A parks crisis

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • jpjazz Sandy, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    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.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Feb. 7, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    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?)

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 2:11 p.m.

    Whatever happens, let's make sure we increase the defense budget and maybe add a few dozen more bases in Timbuktu.

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    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 good governance.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    Only two days costs from Afghanistan would more than pay for our parks for a year.

  • Emajor Ogden, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 7:55 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 7, 2013 4:53 a.m.

    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.


    Deal with those first before muddying the discussion with anything else.

    Say it again. medicare, Defense and Social Security. Everything else is secondary.