Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Use this forum to post links to news stories from other websites - ones that other hikers might find interesting. This is not intended for original material or anecdotal information. You can reply to any news stories posted, but do not start a new thread without a link to a specific news story.
Post Reply

User avatar
Guy
Posts: 3333
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 4:42 pm
Location: The Foothills of Mt Hood
Contact:

Re: Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Post by Guy » November 5th, 2017, 6:05 am

So as best as I can tell these are the actual enacted NPS budget figures going back to 2001:

Enacted NPS Budget in Billions

2016 3.38
2015 3.24
2014 3.10
2013 3.20
2012 3.01
2011 3.00
2010 3.15
2009 3.67 (0.75 Stimulus Boost)
2008 2.79
2007 2.67
2006 2.60
2005 2.68
2004 2.60
2003 2.63
2002 2.62
2001 2.62
hiking log & photos.
Ad monte summa aut mors

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14414
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Post by retired jerry » November 5th, 2017, 6:49 am

npsbudget.jpg
$B is Guy's numbers - unadjusted

infl adj is adjusted for inflation - budget in 2001 dollars

GDP adj is adjusted for GDP - if the size of the U.S. economy grows, we can afford more. Much of the GDP growth is the number of people in the country has grown, so it's reasonable to increase the NPS budget that much.

The unadjusted budget has grown 29% since 2001

If you account for inflation it's gone down about 5% since 2001

If you account for GDP it's gone down 25%

User avatar
BigBear
Posts: 1836
Joined: October 1st, 2009, 11:54 am

Re: Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Post by BigBear » November 5th, 2017, 2:25 pm

I don't think my salary went up 30% (unadjusted) during this period, so the $70 is a sting. How about your car insurance this past year...and rent...eating out much lately? Not everybody can lay claim to your extra disposable income before something has to be cut out.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14414
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Post by retired jerry » November 5th, 2017, 2:37 pm

I agree it's a problem that most of us normal people's salary has not gone up with inflation, or as fast as per capita GDP

Whoever's salary did go up as fast as per capita GDP should be paying more tax so we should be able to keep up NPS spending, at least with inflation

User avatar
Guy
Posts: 3333
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 4:42 pm
Location: The Foothills of Mt Hood
Contact:

Re: Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Post by Guy » November 5th, 2017, 6:13 pm

retired jerry wrote:
npsbudget.jpg
$B is Guy's numbers - unadjusted

infl adj is adjusted for inflation - budget in 2001 dollars

GDP adj is adjusted for GDP - if the size of the U.S. economy grows, we can afford more. Much of the GDP growth is the number of people in the country has grown, so it's reasonable to increase the NPS budget that much.

The unadjusted budget has grown 29% since 2001

If you account for inflation it's gone down about 5% since 2001

If you account for GDP it's gone down 25%
Many Thanks for the number crunching Jerry. Two thoughts:

1)While most of us probably agree we should be spending more money on the NPS it's not accurate to say (as many do) that the budget has been slashed, it hasn't

2) I'm not in favor of 25% increase to match GDP unless my own salary is also increased accordingly first ;)
hiking log & photos.
Ad monte summa aut mors

Aimless
Posts: 1926
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Post by Aimless » November 5th, 2017, 8:08 pm

I'm not in favor of 25% increase to match GDP unless my own salary is also increased accordingly first.

I don't think the government has much control over your salary. :(

However, the government does have some control over who would pay for a 25% increase in the NPS budget to match the 25% increase in GDP. All it would need to do is look at whose net worth is increasing the most and tax them a portion to their gains. Hint: the top 0.01% of household wealth have been accruing a very large proportion of those gains since 1990, while the incomes of the bottom 40% has been basically stagnant for an even longer time.

So, the good news is the NPS should be able to get more money without placing a burden on the people who aren't getting any richer. And if you are getting richer at a pretty good clip, you can certainly complain about paying more taxes, but I won't be all that sympathetic. ;)

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14414
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Post by retired jerry » November 5th, 2017, 8:11 pm

I think it's fair to say it's been cut 5% accounting for inflation. Slash is a bit strong though.

Part of the reason the GDP has increased is there are more people in the U.S. producing income, paying taxes, and going to National Parks. I think it would be fair to increase NPS spending some for that.

Part of the reason the GDP has increased is on average, people are making more income and thus paying more taxes. Maybe you and I aren't included in this, but still, if there's more taxes we should maybe spend some of that on NPS.

They should really do more analysis of what maintenance is required over time and budget it yearly. And if some places are too crowded maybe build some new facilities. If justified spend a little more. of that inflation and GDP increase for example.

I will have to look at the context for use of the word "slash". Sometimes proponents of a government program will exaggerate.

User avatar
Guy
Posts: 3333
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 4:42 pm
Location: The Foothills of Mt Hood
Contact:

Re: Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Post by Guy » November 6th, 2017, 6:12 am

Aimless wrote:I'm not in favor of 25% increase to match GDP unless my own salary is also increased accordingly first.

I don't think the government has much control over your salary. :(
Well that was a Joke! Though indirectly government does have a big influence on my Salary.

Tying or even increasing the NPS budget based on inflation is certainly fair I think. linking to GDP isn't, the two numbers are really not that related.

The old "Tax the 1%" argument sounds good but it doesn't fly for many reasons.
hiking log & photos.
Ad monte summa aut mors

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14414
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Zinke proposes $70 entrance fee at some National Parks

Post by retired jerry » November 6th, 2017, 6:45 am

"linking to GDP isn't"

if the GDP is bigger because we have more people, and they're going to national parks, then it is fair to increase NPS that much

if the GDP is bigger because people more income and can afford more for the NPS, maybe

they really need to budget for maintenance and so forth and justify any increases. Make sure they are keeping up maintenance every year so they aren't accruing a large backlog.

Post Reply