Thankfully, there are just two weeks left to go in the 2016 general election. Which begs the question: Which nominee would be better for the National Park System and National Park Service?
While Democrat Hillary Clinton did put forth a statement outlining her intention to create a trust fund for the parks, not much has been heard from Republican Donald Trump on the parks specifically.
There have been reports that Mr. Trump would support the transfer of some federal lands in the West to states, a position the Republican Party adopted at its convention this past summer. And how would his proposal to build a wall along the U.S. - Mexico border impact border parks such as Big Bend National Park, Chamizal National Memorial, Coronado National Memorial, and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument?
Which candidate do you think would be best for the park system and Park Service?
Comments
Right, EC. We keep ignoring the context to make an ideological case, and are in fact encouraged to ignore the context when our candidate is being scrutinized. Nowhere have I seen any compelling evidence that Donald Trump is anti national parks. Here is a relevant article done by Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/16/gop-platform-proposes-to-get-rid-of-nat...
However, none of this is to prove what Trump is FOR, either, when it comes to our public lands. I suggest Kurt give him a call!
Please, let's not act like republicans are stewards of job creation let alone masters at controlling the debt or getting the deficit under control. Since i've been alive, when a republican has become president, the deficit has always spiraled up. However, Clinton and Obama have lowered the deficit during their respected administrations. Granted, congress plays a major role in that, but it takes both to tango since they both pass the spending bills. The republican trifecta that was during the Bush administration spiraled us into a great recession that pretty much created a lost decade. I'm one of the few voters that must not suffer from short term memory loss.
As for states that currently bleed deep red with deep red republican leadership, well I can say that i've lived in two such states where republicans pretty much run the states political system with an iron fist, and it's usually a sad state of affairs. Poverty is much more rampant, job creation is usually mixed but never as good as in states that have either a more balanced political system or more progressive policies, and funding for education is abysmal since the good ol' boy networks love to keep a majority of the populace fixated on gods, guns, anti-abortion measures, and bashing gays and minorities - and they spoon feed them that rhetoric ad nauseum. I guess to some extent, the taxes are usually much lower, and usually real estate costs are lower than in more progressive regions of the country. So it has it's benefits and detractions, but let's not act like republicans are the master of job creation or running governments in a fiscally sound manner. That never is the case, and I have yet to see that.
Sounds like some of you might live in the wrong state. Backwoods Alabama or Mississippi is more your calling.
Gary, I would enjoy exposing your ignorance (or intention distoration) of the aboved mentioned events but that would be off topic. Lets stick to Trumps policy on the National Parks To the best of my knowledge he has not expressed a policy and thus accusations he will sell of the parks is utterly baseless.
A word about that term "reduced the deficit." In a few annual budgets, yes, but NOT in actual, long-term fact. That is another sleight-of-hand used by both political parties when it suits their interests. To actually reduce the deficit, that is, the $20 trillion sitting on the books, MANY annual budgets would have to address it seriously, and neither political party wants to do that. So they say, "We reduced the deficit," and let us think they mean the bucket of debt rather than the drip, drip they allow.
In other words, will Secretary Clinton reduce the deficit? How, when this summer she joined Senator Sanders in promising free, free, free? Isn't it wonderful? Debt be gone! Wave the magic wand and believe the Wizard! Fine, believe in your candidate, but don't think for a moment he or she will reduce the deficit by saying "I will reduce taxes" (Trump), or, in Secretary Clinton's case, tax the rich and give you college for free. Win or lose, the rich are not going to stand for it, to say nothing of the middle class. And you can take that prediction to the bank, where no withdrawal is for free.
Go for it then. I'll play your games today, since i have some time to kill. When have you ever shown restraint to not venture beyond the topic at hand? So, go for it. I have experience living in deep red states. I more than likely have lived in deeper red states than you, so I'll play the game. Plus, the budget that congress will whip up is very much related to what could happen to the National Parks over the next few years.
The house and senate that form congress over the next 2 years will very much play as important of a role as the president.
----
And Alfred, I don't disagree with your comment. However, from what I see when there is a democratic president, and a slightly red house our deficiet tends to go down. When it's heavily republican at all levels, or heavily blue at all levels that is when things go out of whack.
Ironically, most millenials today are fiscally conservative but extremely liberal when it comes to social platforms. In the end they would be better off with a social libertarian party, than the two parties we have now.
You need to learn that correlation is not causation
Frankly, I don't really care about Trump's plans [if any] for the NPS, any more than I care about Jill Stein's. As abstract conjecture, maybe, but as a real exercise, not so much. Today, the chances of either of those two being inaugurated this coming January are identical to the chances of Eric and I holding hands on a long moonlit walk. [Sorry Eric - it isn't you; it's me].
In hindsight, the question should have been, "Would a Democratically-controlled or Republican-controlled Congress be better for the National Park System?"
After all, we've seen these past eight years that the president's budget proposal has been DOA in Congress. And yes, the deficits are out of control, again largely because the House has been unable to put together a reasonable and rational budget. Toss in the inability to deal with the tax code, which is a shameful mess and embarrassment, and you have the main reasons behind the country's fiscal woes.
What the country, and the national parks, need is a Congress devoted to working for the country, not its deep-pocketed contributors. Seriously reform the tax code, tinker with Social Security by raising the FICA ceiling and, daresay, require some means testing, and we'd all be better off.