sammytoo wrote:
I don't think it's a decrease in their funding, it's a decrease in their proposed increase.
Next, I think the NPS waste percentage is probably around 20% so they should be able to absorb this with no noticable change.
My third opinion is that this is all hype to panic the public and encourage more wasteful spending.
Having said all that, is their any reason the NPS shouldn't be self supporting ( at least in their tourist business)?
No, it is not a decrease in the proposed increase, funding levels have been stagnent since the Budget Control Act of 2011. We have been on continuing resolutions that keep the government at the same funding level since then.
The other issue most people don't understand is the "Color of money". Money oblogated for certain things CAN NOT be re-obligated for something else easily. It quite literally takes an act of congress. Sequestration is across the board cuts, every line item. So while the total amount of cuts is small compared to the overall budget, the impact can be significant because of the color of money. When budgets are created, the employee salary line item is set and there is really no excess, so in order to reduce that line item, you have to reduce employee hours, period. And you can't just take funds from a non critical program and fully fund something more critical, like employees. So overall, a department may be able to absorb a cut without affecting the public, they are not allowd to shift funds around to accomplish that. The FAA was a perfect example of this. They had money unused in other pots, but it took an act of congress to give them permission to move that money to pay salaries and keep the towers fully staffed. This is why we are hearing about reductions in park service staff, closures, etc, while there are still programs to study Bison migration or whatever. Without specific permission, they CAN NOT move the money, and that permission has not been forthcomming.
