Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Dec 5, 2004 - 08:34pm PT
|
Just got this in an email message from a friend, the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (H.R. 3283) passed as part of the Omnibus bill... what joy...
you can read for yourselves:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.+3283:
This bill makes permenant the current "demo fee" and implements a new pass "America The Beautiful -- the National Parks and Federal Recreational Land Pass" and repeals the laws estabilishing the current National Park Passes, Golden Eagle Passes, etc...
Exactly what will happen is not yet known, the "Secretaries" are empowered with many "mays" in the current bill.
Anyone with an opinion, or some knowledge about the implications?
How about a "This Land is Your Land, this Land is My Land" pass?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Dang it! I thought the conservatives were supposed to watch our back on big government! How come the only fees and taxes that go up are the ones that effect me? (not to mention encouraging more waste and development)
These fecal matters are really putting the fecal in Fee Collection.
Sigh
karl
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
It's not a conservative-liberal issue, its an East-West issue.
Western Senators Try But Fail to Stop Controversial Measure
An Ohio congressman with no public lands in his district has forced a measure through Congress to implement permanent access fees for recreation on all land managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation.
Ralph Regula (R-OH), the original architect of the unpopular Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Fee Demo), succeeded in attaching his bill as a rider to the giant Omnibus Appropriations Bill recently enacted in the lame duck session of Congress. The bill was never passed by the House and was never introduced, given a hearing, or voted upon in the Senate. Omnibus bills are considered “must pass” legislation because of the potential for a government shutdown. Some members of Congress use riders attached to them as a way of getting funding for pet projects often referred to as “pork.”
Regula’s bill, HR 3283, allows the federal land management agencies to charge access fees for recreational use of public lands by the general public. The bill has been highly controversial and is opposed by hundreds of organizations, state legislatures, county governments and rural Americans.
HR 3283 passed the House Committee on Resources in September under strong pressure from Regula, who is expected to become the next Chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. His bill is a radical change in the way public lands are funded and stands in contrast to a more moderate competing bill passed by the Senate. There, Senator Thomas (R-WY) sponsored S.1107 that would let the National Park Service retain their entrance fees for local use but would allow access fees to expire in the other agencies. Thomas’s bill passed the Senate in May by unanimous consent but never had a hearing in the House.
Early in last week’s lame duck session, Regula’s attempts to attach his rider were strongly rejected by the Chairmen of all four pertinent Senate committees. Senator Thomas of the National Parks Subcommittee, Senator Domenici (R-NM) at Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Craig (R-ID) of the Public Lands Subcommittee, and Senator Burns (R-MT), Chair of the Interior Appropriations Committee, all westerners, succeeded in forcing Regula to remove his rider on Tuesday.
By Thursday, however, Regula had reneged on the agreement. He went over the heads of the Senate’s public lands chairmen and struck a deal with Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Regula reportedly agreed to give Stevens funding for a road in a remote community in Alaska in exchange for allowing Regula’s bill to be reattached.
That left the four Senators who had negotiated the original deal hopping mad and disappointed millions of fee opponents who expected that such a seismic shift in policy would receive public hearings, not be done behind closed doors.
“This was a victory of pork over principle,” said Robert Funkhouser, President of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition, which has worked to oppose the Fee Demo program. “Ralph Regula is responsible for the first tax increase of the Bush administration. He and Senator Stevens have sold out America’s heritage of public lands for the price of a road.”
The Regula bill will go into effect when Fee Demo expires at the beginning of fiscal year 2005 unless the new congress acts to derail it. Its key provisions include permanent recreation fee authority for all National Forests and BLM land as well as all land managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the National Park Service. Failure to pay the fees will be a criminal offense punishable by up to $5,000 and/or 6 months in jail. Drivers, owners, and occupants of vehicles not displaying either a daily or annual pass will be presumed guilty of failure to pay and can all be charged, without obligation by the government to prove their guilt. The measure encourages agencies to contract with private companies and other non-governmental entities to manage public lands and to enforce fee collection. The bill also establishes a national, interagency annual pass called the America the Beautiful Pass, expected to cost $85-$100 initially.
These provisions have encountered strong opposition in the west and in rural areas nationwide. The program is considered a double tax by many and puts the burden of funding the management agencies on the backs of rural Americans. Regula’s bill failed to attract a single western sponsor but was co-sponsored by seven eastern congressmen.
“This is an abuse of position by Congressman Regula” according to Funkhouser. “Changing public land policy in the middle of the night via a rider is despicable. Once again the Congressman has proven to be hostile to rural and western values and will stop at nothing to push his agenda”.
The provisions in HR 3283 are intended to replace the former Fee Demo program, also created by Regula. Fee Demo was similarly passed as a rider on an Omnibus Appropriations bill in 1996. Originally a two-year demonstration, it was repeatedly extended and is now in its eighth year. Fee Demo has sparked protests nationwide and widespread non-compliance. Hundreds of organized groups, as well as four state legislatures and dozens of counties, opposed the program.
Contacts:
Senator Thomas’s office – 202-224-6441
Congressman Regula’s office – 202-225-3876
Senator Stevens’s office – 202-224-3004
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 5, 2004 - 10:25pm PT
|
Does Roger have some insight on this law?
|
|
Mountain Man
Trad climber
Outer space
|
|
Maybe we could ask the President for his help, unless calling him a Nazi trampling on the Constitution is more important to Baba..
Just joking. Why not everyone call their Congress people and tell them to repeal this heinous piece of crap?
|
|
nature
climber
Flagstaff, AZ
|
|
Help me out here (that url you posted doesn't work for me). The "fee demo" is made permanant in National parks only, correct? (Uhg, I just reread Dave's post - sounds like... sounds like they suck there in washington dc).
Per S1107 it kills the fee demo in all but National Parks. That means the red rocks pass is still going away, correct? I had no idea S1107 would do this in the national parks but I suppose we take the good with the bad - assuming the good is still there (S1107).
Very recently here in Flag the local paper ran an article saying we were waving bye-bye to the red rocks pass. I'm just wanting to know this is still the case.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Sorry Nature It's pass gas time
This new bill, attached as a rider to must pass legislation, will bring back the whole she-bang of fees up your wazoo wherever you go. BML, Forest, swimming pools, movie stars
Why should the theme parks make all the money?
Peace
karl
|
|
jfk
climber
Santa Barbara, CA
|
|
The Regula bill will go into effect when Fee Demo expires at the beginning of fiscal year 2005
does this mean that it takes effect immediately? (FY2005: Oct. 2004 - Sept 2005)?
or can i keep ripping up those adventure pass tickets for a few more months?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 6, 2004 - 09:50pm PT
|
If the link doesn't work go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and enter Bill Number H.R.3283
It hasn't passed quite yet, being a part of H.R.4818
The Bill is still pending... if you would like to express your opinion I suggest that you contact your senator and representative in the appropriate manner soon.
The Demo Fee, is slated to be allowed to become a fee which covers all of the publicly held lands (BLM may be excepted) that meet the conditions layed out under the bill. It does not require a fee, but allows a fee.
The problem is that the revenue obtained can be used for maintenance, etc, so if Congress reduces the budgets, it can point to the various entities in the direction of "use fees" to raise the necessary funds to support the parks, et al. and shift those tax dollars over to something else. You use it so you should pay for it seems to be the current philosophy.... who could argue with that?
My own dog in this fight is that I would prefer the Congress to pass a budget soon, but there is a lot of uglieness in this current bill which is being fereted out, my hope is waning that it will get done before the winter recess...
|
|
MikeA
climber
Farmington, Utah
|
|
You guys are all a bunch of spoiled brats. We're the wealthiest people in the history of the universe and you're bitching about paying $100 or so a year to use public lands.
Meanwhile, Africa is on the verge of complete anarchy because of the AIDS situation....
|
|
Donny Quijote
Boulder climber
Boulder F'n CO
|
|
Ok smart guy....so you're saying that if you don't have AIDS, you don't deserve 100 dollars? You ought to be ashamed of yourself. What's wrong with you anyway?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 7, 2004 - 08:02pm PT
|
I don't think it's the fee, we all pay entry fees... there are several interesting questions which are raised by the introduction of this legislation:
1) If we pay taxes which raises revenue to support public institutions (like National Parks, etc), why should an additional fee be levied to users? Isn't this just an additional tax to a subset of the citizens?
2) Is the Congress moving to a "user fee" model of revenue generation rather than a "tax" model. One could imagine that users pay for everything, and non-users don't. The national highway system, for instance, could be supported by tolls that are collected. Only people who use it pay. Of course, shipping also occurs on these roads, so the cost of shipping would go up, you would see this as increased costs.
3) In a "user fee" model how are those things which are done for the "common good" paid for? Does the NIH keep it's "Intellectual Property" (IP) for the discoveries and license the ideas to the pharmacutical industries, thus generating revenue to maintain a research program. How would we support an armed forces?
4) Is there an economy to be realized in the "tax" model which cannot be in the "user fee" model, that is, someone has to collect the user fee. I suppose this could be done automatically, e.g. automatic toll collection (would require something to identify you in your car, could be a civil liberties issue). A tax is centrally collected with a single set of rules, each "use" mode would require some metering mechanism, some charging mechanism and then some collection mechanism. Plus the revenue would then have to be distributed to the oversight organizations.
5) In the limit, the "user fee" model probably goes over to private business. That is, there is no government, we let the private sector do everything. Then one could count on the "market" to generate "accountablility", if you don't like one provider, then you go to another. With no government regulation (no way to generate revenue to have a government) the playing field would be wide open, wouldn't it?
All this from just some seemingly trivial bill that a bunch of rich cry babies are bawling over? Maybe you're right...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 7, 2004 - 08:56pm PT
|
Jody, your "share" in the land, or as you put it, "partial ownership" is conveyed by way of an informal social contract that you have with the USofA... you did nothing to "buy into" the contract except be born here (which you had no choice about) and to choose to be a part of this particular society (which is something you have chosen).
So do you think this is a good reason for taxation? has the government done a good thing to create the National Park Service, et al.?
You seemed to have had an opinion about taxes (California State) many months ago.
|
|
nature
climber
Flagstaff, AZ
|
|
"I ALREADY pay taxes out the wazoo, what does it get me? The opportunity to pay AGAIN when I want to use land that is supposed to be partially owned by me anyway? "
A ring a ding ding.... That is the heart of the problem (yes, I am agreeing with Jody). The fee demo is a double taxation. S1107 was going to make the fee demo permanant only in National Parks. I've no problem with that. I live in Arizona were we have the lovely Red Rocks Pass. If you are pulled over on the side of the road in Sedona in the places it applies, for say, a broken down car, you are assumed a user of the Forest Service land and thus have to have a pass. No proof is necessary. We tear up the "failure to comply" "ticket" and nothing comes of it. That's aobut to change.
|
|
jfk
climber
Santa Barbara, CA
|
|
national debt?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
I don't think we're taxed enough already because there is such a huge deficit, and has been for so many years but a few, that it's evident we're digging a hole for ourselves.
Now where to get the money? The problem with user fees is that
1. They often cost almost as much to collect as they bring in.
2. They create an incentive for park to engage in construction and development.
3. That leads to ever more spiraling fees as "improved" facilities demand higher fees and administration begins to bloat with the power to finance themselves with little checks and balances.
But we're going to get this very scenario unless we raise a stink cause folks don't quite apply the taboo on user fees than the dreaded "taxes". The philosophy of "privatization" is strong with this administration and the parks are a perfect target for it. Look for more private company's running campgrounds, collecting parking fees, and so on.
Only political resistance to this system will prevent a revolution in how public land is financed. Hello Disneyland.
peace
karl
|
|
Loom
climber
the bathroom
|
|
. . . on war.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 8, 2004 - 12:32am PT
|
The exceptions are interesting... section (5b) states that a "basic recreation fee" cannot be charged in the following cases:
"1) A person under 16 years of age.
2) Outings conducted for noncommercial educational purposes by schools or bonafide academic institutions.
3) The following National Park System units:
A) U.S.S. Arizona Memorial
B) Independence National Historical Park.
C) Statue of Liberty National Monument.
D) National Park System units in the District of Columbia.
E) The Arlington House-Robert E. Lee National Monument.
F) Any National Park System unit convered by section 203 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 410hh-2) other than Denali National Park and Preserve.
G) Any National Park System unit containing a deed restriction on charging entrance fees.
4) For entrance on other routes into the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, or any part thereof, unless a basic recreation fee is charged for entrance into that park on main highways and thoroughfares.
5) For any person whoh visits a unit or area under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and is the holder of a valid migratory bird hunting and conservation stamp issued under section 2 of the Act of March 16, 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718b; commonly known as the Migratory Bird Stamp Act or Duck Stamp Act).
6) For any person engaged in a nonrecreational activity authorized under a valid permit issued under any other Act, including a valid grazing permit."
While I'm sure climbers were not the specific target of this bill, the (3F) provision, which explicitly allows a fee to be charged for Denali, while the rest of Alaska seems fee-less is hard to understand...
Section 7) authorizes a "special recreation permit fee" for use including "(8) An activity for which a permit is required to ensure public safety." Note that this opens the door for climbers to be charged an extra fee to support the SAR activities in the various areas, even though we know that climbers are not the major SAR "users".
|
|
Loom
climber
the bathroom
|
|
"We aren't taxed too little Karl, the government SPENDS TOO MUCH!"
Yeah, there's no political debate around here that I can see.
Oh my, my, "fruit of the loom" now that's fvcking hilarious. He probably had to look at his label to get the spelling right.
Don't worry I have no interest in debating someone about his secondhand dogma.
--------------------------------
This is an important topic though. I think the government should stop creating unfunded mandates. If the administration says it is going to improve the education system it needs to allocate enough funding. If we are going to have a high quality national park system it needs to receive enough funding. If you have a national crisis everyone should share the load. In WWII the top income tax rate was approximately 95%. During the Korean War the top tax rate was about 90%. During the Vietnam War the top tax rate was over 75%. Instead of soaking the rich, the administration is now soaking the children. The corporations own the major parties, and they have convinced a lot of people that what is good for the rich right now will eventually be good for everyone. Meanwhile government services degrade or charge user fees. If your child is kidnapped will you have to pay the FBI a user fee? Education was getting more money for a while, but now I suppose we can reassure ourselves that the children of debt may be stupid, but they're safe from the evil Saddam.
(edit)
The user fees are a regressive tax; that's no problem for the rich or the corporations whose continuing prosperity will eventually filter down to us bottom feeders right? The current $20 charged to enter Yos keeps many of the poor families away. Which I suppose is no skin off the NPS since they get a percentage of concession profits; dirtbag climbers and poor Hmong or Mexican picnickers are not a viable revenue resource. And besides what are all those kids doing picnicking, they should be off doing what the poor have always done--fight our wars--while the rich pay . . . I mean play with money.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Good job Jody, not taking the hook on debating what items the government spends too much on (in this thread.) Naturally we all have our priorities, and even within agencies, there are essential programs and those open to debate. (Do we need space missle defense, new nukes, and all our conventional military? How about Nasa? Toxic Superfund? How about those pesky, lazy poor folk?)
No matter how you slice it though, it's going to be hard for anyone to make the case that financing public lands should come before stuff like national defense, or programs for the disabled and sick. Thus, if spending is going to get cut somewhere, it's going to be cut for recreational public lands.
That doesn't have to be a huge problem. Our public lands did pretty well for a long time on a slim budget. This lean beast did what was essential and little else. (sound like a right winger, don't I?)
But the lure of user fees allows the present government to have it all, commercial development, added jobs, and no new IRS collected taxes. It's not a "progressive" tax either, so the wealthier folks with influence and power don't feel it, and it even keeps out the riff-raff.
Unfortunately for me, I'm riff-raff. I feel the pain of the fees, and I also disapprove of the theme park improvements and supervised atmophere that they pay for. My two weeks in Josh went from $10 to $90 in just a few years.
And one of the scariest things about these user fees is that the folks who get the money are also the ones who decide how much to collect. Can you imagine, Jody, if the welfare administration got to decide how much to tax you for the programs they wished to provide?
The first principle of government budgeting is to spend every dime of your budget, because you need the make the case that you need that much money for the following year. Now, even the budget won't be a ceiling for spending. The final budget constraint boils down to how much they can charge us before we stop coming and revenue goes down from lack of demand.
Unless we care to be squeeky wheels. There is nothing else holding back the train, and we're camping in the tracks.
peace
karl
Oh yeah. Some friends from Sweden were visiting. Now they have some serious, serious tax rates going on there. 50-80+ percent! They still don't balance their budget. We're just spoiled, and our low taxes are a fantasy. We're living on credit cards and Bush is talking about borrowing 2-3 trillion more to make private social security accounts possible.
I'm a huge bear on the economy. These are the good old days, the end is near. In 12 years, give or take 5, economic hell is going change the equations on all these discussions.
What, It's only 10:30 and I'm starting to rant! I'm out of here. Leaving the thread to the grown-ups.
Peace again
Karl
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!