If Federal Parks were converted to a Governmental Corp., good or bad?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Molaker said:
It's our job to put representatives in office who will see to the parks future the way we want.
Click to expand...
so government management and elected representatives will save everything??

what government are you referring to?

it's the elected representatives the voters put  in charge that is reason America is bankrupt now.

It may be a better idea just to sell all the national parks to the Chinese and let them manage them ........oh , nevermind ......they are probably already filing foreclosure papers  on them now.
 
FreddyS said:
Agree...but keep in mind the cost of shipping.  Their rates are a little lower than FedEx and UPS because they are subsidized by the American Taxpayer.  The same go for Federal parks.......they too are subsidized.  If they were not, fees and concessions would go up quite a bit and a lot of people would be priced out of visiting them.
Click to expand...

In general, USPS rates are not subsidized, except for a few specific cases, such as Library Materials and Free Matter for the Blind, which are required by the Congress.  Other rates are not subsidized.

Paul
 
I can hear it now......"Attention Campers !....I'm from the government and I'm here to help "

if our government ever thinks they could make money operating our parks....they're gone..
 
TonyDtorch said:
so government management and elected representatives will save everything??

what government are you referring to?

it's the elected representatives the voters put  in charge that is reason America is bankrupt now.

It may be a better idea just to sell all the national parks to the Chinese and let them manage them ........oh , nevermind ......they are probably already filing foreclosure papers  on them now.
Click to expand...
Precisely and this makes my point about as well as anything could.  We (the voting citizens) are doing a very poor job in selecting who we choose to represent us and make those critical decisions necessary for effective government.  You can hardly blame the "government" when we not only send, but keep resending such turds to Washington (and to our state houses, as well).  The "government" is NOT the problem.  For example, if the operation of the National Parks is a priority, when was the last time you asked an office candidate what their position is on the subject or when is the last time you contacted your representative concerning the subject?  I'm probably not any more an active participant than the rest of you, but let's call a spade a spade.  It is OUR responsibility.  And now I step down from my soapbox.  Thank you, very much. :)
 
Use a web site like http://votesmart.org/ to see how your representatives vote and how they stand on the issues.  Before an election, I used a web site (might have been votesmart.org) to find those candidates that most closely aligned to my positions.  None were 100% aligned, of course, but I was able to eliminate many that were in major opposition to my positions and found some that were very closely aligned.  Be an informed voter, don't get your recommendations from the television :)
 
Paul & Ann said:
In general, USPS rates are not subsidized, except for a few specific cases, such as Library Materials and Free Matter for the Blind, which are required by the Congress.  Other rates are not subsidized.

Paul
Click to expand...

USPS is subsidized by American taxpayer.  They use the facilities, postman, trucks,infrastructure  etc... to make deliveries.  Much of this is or has been paid for by the taxpayer.  That is why their rates are generally cheaper than their competitors.  Even with the fees that Federal parks charge, they do not make money and are subsidized as well.  Privatizing them would lead to an increase in fees, no doubt.  How much was a First Class stamp when USPS was fully government owned and how much is the same stamp now?  The increases have been much greater than just the cost of inflation.  Same thing would happen to the parks IMO.
 
r/e, our elected officials ......really !?

here in California, Diane Feinstien, Maxine Watters, Barbra Boxer and Jerry Brown will be in control forever.

the voting welfare recipients greatly outnumber me,... typically the winners of the elections are announced before I even get off work on voting day.  the electoral college system deletes my vote,

Sadly....I didn't even bother voting in the last election. I already knew what the results would be.

When I was a kid I remember my father saying that he feels only people that own property in our country should be allowed to vote.

I never understood  why he would say that ......until I got older.
 
It's an interesting discussion on privatizing the National Parks. When I once suggested that the Lifetime Senior Pass was well worth $100 (it only costs $10), I was slammed by folks who said no way should they have to pay that for the pass. Would these same people now be satisfied with privately owned parks that would probably charge $100 or more per carload for entrance ? And forget working families with children being able to afford the entrance fee and campground fees if the parks were privately operated. Of course, the facilities might be in better condition if the parks were privately operated. I still think corporations should be allowed and encouraged to contribute to the maintenance of the parks.


As for the government mess, all I keep hearing is "It's not my fault."


Wendy
 
I know I have gotten well over a $100 worth of good from mine. And, I would have paid that for it.

Wendy, I can honestly tell you that the government shut down is not my fault.
 
FreddyS said:
USPS is subsidized by American taxpayer.  They use the facilities, postman, trucks,infrastructure  etc... to make deliveries.  Much of this is or has been paid for by the taxpayer...
Click to expand...

Huh?  What infrastructure do FedEx and UPS have to pay for that the USPS doesnt?  Postal facilities are either owned or leased by the USPS, and the money comes from postal revenue.  The trucks and other vehicles the USPS uses are paid for by postal revenues.  The wages and benefits are paid for by postal revenue.

Paul

Staff edit: Fix quote
 
Paul,
The USPS runs at a multi-billion dollar deficit annually - it was $15.9B in 2012. Taxpayers eventually make up the shortfall, plus the USPS inherited  a huge amount of facilities when they were made an independent pseudo-business. But that's not really the subject of this topic.

Parks would be much the same - they would get the park land from the taxpayers who now own it. I don't think any corporation would actually buy Yosemite or Grand Canyon (but who knows? It has lasting value as an attraction).
 
Gary- The multi-billion deficit is for three reasons;  In 2006 the Congress passed a law that required the USPS to fund retirees far into the future to the tune of about $5 billion per year.  The second problem is with people  on the Board of Governors and Rate Commission who wont allow the flexibility needed in pricing of postal products.  The third is just plain bad management from the Postmaster General down to lowest level supervisor.  No entity could survive under these conditions.

By the way, I wished that the USPS paid as well as FedEx or UPS.

As far as the Federal Parks are concerned with good management they will do just fine.  The main reason that when private businesses take over functions like park management at any level the savings they see is the result of hiring cheap labor including illegal aliens.  So far most government entities have not done that.

Paul


 
is it at all connected with the "hustle" you see in FedX and UPS employees?
 
Re: OP's original question, good or bad?

Bad.  Hard to imagine anything worse for the NPs than to have a bunch of corporate efficiency gurus and millionaire CEOs deciding how to take care of the national treasures we call the NPs.  IMHO, the NPs are much too important to trust their care to a corporate group who's first priority is to the stockholders instead of the NP itself.  Is there some requirement that the National Park Service be run at a profit?  No, there isn't. 

There are plenty of ''agencies'' that can get 'privatized' if that's something we need to do... but  not the Park Service, please.  Start with the DOT and big tolls on the Interstate Highways, then the FCC and big tolls on TV system/cell phone system/etc, then the SEC with big tolls on the stock market, then the NIH with big tolls on the drugs... And so on...

Of course it's only my opinion.
 
our government is both broke..and broken,  there are very few, (...if any ! ) government agencys that are run well.

our national parks have survived largely because our government always considered them as a unimportant mandated expense.

I have to think the Post Office could even turn a profit if UPS or FedX was running it, ....although I can't see the current employees staying on through the change.

and I think our parks would be much better if they weren't run by Uncle Sam. As well as a private prison system and possibly even a private military.

do you think the IRS would be run better as a private company ? ........this can go on forever.

It would be a real tough sell to get the millions of Federal employees to ever go to work for a private company.

They are happy just the way things are.
 
TonyDtorch said:
our government is both broke..and broken,  there are very few, (...if any ! ) government agencys that are run well.

our national parks have survived largely because our government always considered them as a unimportant mandated expense.

I have to think the Post Office could even turn a profit if UPS or FedX was running it, ....although I can't see the current employees staying on through the change.

and I think our parks would be much better if they weren't run by Uncle Sam. As well as a private prison system and possibly even a private military.

do you think the IRS would be run better as a private company ? ........this can go on forever.

It would be a real tough sell to get the millions of Federal employees to ever go to work for a private company.

They are happy just the way things are.
Click to expand...

I am not sure where you got you distorted view of government employees, but having been one for 28 1/2 years I can say without equivocation that your views are certainly distorted.

The post office could turn a profit if they were allowed, however, those in charge of controlling and running the post office do not want them to.

Paul
 
gotta agree mostly with Paul...I worked for county building dept for 15 years as inspector then Florida passed legislation allowing contractors to hire their own outside inspectors..How do think that went?? We had to audit their inspection and I could go forever about the poor work they allowed. We were proven to be more effecient, faster and more knowledgeable than the private inspectors...hard to believe but true.

Some things are run better thru the government ( I cant believe I said that) also our expenses did not come from the taxes but instead we operated thru inspection fees and permits...no tax dollars.

Back on subject..I don't think the parks and public lands is one of the things that should be privatized, there would still have to be an agency in place to oversee and regulate the corps so not much would be gained.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 632 (members: 32, guests: 600)

Forum statistics

Threads
131,914
Posts
1,387,302
Members
137,666
Latest member
nativoacai
Back
Top Bottom