for elimination. Unfortunately, this method also faces the most
resistance, because lawmakers are loath to close government facilities or
terminate government contracts in their home states or districts; after all,
they were elected with a mandate to "bring home the pork" (or so they
think). In reality, voters often DO penalize lawmakers for allowing those kinds
of cuts to happen amongst their constituencies on their watch, which is
shortsighted on the voters' part, and leads to systemic disincentives to
Only two days costs from Afghanistan would more than pay for our parks for a
JoeBlow,Bingo. Those three are the hardest to reform and are the most
likely to cost politicians and their parties votes in future elections. Which is
exactly why we can expect to see small ticket spending like National Parks
eviscerated before big ticket items are addressed.
Every one thinks we should reduce spending, but not spending that affects ME.We should be justifying every dollar spent, but picking up pennies while
dollars float away is a joke.MEDICARE, DEFENSE and SOCIAL
SECURITY.Deal with those first before muddying the discussion with
anything else.Say it again. medicare, Defense and Social Security.
Everything else is secondary.