Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

For President's Day: Teddy Roosevelt, like Lincoln and Eisenhower, was a Republican. All three are in the conversation when it comes to the discussion of who makes the list of our greatest presidents. That alone is a wonder in the world of 2018. They weren't faultless as human beings or as presidents, but they were men with souls and some sense of decency and vision for the future of their country. As such, they would never fit into today's Republican Party.

The full Roosevelt quote reads as follows:

Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children's children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, it's riches, its romance.

In today's meme, the first President Roosevelt is talking about the conservation of our natural wonders and our natural parks in patriotic terms; things today's Republicans, led by Señor Trumpanzee and his Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, feel should be sold off to the highest bidder for oil or development rights. Republicans view the beauty of natural wonders such as Yosemite and the Grand Canyon as useless obstacles to profits and personal financial gain. Roosevelt saw our wonders as treasures of a different sort, and sources of pride in their own right. Today's republicans are nothing more than parasites that see our national parks as "hosts" to be sucked dry.

If it were possible, I would love to see Señor Trumpanzee locked in a room with Teddy Roosevelt for five minutes.

The GOP Platform Takes Another Step Towards The Conservative Dream Of Selling Off The National Parks

Suggested reading for Cliven Bundy's pet congressman

In his seminal book, The Progressive Revolution: How The Best In America Came To Be, Mike Lux listed some of the achievements of the progressive movement in this country, achievements that often took years of struggle against conservative forces doggedly serving the interests of great wealth and entrenched, established power. "If you look at our country’s long history," he wrote, "from the days of the first stirrings of our revolutionary impulses against Britain to today, progressive leaders and progressive movements have moved this country forward in the face of bitter-- and frequently violent-- opposition from reactionaries and defenders of the status quo. Consider the major advances in American history:

• The American Revolution
• The Bill of Rights and the forging of a democracy
• Universal white male suffrage
• Public education
• The emancipation of the slaves
• The national park system
• Food safety
• The breakup of monopolies
• The Homestead Act
• Land grant universities
• Rural electrification
• Women’s suffrage
• The abolition of child labor
• The eight hour workday
• The minimum wage
• Social Security
• Civil rights for minorities and women
• Voting rights for minorities and the poor
• Cleaning up our air, our water, and toxic dump sites
• Consumer product safety
• Medicare and Medicaid

Every single one of those reforms, which are literally the reforms that made this country what it is today, was accomplished by the progressive movement standing up to the fierce opposition of conservative reactionaries who were trying to preserve their own power. American history is one long argument between progressivism and conservatism.

The striking thing about this long debate is how much the arguments that have occurred are repetitive over time, in terms of their rhetoric, constituencies, philosophy, and the values they represent. From generation to generation, the conservatives who oppose reform and progress have used the same kinds of arguments over and over again.

Notice what Mike has right between the progressive vs. conservative battle to emancipate the slaves and the progressive vs. conservative battle to move towards guaranteeing food safety for consumers: the progressive vs. conservative battle to establish the great American national park system. Hard to believe but the conservatives fought against it like enraged animals. They-- conservatives, not Republicans, did back in the mid-1800s and they still are today. Watch simple-minded and vision-free Republican former congressman Cliff Stearns (FL) in the video below advocating "selling off some of our national parks."



The whole idea of national parks has been credited not to politicians but to artists and writers like George Catlin, James Fenimore Cooper, Henry David Thoreau, Thomas Cole and Frederick Edwin Church who helped transform the concept of the wilderness as a challenge that had to be overcome to an appreciation for unspoiled nature and spectacular natural areas. The first instance I could find of the political adoption of this attitude led to the create of Yosemite in 1864 when Congress passed a Abraham Lincoln signed a land transfer premised on the valley being "held for public use, resort, and recreation... inalienable for all time." Republicans, of course, have devolved tremendously since Lincoln and Cliff Stearns represents them far better than Abraham Lincoln. After Yosemite, Yellowstone and then Mackinaw were established as national parks but conservatives fail to see government's role in holding America's heritage in trust from one generation to the next. Although Stearns and his right-wing crackpot colleagues wanted to sell off Florida’s Everglades National Park, it is directly responsible for almost 2,400 jobs and $140 million a year in visitor spending. Nationally, the park system is responsible for over a quarter million jobs and $31 billion dollars annually. Conservatives imagine a string on Starbucks along the rim of the Grand Canyon would be more productive.

Richard Pombo (R-CA) was defeated in California for several reasons but his constituents were more than aware that he was advocating selling off the national parks to mining companies when they replaced the powerful committee chairman with political unknown Jerry McNerney in 2006. This year the Republican platform is demanding the federal government immediately start disposing of federal lands on behalf of the anti-park fanatics and the anti-government militias. The crackpot party's platform: "Congress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to the states. We call upon all national and state leaders and representatives to exert their utmost power and influence to urge the transfer of those lands identified." The Koch brothers paid a fortune to have that in the platform.

Most of the tea party maniacs and extremists who stand for selling the national parks are in deep red districts filled with brainwashed zombies who have no capacity for critical thought, like Rob Bishop who has Pombo's old job as House Natural Resource Committee chairman. His R+27 district gave Obama a mere 20% of the vote and Bishop could sell everyone's children and probably get reelected. Jason Chaffetz, another Utah nut case, is just as anti-national park-- and has an even redder district! They're not going anyplace. Nor are some of the other of the worst privatizers like Don Young (R-AK), Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), Paul Cook (R-CA)-- who's sprawling desert district includes Death Valley National Park, the Mojave Wilderness and National Preserve, Inyo National Forest, the White Mountains Wilderness area and is precariously close to both Yosemite, Sequoia National Park and the John Muir Wilderness-- Raul Labrador (R-ID) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ). But there is one who looks likely to lose his seat-- the Cliven Bundy-coddling congressman, Cresent Hardy.

Rep. Hardy is a member of FLAG [the Federal Land Action Group] and introduced H.R. 1445, which would prohibit the Department of the Interior from acquiring new public lands that would be managed by the National Parks Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the BLM, unless the federal budget is balanced. As a practical matter, the bill would prevent the U.S. government from being able to protect Civil War battlefields from development or guard against the building of private mansions on private inholdings within national parks.

Rep. Hardy introduced two amendments that would add loopholes to the Antiquities Act: H. Amdt. 597 to the most recent appropriations bill and H.  Amdt. 345 to the defense authorization bill. He has also cosponsored three other bills that would alter the Antiquities Act, as well as one bill focused on land seizure.

Unfortunately for Hardy, he's in a nice blue-leaning district and his opponent is an accomplished, popular and much-admired state senator, Ruben Kihuen, very much not an admirer of Hardy's vigilante friends and law-breaking fanatics. "For too long, big oil companies and polluters have determined our environmental policy in this country with an army of lobbyists.," he told Nevada voters. "We cannot afford to allow big polluters to put profits above the health of our families and our planet. We must act now to stop climate change and protect our environment for the generations that follow. Congressman Cresent Hardy seems to take his conservation cues, particularly on land management, from his good friend Cliven Bundy. That’s not the type of leadership Nevada needs. I am proud of my 94% lifetime rating from the Nevada Conservation League. In the legislature, I championed bills to increase the percentage of our state’s energy that is produced by renewable energy, and I have been a long-time advocate for protecting our public lands such as Basin and Range and Gold Butte." He promised to "be a voice for keeping our public lands in public hands and push for a funding increase in our land and water conservation fund to protect America’s great places." Please watch this incredible Ken Burns documentary on the national parks and consider making a contribution to Ruben's campaign by tapping on the thermometer on the right.

If you want to watch, say, a bighorn sheep munching on grass at Yellowstone National Park, it'll cost you more this year

Washington Post caption: "A bighorn sheep munches on a blade of grass in Yellowsone National Park (Photo by Erik Petersen/For The Washington Post)" [Click to enlarge.]

by Ken

Trust me, I was going to pass on the story anyway, but as soon as I saw the picture, that became the first story for me.

I suppose it's possible that a check of the Washington Post photo files turned up Erik Petersen's shot of the bighorn sheep munching on a blade of grass in Yellowstone National Park. This would have been a breeze if the Post photo library is digitized; just type "Yellowstone" into the search line and see what comes up.

But I like to imagine a (slightly updated) Front Page-ier-type scene:

The Post editor handling Lisa Rein's report, which will eventually run as "Fees are going up at 130 national parks, many doubling, even tripling, for first time since 2006," has Lisa's draft text up on his (or her) screen. He (or she) gets the photo editor on the horn.

EDITOR: Can we get someone to a national park -- Jellystone, maybe? that'd be perfect! -- to shoot some shots that just cry out "Jellystone!"?
PHOTO EDITOR [chomping on his (or her?) cigar, after thinking a moment]: Lemme check the roster. Yeah, chief, Petersen's free. He's great with that kind of shit.
EDITOR [smiling]: Great! Get him on a plane! Tell him, I don't know, maybe like a bighorn sheep munching on a blade of grass.
PHOTO EDITOR [taking cigar out of his (or her?) mouth]: You got it, chief!
[Curtain.]

Well, it could have gone down that way! Oh, it could too!


HERE'S THE START OF LISA'S REPORT

Fees are going up at 130 national parks, many doubling, even tripling, for first time since 2006

By Lisa Rein
June 23 at 7:00 AM

Just as summer begins, 130 national parks across the country are starting to charge visitors more to get inside, with entrance fees doubling and even tripling at some sites.

The increases are the first since 2006 and are taking effect at both the crown jewels in the park system — including Yellowstone, Yosemite and the Grand Canyon — and at small monuments and historic sites. Visitors entering in a car, the most common way Americans see the parks, are paying more, along with those entering on foot, motorcycle and buying annual passes.

HOW MUCH EXACTLY ARE WE TALKING?

"The fees vary widely," Lisa notes, "as do the increases."

About 70 parks started charging higher fees in the spring. The rest will be phased in gradually, officials said, some not until 2016, when the park service celebrates its centennial. Some proposals could change in the coming months, but Park Service spokesperson Kathy Kupper says that Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis has "pretty much approved all of the requests."

Yes, yes, you say, but can we be more specific?

Among the largest parks, the new prices range from $50 for an annual pass at Arches in southeast Utah (up from $25) to $30 for a car to get into the Grand Tetons in northwest Wyoming, up from $25. And close to the Washington region, the per-person fee to see the Manassas Battlefield is $7, up from $3, while the Harper’s Ferry National Historical Park is charging $15 per vehicle, up from $10. Motorcyclists are getting hit with some of the steepest increases; Joshua Tree in southeast California is now charging them $20, up from $5, for example.

WHAT IF YOU'RE PLANNING TO CAMP,
SHOWER, PADDLEBOAT, OR TOUR CAVES?

Wait, got that right here!

Visitors also should prepare for higher fees to camp, shower, paddleboat and tour caves at a total of 176 parks as the National Park Service boosts fees for amenities too.

HOWEVER --

While "almost every park that now charges fees is raising them,"

about two-thirds of the system of 407 parks, historic sites and monuments is free and will stay that way.

"THIS IS A BLOODY OUTRAGE," YOU SAY?

First, Park Service officials aren't shy about reminding us --

that entrance fees across the system have not changed since 2008, and that the majority have not increased since 2006. Higher prices were banned since then, largely because the park service wanted to keep prices low and boost visitors during the recession. Parks Director Jonathan Jarvis lifted the ban this year, telling park superintendents last fall to begin the public meetings and outreach that must go with any increases.

Then those officials "say the increases are needed to help them get to a backlog in construction projects, many of them vital to the visitor experience."

The agency’s maintenance needs have piled up for years as cuts from Congress have eroded both operating and capital budgets. Half of all paved roads in the national park system have been designated as in fair to poor condition, park officials said in a report last year. More than two dozen bridges need repair, as do more than one-third of the hiking trails — some 6,700 miles.

“Basically the money is used to enhance visitor services,” said Kathy Kupper, a park service spokeswoman, “like building a trail or picnic area, or an education center.”

THE BAD NEWS IS --

The park service says the money expected to be raised is just a fraction of the $11.5 billion needed to repair and maintain roads, trails and park buildings.

Hey, it's not as if those bighorn sheep grow their own grass.

#

A whistle-blower is vindicated (it appears), but his case may not provide much heart to others

Ranger Danno self-published this book about his case.

"We have seen all the types of retaliation he experienced. We just have not seen it all in one case."

-- Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees
for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)

by Ken

To amplify the above quote, the Washington Post's Miranda S. Spivack introduces it, in "Whistleblower in Snyder tree case moves on to a new job, wins settlement with park service," by noting that Jeff Ruch of PEER, "who aided Danno and his attorney, Peter Noone, said the reprisals against the decorated 30-year ranger were the 'most vicious' he has seen."

Here's how Miranda Spivack introduces the apparent vindication of Ranger Danno:

The federal government has settled whistleblower retaliation complaints from a former C and O Canal chief ranger who said he suffered years of reprisals after revealing that the National Park Service had allowed Washington Redskins owner Daniel M. Snyder to cut down 130 mature trees in a federally protected area.

The settlement with Robert M. Danno comes after he complained to the Interior Department’s inspector general and to other officials about the tree-cutting arrangement, and then experienced what he says were eight years of reprisals. The Park Service, he said, removed him from his position as chief ranger for the C and O Canal park; stripped him of the authority to carry a gun; accused him of theft, leading to criminal charges (he was acquitted); reassigned him to issue picnic permits in a park in Northern Virginia with four picnic tables; and for the past three years, threatened him with termination.

Of course under the terms of the settlement, neither side can comment on the case. And of course this in no way benefits the victim in the case, except insofar as it allowed him to get his settlement. It benefits the Park Service and the government generally in being able to cover up their appalling behavior.

Danno did grant a brief interview, in which he said, "I hope that my experience helps the National Park Service get back on course." I hope this doesn't get him in trouble with a potentially vindictive cadre of government managers.

The settlement with Danno, 54, comes after the federal Office of Special Counsel spent seven months mediating the complaints. As part of the settlement, Danno soon will report to work as a division chief for wilderness planning at the Park Service’s wilderness training center in Missoula, Mont. Danno, who lives in West Virginia, has been working for the past three years as a boundary manager at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland while under threat of termination.

Danno, who detailed his experiences in a self-published book, wrote that his problems began in 2005 after he advised his boss, C and O Canal park Superintendent Kevin Brandt, to reject a request from Snyder to cut trees in an area where tree-cutting and brush removal are generally prohibited by federal law.

The prohibitions extend to private property abutting the park, such as the Snyder estate in Potomac, to ensure that scenic vistas are maintained and natural resources are protected.

Interior’s inspector general found in a 2006 report that the Park Service violated its own policies when it allowed Snyder to clear 50,000 square feet of mature trees and replace them with saplings. The report did not find any misconduct by Snyder.

Despite the findings, the Park Service continued to marginalize Danno, he says in his book, and eventually threatened to fire him.

The inspector general’s report said that the tree-cutting plan was approved at the highest levels of the agency and that the office of then-Park Service Director Fran Mainella had given Snyder a green light to cut the trees. The report said that the approval disregarded federal environmental laws, harmed the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park and left the agency vulnerable to charges of favoritism.

The inspector general said that P. Daniel Smith, then special assistant to Mainella, pressured lower-level officials to approve the deal.

Conveniently, the IG report managed not to find clear enough lines of abuse that might have warranted, even required prosecution. The report did say, however: "Our investigation determined that NPS failed to follow any of its established policies and procedures . . . and even disregarded the recommendations of their own Horticulture and Advisory Review Committee."

Similarly, the IG report "did not accuse [Redskin's owner Daniel] Snyder of doing anything improper," but it "suggested that he had access to top Park Service officials that other residents might not have." Isn't that a special way of talking about the way rich people manipulate government to their advantage? (Reporter Spivack adds that "Montgomery County, which also had jurisdiction, later penalized Snyder for the tree cutting, requiring him to pay $37,000 and replant.")

Note that if we follow the timeline, the flagrant abuses occurred under the wholly politicized Bush regime ("Our Motto: Money Talks"), but the Bush regime ended in January 2009. We've had abundant evidence, however, that the Obama administration has if anything less lover for whistle-blowers. I guess we can credit the Obama Office of Special Counsel for mediating a settlement that would appear to pretty completely vindicate Ranger Danno -- even if the settlement it brokered doesn't allow us to describe it in those terms, or allow other whistle-blowers or would-be whistle-blowers to take heart from its example.

#

To reduce litter, you get rid of the trash receptacles, right?

by Ken

Some time ago signs suddenly appeared in one of my frequently used subway stations, the Rector Street station of the no. 1 train, informing riders that, as part of a campaign to reduce litter in the subway, all the trash receptacles were going to be removed from the station.

Um, wait a sec, removed? Yes, removed. The thinking (for want of a better word) was that if people saw that they had no option but to carry their trash with them to . . . well, points unknown, then they would feel obliged to do so. This is based, of course, on the assumption that it's the option of using a trash can that causes people to litter. I know that sounds crazy, but does it sound any crazier than saying that people deprived of the possibility of depositing their litter in a suitable receptacle will be more likely to dispose of it responsibly?

Of course what's really being saved is the cost of removing the canned trash. Once the crud is in the trash can, after all, it becomes the responsibility of the designated authorities to do something with it. Somewhere along the line some genius came up with the "idea" that having trash cans readily available makes people lazy and causes them to litter.

From the Great Minds Think Alike file we learn that the National Park Service has reached the same conclusion, and implemented it in the form of a revolutionary new "Trash Free Parks" initiative. In this case the Washington Post's "In the Loop" team followed up. (I suspect that this item was written by "Loop" deputy Emily Heil, who wrote the earlier piece linked at the outset.)

When cans get canned

We wrote last month about the Park Service's new policy, begun on Earth Day, to start removing trash cans from sites along the George Washington Memorial Parkway -- including popular places such as the Iwo Jima memorial, Great Falls and Roosevelt Island -- essentially forcing visitors to take their empty water bottles, food wrappers and other trash with them when they leave.

This effort was part of the Park Service's "Trash Free Parks" initiative, which hopes to reduce the amount of garbage the government has to haul away. You could think of it as trying to empower the American people to do the right thing and not to rely on the federal government so much.

We were admittedly skeptical, thinking that folks were likely to just throw their trash on the ground if the cans were removed.

But Jon James, superintendent of the parkway, was more optimistic. "It's a mind-set shift," he told us, adding that the program has been successful in other parks, including Catoctin Mountain Park.

A Loop Fan who lives near the Iwo Jima memorial said trash and litter are often seen there since the cans were taken away. (He said the photo he sent as proof was taken the morning after a Marine Band concert on the grounds, so there was a bit more than usual, but it's nonetheless a constant problem.)

We talked trash Thursday with a National Park Service spokeswoman for this region. She told us that older,"well-established" programs have "an 80 to 95 percent success rate." So after a while park personnel only have to "deal with litter left behind by a small percentage."

Well, maybe a mind-set is a hard thing to shift very quickly in this area.

I'm embarrassed to admit that, even with a college degree, I didn't understand a word of what the parks folks had to say. But then, that's just me.


AFTERTHOUGHT: I SHOULD HAVE POINTED OUT . . .

. . . that even if we assume that this nutty scheme works, that people really are inspired to schlepp their trash out of Rector Street station and out of the parks, the amount of trash hasn't been reduced, it's just been offloaded onto somebody else's trash-collection budget.

#

Is Wyoming Congressional Crackpot Cynthia Lummis Out To Destroy Her Own State's Tourist Industry?

Cynthia is the one in the cowboy drag

When Republicans were talking up Sequestration as a wonderful thing that the country should be celebrating, Wyoming's lone House member, Cynthia Lummis, a very rich (inherited, of course) right-wing extremist and proponent of the failed European Austerity agenda, was quoted everywhere as a hardliner on the cuts. "Sequestration will take place… I am excited," she crowed. "It will be the first time since I’ve been in Congress that we really have significant cuts." Excited because she was sold on the idea that the cuts would only hurt poor working families-- and especially persons of color, demographic groups Lummis has never shown the slightest bit of sympathy for or empathy with.

Other than mining and drilling, tourism is the top driver of Wyoming's robust economy. Tourism brings in over $2 billion a year in state revenues. Yellowstone National Park-- America's first-- gets approximately 3 million visitors a year. Other major tourist attractions in Wyoming include Grand Teton National Park, Devils Tower National Monument, Independence Rock and Fossil Butte National Monument.

Monday Jed Lewison reported at Kos that things aren't working out quite the way the simple-minded Lummis imagined they would. Last week Lummis was cheering Wyoming Republicans by telling them that "Instead of blindly filling empty desks, federal agencies will be forced to consider which positions are crucial and make their decision based on necessity rather than luxury."

...until they hit home, like they did last week at Yellowstone National Park in Lummis's home state of Wyoming, where park superintendent Dan Wenk froze his workforce and delayed the start of seasonal hiring and plowing after being ordered to cut $1.8 million from his budget due to sequestration. The cuts will hurt Yellowstone tourism, delivering a blow to the region's economy, but thanks to cheerleaders of sequestration like Lummis, Wenk's hands were tied.

When Lummis was confronted with angry constituents, the obvious thing to do would have been to support repealing or replacing the sequester. Instead, she invented a fantasy in which Wenk was the villain, because instead of cutting his operating budget he should have lobbied Congress for permission to cut his capital budget. But not only was her "solution" not actually a solution, it would have actually increased spending over the long-run.

In an interview, Lummis suggested that Wenk petition House and Senate appropriators for permission to take money from his capital budget to cover the cuts, an idea he said was not legal and would never get through Congress in time.

Beyond the absurdity of a member of Congress urging one of her constituents to solve his problem by lobbying Congress, it would be astonishingly stupid to shift money from capital projects to current operations when interest rates are as low as they are. If you neglect long-term capital projects, sooner or later the bill will come due, and the longer you wait, the bigger the bill will be-- and interest rates are bound to be higher when they do. Unless you're planning to let your most core assets rot, in the long-run it's cheaper to act earlier with low interest rates, and you get the side benefit of whatever capital improvements you've made.

Basically, what Lummis says Wenk should have asked for is like that old saying about shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic, except instead of telling him to shuffle the deck chairs, she's saying he should have asked the crew for permission to shuffle the deck chairs-- never mind the fact that she's a member of the crew. If this is the kind of genius Wyoming sends to Congress, they get what they deserve. It's just a shame that those of us who didn't vote for Lummis have to suffer the consequences as well.

Oddly (not really), Lummis hasn't agreed to sign on as a co-sponsor to the End The Sequester bill John Conyers and Alan Grayson introduced February 28, H.R. 900. It's simple enough so that even Lummis could understand it. The full text of the bill: "Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is repealed." And the official congressional explanation is just as clear and succinct: "To eliminate the sequestration under section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985."

Some of the more prosaic ways Sequestration, which Lummis says she's "excited" about, hurts Wyoming are generally not issues she ever concerns herself with. Before it went into effect, the White House warned this is what it would do to Wyoming specifically-- and just this year alone:

• Teachers and Schools: Wyoming will lose approximately $1,154,000 in funding for primary and secondary education, putting around 20 teacher and aide jobs at risk. In addition about 1,000 fewer students would be served and approximately 10 fewer schools would receive funding.

o Education for Children with Disabilities: In addition, Wyoming will lose approximately $1,511,000 in funds for about 20 teachers, aides, and staff who help children with disabilities.

• Work-Study Jobs: Around 130 fewer low income students in Wyoming would receive aid to help them finance the costs of college and around 40 fewer students will get work-study jobs that help them pay for college.

• Head Start: Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 100 children in Wyoming, reducing access to critical early education.

• Protections for Clean Air and Clean Water: Wyoming would lose about $1,107,000 in environmental funding to ensure clean water and air quality, as well as prevent pollution from pesticides and hazardous waste. In addition, Wyoming could lose another $787,000 in grants for fish and wildlife protection.

• Military Readiness: In Wyoming, approximately 1,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $5.2 million in total.

o Army: Base operation funding would be cut by about $1.3 million in Wyoming.

o Air Force: Funding for Air Force operations in Wyoming would be cut by about $8 million.

• Law Enforcement and Public Safety Funds for Crime Prevention and Prosecution: Wyoming will lose about $36,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives.

• Job Search Assistance to Help those in Wyoming find Employment and Training: Wyoming will lose about $167,000 in funding for job search assistance, referral, and placement, meaning around 6,260 fewer people will get the help and skills they need to find employment.

• Child Care: Up to 100 disadvantaged and vulnerable children could lose access to child care, which is also essential for working parents to hold down a job.

• Vaccines for Children: In Wyoming around 230 fewer children will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations of about $16,000.

• Public Health: Wyoming will lose approximately $352,000 in funds to help upgrade its ability to respond to public health threats including infectious diseases, natural disasters, and biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological events. In addition, Wyoming will lose about $170,000 in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse, resulting in around 600 fewer admissions to substance abuse programs. And the Wyoming State Department of Health will lose about $38,000 resulting in around 1,000 fewer HIV tests.

• STOP Violence Against Women Program: Wyoming could lose up to $12,000 in funds that provide services to victims of domestic violence, resulting in up to 100 fewer victims being served.

• Nutrition Assistance for Seniors: Wyoming would lose approximately $205,000 in funds that provide meals for seniors.

What Will Political Dysfunction Do To America's $1 Trillion Annual Tourism Industry?

The Administration thinks that by next weekend the relatable face of sequestration for thousands in the middle class will be painful airport travel. Long, long lines and miserable delays and inconvenience. Republicans, the s&m party, think it's their job to add pain and suffering to people's lives.

When I was president of Reprise, a division of AOLTimeWarner, we had several sleek private jets at our disposal. I spent a lot of time in New York and in London and flying privately, rather than hassling at an airport, was deliciously convenient. In all my years at the company, though, I never ordered up one of the planes-- not once. It was just too expensive. I always thought it was just stealing from the owners (the stock holders) and that the money would be better used in breaking a new artist. Don't get me wrong... when one of my colleagues was taking the plane and invited me along, I never turned it down. I loved it. It just was never going to come out of any Reprise budget. Once 2 presidents, a chairman, a CEO and a bevy of senior vice-presidents went on a month-long tour of our European affiliates. We went to Paris, Hamburg, Milan, Madrid, Dublin and London and I think I did side trips to Amsterdam, Brussels and Stockholm. Man, there are no words to describe that kind of convenience. The ease of travel was something to marvel at. But it must have cost a fortune.

The people who have the most to say about decisions like the Sequester have their own planes. They tell Boehner and Miss McConnell what they want done. The campaign the Administration is doing to give the Sequester a dysfunctional airport face is laughable to them. Will it matter to GOP backbenchers who start hearing from business travelers?

Ray LaHood is still Secretary of Transportation and he used to be a Republican congressman from Illinois. More than half the Republicans in Congress served with him. He's warning them that this is going to be bad. Friday he predicted chaos at the nation's (public) airports, primarily because thousands of FAA employees-- including air traffic controllers-- will be furloughed to save money. 

"This is very painful for us because it involves our employees, but it's going to be very painful for the flying public," LaHood said.

"Obviously, as always, safety is our top priority and we will never allow [more than] the amount of air travel we can handle safely to take off and land, which means travelers should expect delays," he added.

"Flights to major cities like New York, Chicago and San Francisco and others could experience delays of up to 90 minutes during peak hours because we have fewer controllers on staff."

..."At [the Department of Transportation], we will need to cut nearly $1 billion, which will affect dozens of our programs," he continued.

"Over $600 million of these cuts will need to come from the Federal Aviation Administration, the agency that controls and manages our nation's skies. As a result of these cuts, the vast majority of FAA's nearly 47,000 employees will be furloughed for approximately one day per pay period until the end of the fiscal year and, in some cases, it could be as many as two days."

LaHood said the FAA has begun preparing airlines and unions about the possibility of furloughs for FAA workers. But he said the effects of the cutbacks would be felt most by airline passengers.

LaHood said members of Congress would likely receive complaints from frustrated passengers who are dealing with flight delays.

"As a former member of Congress, I heard complaints all the time from my constituents when their flights were delayed or when their flights were canceled," he said. "Nobody likes a delay. Nobody likes waiting in line. None of us do."

LaHood acknowledged that the White House was seeking to gain a political advantage on congressional Republicans with his dire warning about air travel, even as he denied the administration was using scare tactics about sequestration.

"The idea that we're just doing this to create some kind of scare tactic is nonsense," LaHood said.  "We are required to cut a billion dollars. And if more than half of our employees are at the FAA... there has to be some impact. That's the reason we're announcing what we're announcing."

Tourism is likely to be hard hit as an industry in general. The $110 million dollar cut to the national parks system won't do much to help reduce the deficit but it will mean shuttered campgrounds, shorter seasons, road closings and reduced emergency services

Great Smoky Mountains National Park will close four campgrounds. The Grand Canyon National Park will shorten visitor center hours at the South Rim. Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts will close its visitors center and restrict access to large sections of the Great Beach. And Yosemite and Yellowstone will delay summer road openings up to four weeks, according to the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, which said it obtained the details from sources in the park service.

Conservative have always opposed the national park system anyway and in recent years have advocated to selling it off piece meal. And, over the years, friends of mine who have worked served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee have told me Republicans are generally contemptuous and mistrustful of anything foreign. They don't understand the role of foreign tourism on many American cities that cater to foreign visitors, like New York, L.A., Miami, Las Vegas, El Paso, San Antonio, Honolulu. U.S. State Department Consular offices around the world are already operating with serious backlogs of unprocessed visa applications. Sequestration would force a significant increase in wait times for these documents and ports of entry would also be affected, both in terms of the waiting time for passengers to clear immigration and customs, and in terms of the parts and goods imported into American markets. The net impact of these cuts are not going to save money, thy're going to cost money... and lots of it over a long period time and rippling through the economy.

The Republican Party War Against The National Park System... Meet Cliff Stearns (R-FL)

I can never repeat these paragraphs from Mike Lux's book, The Progressive Revolution, too frequently:

If you look at our country’s long history, from the days of the first stirrings of our revolutionary impulses against Britain to today, progressive leaders and progressive movements have moved this country forward in the face of bitter-- and frequently violent-- opposition from reactionaries and defenders of the status quo. Consider the major advances in American history:

• The American Revolution
• The Bill of Rights and the forging of a democracy
• Universal white male suffrage
• Public education
• The emancipation of the slaves
• The national park system
• Food safety
• The breakup of monopolies
• The Homestead Act
• Land grant universities
• Rural electrification
• Women’s suffrage
• The abolition of child labor
• The eight hour workday
• The minimum wage
• Social Security
• Civil rights for minorities and women
• Voting rights for minorities and the poor
• Cleaning up our air, our water, and toxic dump sites
• Consumer product safety
• Medicare and Medicaid

Every single one of those reforms, which are literally the reforms that made this country what it is today, was accomplished by the progressive movement standing up to the fierce opposition of conservative reactionaries who were trying to preserve their own power. American history is one long argument between progressivism and conservatism.

The striking thing about this long debate is how much the arguments that have occurred are repetitive over time, in terms of their rhetoric, constituencies, philosophy, and the values they represent. From generation to generation, the conservatives who oppose reform and progress have used the same kinds of arguments over and over again.

Notice what Mike has right between the progressive vs. conservative battle to emancipate the slaves and the progressive vs. conservative battle to move towards guaranteeing food safety for consumers: the progressive vs. conservative battle to establish the great American national park system. Hard to believe but the conservatives fought against it like enraged animals-- well... not so hard to believe if you're watching what corrupt and sleazy Florida Congressman Cliff Stearns has been up to lately.

There have been (sick) jokes about how Greece should sell off some of their Aegean islands to German (and Wall Street) banksters to end the financial crisis the banksters have helped get them into. Ha-ha. Stearns says we should sell off some of our national parks to the same people. Watch the video above. "We don’t need more national parks in this country," the bribe-besoted criminal told a townhall meeting. "We need to actually sell off some of our national parks." Think Progress tells the whole sordid story.

Our national parks represent America’s heritage, held in trust from one generation to the next.

Despite Stearns’ idea for a national-park fire sale, the facts show that parks, monuments, and other protected places generate a steady stream of wealth for both the treasury and local businesses. In 2010, Florida’s Everglades National Park generated 2,364 jobs and over $140 million in visitor spending, and Florida’s 11 national parks in total provided $582 million in economic benefits. The National Park Service also reports that America’s parks overall created $31 billion and 258,000 jobs in 2010. In addition to their economic impacts, national parks have important value in that they are available to all of us for recreation, not just the wealthy few.

This is not the first time Republican members of Congress have advocated selling off Americans’ public lands without clarifying how taxpayers would get a fair return for them. Last fall, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) proposed selling off 3.3 million acres of the public lands that belong to all of us. And former Rep. Richard Pombo proposed selling national parks to mining companies in 2005.

So you have Cliff Stearns above with his perspective-- "We need to actually sell off some of our national parks"-- so let me contrast them with a few progressives with a different perspective:

"The establishment of the National Park Service is justified by considerations of good administration, of the value of natural beauty as a National asset, and of the effectiveness of outdoor life and recreation in the production of good citizenship." -President Theodore Roosevelt

"There is nothing so American as our national parks... The fundamental idea behind the parks... is that the country belongs to the people, that it is in process of making for the enrichment of the lives of all of us." -President Franklin D. Roosevelt

"National parks are the best idea we ever had. Absolutely American, absolutely democratic, they reflect us at our best rather than our worst." -Pulitizer Prizing-winning author Wallace Stegner

"The parks do not belong to one state or to one section.... The Yosemite, the Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon are national properties in which every citizen has a vested interest; they belong as much to the man of Massachusetts, of Michigan, of Florida, as they do to the people of California, of Wyoming, and of Arizona."

"Who will gainsay that the parks contain the highest potentialities of national pride, national contentment, and national health? A visit inspires love of country; begets contentment; engenders pride of possession; contains the antidote for national restlessness.... He is a better citizen with a keener appreciation of the privilege of living here who has toured the national parks." -Stephen Mather, National Parks Service Director (1917-1929)

"The American way of life consists of something that goes greatly beyond the mere obtaining of the necessities of existence. If it means anything, it means that America presents to its citizens an opportunity to grow mentally and spiritually, as well as physically. The National Park System and the work of the National Park Service constitute one of the Federal Government's important contributions to that opportunity. Together they make it possible for all Americans--millions of them at first-hand--to enjoy unspoiled the great scenic places of the Nation... The National Park System also provides, through areas that are significant in history and prehistory, a physical as well as spiritual linking of present-day Americans with the past of their country." -Newton Drury, National Parks Service Director (1940-1951)

"As we Americans celebrate our diversity, so we must affirm our unity if we are to remain the 'one nation' to which we pledge allegiance. Such great national symbols and meccas as the Liberty Bell, the battlefields on which our independence was won and our union preserved, the Lincoln Memorial, the Statue of Liberty, the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, and numerous other treasures of our national park system belong to all of us, both legally and spiritually. These tangible evidences of our cultural and natural heritage help make us all Americans." -Edwin C. Bearss, NPS Chief Historian

"The parks are the Nation's pleasure grounds and the Nation's restoring places... The national parks... are an American idea; it is one thing we have that has not been imported." -J. Horace McFarland, president, American Civic Assn., 1916

Watch this preview from Ken Burns' PBS series, The National Parks: America's Best Idea and then think about these Republican freaks like Cliff Stearns who want to steal from all of us and sell the national parks off to help enrich their already TOO rich campaign contributors. Watch it, please...because the Republican Party plans to steal it from us. They really do.



UPDATE: I Don't Want To Give Anyone The Wrong Impression Of The Great State Of Florida

It's not all about beasts like Cliff Stearns. Nick Ruiz is a young father and an environmentalist-- he ran as a Green in 2010-- who is the Democratic Party challenger to whoever wins the vicious primary between clueless anti-environmental Republican John Mica and Sandy Adams. Nick was the first candidate Blue America endorsed this cycle-- and for good reason. He's the antidote to the Republican one-percent extremism that's turned their party topsy-turvy. He can really use some help with his 100% grassroots campaign. Earlier today I asked him for his views on Stearns outrageous proposition.

"Market fascists like Rep. Cliff Stearns, with their GOP TeaParty, obsessive-compulsive disorder of hyper-privatization, represent nothing short of a political sickness. Privatize parks? To what end? America today bears witness to a thoroughly deranged, GOP attempt to deconstruct American civilization as we have come to know it: No parks. No healthcare. No worker rights. No vacations. No collective bargaining rights. No right to choose. No equality.

What's next for the GOP? Cut wages? Oh, yes-- and during the Great Recession, amidst record unemployment and declining prosperity for the 99%-- the GOP proposes to cut wages in half, or rather, that's what the GOP tried to do here in the FL legislature in the 2012 session.

Until my last political breath, I will challenge this market fascist crusade to slaughter the liberal commonwealth of the United States of America. Our beautiful parks, lands and oceans deserve to be protected in the name of the people-- and that is exactly what I intend to do in Congress."

If Greece Sells Mykonos Or Lesbos and Austria Sells A Couple Of Alps, How Soon Before We Sell Off The Rest Of Yosemite?

Yesterday Ken did two posts about the "austerity" movement, by which the very rich hope to even further entrench and enhance their positions in society-- "Austerity": the price we've gotta pay to keep the World's Greediest rollin' in dough and then one poking around one of the loudest public voices of the movement, David Brooks, the NY Times columnist paid to be a mouthpiece for that class which bought the entire "free" press, vowing to never allow themselves to be victimized and held up for public opprobrium by muckrakers again.

How could he have possibly missed this story about how Austria had decided to start selling off its Alps so that the rich could get even richer.

Austria has postponed the sale of two Alpine peaks after a public outcry that underscored the lofty challenges faced by cash-strapped governments that attempt to sell treasured national assets to raise funds.

The Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft, or BIG, Austria’s federal real estate company, proposed divesting two peaks in eastern Tyrol for a minimum of €121,000, but public opprobrium put a brake on the sale.

The agency received an avalanche of calls from irate Austrians, while a series of political figures spoke out against the privatisation of the pair of craggy peaks.

The sale process was temporarily suspended on Tuesday pending further evaluation, with a future sale now likely to be restricted to “Austrian institutions."

“Tyrol is not Greece,” a satisfied Günther Platter, governor of Tyrol, told an Austrian newspaper, adding that the proposed sale had been a “Schnapsidee”, or “crackpot idea."

The comparison stems from a headline last year in Bild, the German paper, urging Greece to sell off some of its most treasured tourist attractions instead of relying on a European Union bail-out.

“Sell your islands, you bankrupt Greeks! And sell the Acropolis too!” the paper proclaimed. George Papandreou, Greece’s prime minister, has insisted the country will not sell these assets as it pushes ahead with a €50bn privatisation programme.

The Austrian affair echoes a similar climbdown by the British government, which in February was forced to abandon a sale of state-owned forests.

In Spain, plans to privatise the popular state lottery as part of a planned multibillion-euro sale of public assets have so far raised few objections.

Like most EU countries, Austria is running a budget deficit, but its debt is rated triple A-- the highest level-- by the credit agencies and the country has no trouble financing itself in the markets.

Laugh, but in our country, where conservatives always opposed the whole concept of publicly owned parks and fought the establishment of the national park system, the masters of the universe now feel the time is right to sell them off or, as David Brooks will one day soon urge, privatize them. And they have just the politicians in their pockets to do it for them, shills to great wealth like John Kasich in Ohio, Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Rick Snyder in Michigan, Rick Scott in Florida and, more tragically, even financially hard-pressed "progressives" in progressive states who have been taking the likes of David Brooks seriously. Yesterday, in a plea for donations, Truthout e-mailed subscribers an ominous missive:

A growing number of politicians are doing their best to take the "public" out of everything in American life, including libraries, schools, government workers, environmental protection-- even parks and parking meters.

And the movement is fast succeeding at creating an environment where only privileged students have access to higher education, by cutting subsidies to state and community colleges to such an extent that tuition is no longer affordable for many young Americans and their families.

When fewer and fewer of America's young people can afford to attend public college, we know that the US is headed toward a third-rate future.