| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
RumiDude
Marmota olympus
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 3590 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles |
|
RumiDude
Marmota olympus
|
 Tue Dec 20, 2016 7:59 pm |
|
|
Link
I already have one so it is not a personal issue for me. And while at $80 it is still worth it, that represents a 700% increase. In my mind that is too much.
Rumi
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
AlpineRose
Member
Joined: 08 May 2012
Posts: 1953 | TRs | Pics
|
I wondered how long it would be before someone noticed what a great deal the senior pass was. As it turns out, not long.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reststep
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 4757 | TRs | Pics
|
|
reststep
Member
|
Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:44 pm |
|
|
Originally the lifetime senior pass was free and it has been ten dollars for many years.
"The mountains are calling and I must go." - John Muir
"The mountains are calling and I must go." - John Muir
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Malachai Constant
Member
Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16092 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny |
Expect it to keep going up then becoming yearly. It was sponsored by Senator Bishop of Utah who wants to privatize federal land. Making the parks more expensive will reduce use making them easier to do away with. Interestingly, the legislation did not increase the Parks budget. 
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RumiDude
Marmota olympus
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 3590 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles |
|
RumiDude
Marmota olympus
|
Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:53 pm |
|
|
| Malachai Constant wrote: | | Expect it to keep going up then becoming yearly. It was sponsored by Senator Bishop of Utah who wants to privatize federal land. Making the parks more expensive will reduce use making them easier to do away with. Interestingly, the legislation did not increase the Parks budget. |
Exactly!
I am afraid this is a preview of what is to come.
Rumi
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:46 am |
|
|
But if we don't raise fees on National Park Users, senior or otherwise -- how will the federal government be able to eliminate the estate tax on for those suffering families with more than $5.45 million in assets and thus create more "Paris Hiltons" ???
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:40 am |
|
|
Well, national parks are seen a little differently than other Federal land. Most calls to transfer land to the states or privatize focus on BLM land first, and maybe national forests. The "America's greatest idea" concept for national parks mostly insulates them from calls to privatize or sell, though it doesn't get them adequate funding. Even in Utah, the national parks are huge tourist draws, and they draw the people who spend a lot of money. Most likely this is just about money, about getting the parks more money without having to pull it from the general fund.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Malachai Constant
Member
Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16092 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny |
One would think so but understand Bishop is from Utah the heart of the movement to divest federal land. There are current moves increase resourve extractio in NPs including mining in Grand Canyon. The is a very active move to prevent Bears Ears from becoming a NP. Senior Passes are also good in NF, BLM, NF, and Wildlife Refuges. Remember the Bundys?
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trestle
Member
Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 2093 | TRs | Pics
Location: the Oly Pen |
|
trestle
Member
|
Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:38 am |
|
|
| drm wrote: | | Well, national parks are seen a little differently than other Federal land. Most calls to transfer land to the states or privatize focus on BLM land first, and maybe national forests. The "America's greatest idea" concept for national parks mostly insulates them from calls to privatize or sell, though it doesn't get them adequate funding. Even in Utah, the national parks are huge tourist draws, and they draw the people who spend a lot of money. Most likely this is just about money, about getting the parks more money without having to pull it from the general fund. |
Apparently you haven't been paying attention to the Grand Canyon.
The NPS is another sacred cow they're ready to sacrifice. 
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
"Life favors the prepared." - Edna Mode
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Klapton
Member
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 940 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Klapton
Member
|
Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:18 am |
|
|
| drm wrote: | | Well, national parks are seen a little differently than other Federal land. Most calls to transfer land to the states or privatize focus on BLM land first, and maybe national forests. The "America's greatest idea" concept for national parks mostly insulates them from calls to privatize or sell, though it doesn't get them adequate funding. Even in Utah, the national parks are huge tourist draws, and they draw the people who spend a lot of money. Most likely this is just about money, about getting the parks more money without having to pull it from the general fund. |
As an abolitionist who is therefore in favor of "privatizing" everything the government "owns," I do NOT favor selling national parks. Simply make NPS a non-profit organization. Give each park its own autonomy to be part of that larger organization, or to go independent, or form their own. Enough people care about and use our national parks that they can and would survive being removed from the taxpayer teat. They would actually be far better for it by being truly responsible and responsive to their customers.
Unfortunately, when republicans talk about "privatizing" things, what they really mean is handing over things that were paid for by coercive taxation to their cronies. This is NOT libertarian, in case anyone is under that impression, or hears these schemes described as such.
BLM and National Forest land should be opened to homesteading by individuals NOT corporations based on occupancy and use. Handing them over to a different set of corrupt, greedy sociopaths (state or local governments) is barely better than FedZilla "owning" it.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WANative
Member
Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs | Pics
|
|
WANative
Member
|
Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:42 pm |
|
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | But if we don't raise fees on National Park Users, senior or otherwise -- how will the federal government be able to eliminate the estate tax on for those suffering families with more than $5.45 million in assets and thus create more "Paris Hiltons" ??? |
People who don't use the parks shouldn't pay for them.
It's not really fair to make Jose the landscaper working two jobs to make ends meet, pay more taxes so some rich widow on social security can go on a cheaper vacation.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JonnyQuest
Member
Joined: 10 Dec 2013
Posts: 593 | TRs | Pics
|
| WANative wrote: | | People who don't use the parks shouldn't pay for them |
Are you limiting this logic to just parks, or can we apply this to other government subsidized entities like public education? I have no kids. So should I help pay for Jose's kids to go to school?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Klapton
Member
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 940 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Klapton
Member
|
Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:27 pm |
|
|
Turning EVERY government agency into a non-profit organization and requiring them to persuade people to voluntarily fund them would be the ultimate expression of democracy.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:29 pm |
|
|
| WANative wrote: | | RandyHiker wrote: | | But if we don't raise fees on National Park Users, senior or otherwise -- how will the federal government be able to eliminate the estate tax on for those suffering families with more than $5.45 million in assets and thus create more "Paris Hiltons" ??? |
People who don't use the parks shouldn't pay for them.
It's not really fair to make Jose the landscaper working two jobs to make ends meet, pay more taxes so some rich widow on social security can go on a cheaper vacation. |
Literal minded much?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cefire
Member
Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 523 | TRs | Pics
|
|
cefire
Member
|
Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:38 pm |
|
|
| Klapton wrote: | | They would actually be far better for it by being truly responsible and responsive to their customers. |
But the large majority of their "customers" seem to want theme parks...Is the 'responsible' thing to bulldoze space for more golf courses and rides?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
