Government Closed, Sun Still Expected To Rise

[Hoss]

Gaspar, from the page you got that image from (or your source got it from):

Pay attention next time.

The second time I've pointed this out today...

Remember who you're asking that of.

[swake]

. . .and driving my car saves gas!

Yeah, about that. it's only part of the full story and I think you know that. Why are you being dishonest Gasp?

From the CBO about these projections:

In its May 2013 baseline projections, CBO projected that the insurance coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act would have a net cost to the federal government of $1,363 billion over the 10-year period from 2014 to 2023. (The ACA includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce federal budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next decade.)

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44465

[Gaspar]

Yeah, about that. it's only part of the full story and I think you know that. Why are you being dishonest Gasp?

From the CBO about these projections:http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44465

Historically has that ever happened with a government program?

Do you honestly believe that ACA will decrease deficits?

[patric]

Yeah, about that. it's only part of the full story and I think you know that. Why are you being dishonest Gasp?

Because Obama must destroy America.  We get it, Gasp.

[nathanm]

So your facts turn out not to be facts, but that doesn't matter because it's truthy? Why do you even bother posting?

[Townsend]

Why do you even bother posting?

Same reason Chet's a wanker...

[Townsend]

Shots fired outside the DC Capital building.

I'm guessing Cruz has lost his s___.

[swake]

Same reason Chet's a wanker...

I think Chet is Ted Cruz...Or should I say Rafael Cruz?

[Gaspar]

Warren Meyer of Phoenix, AZ, is owner and president of Recreation Resource Management, Inc. RRM employs about 400-500 camp workers and managers across about a dozen states. It is one of a handful of companies that have been managing national parks and campgrounds as tenants for years, through previous government shutdowns including the last one in 1995-1996. Those previous shutdowns never closed any of the parks managed in this way, but he has been ordered to close. http://camprrm.com/

The campgrounds are self-sufficient and receive no federal funding. No government employees staff or manage the parks. The management companies pay the National Park Service out of the funds they generate from operating the thousands of campgrounds. So the reason for the shutdown is puzzling to Meyer.

Today, he sent a letter to both of his senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, asking for help to keep his parks open.

"My company, based in North Phoenix, operates nearly over 100 US Forest Service campgrounds and day use areas under concession contract. Yesterday, as in all past government shutdowns, the Department of Agriculture and US Forest Service confirmed we would stay open during the government shutdown. This makes total sense, since our operations are self-sufficient (we are fully funded by user fees at the gate), we get no federal funds, we employ no government workers on these sites, and we actually pay rent into the Treasury."

Notice that last part. The parks not only do not cost the taxpayers any money, they pay funds into the Treasury out of the fees park users pay. Shutting them down will cost the taxpayers money.

How much? Meyer says his parks generate hundreds of thousands of dollars per week. Multiply that across his competitors and the Treasury could lose a few million dollars, in what is essentially free money to the government, over the course of the shutdown.

Which, as Meyer points out, is unnecessary, as these management companies are not revenue losers, but revenue generators for the Treasury.

He writes

However, today, we have been told by senior member of the US Forest Service and Department of Agriculture that people "above the department", which I presume means the White House, plan to order the Forest Service to needlessly and illegally close all private operations. I can only assume their intention is to artificially increase the cost of the shutdown as some sort of political ploy.

The point of the shutdown is to close non-essential operations that require Federal money and manpower to stay open. So why is the White House closing private operations that require no government money to keep open and actually pay a percentage of their gate revenues back to the Treasury? We are a tenant of the US Forest Service, and a tenant does not have to close his business just because his landlord goes on a vacation.

[Townsend]

Warren Meyer of Phoenix, AZ, is owner and president of Recreation Resource Management, \

Here's his blog:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/10/my-plea-to-stop-the-white-house-from-closing-privately-funded-privately-operated-parks.html

Guess he should contact the tea party and tell them to let the house vote that bill...vote that bill...vote that bill!

Otherwise he'll need to heed the contract he signed.

Come hither and give heed.

[nathanm]

The point of the shutdown is to close non-essential operations that require Federal money and manpower to stay open. So why is the White House closing private operations that require no government money to keep open and actually pay a percentage of their gate revenues back to the Treasury? We are a tenant of the US Forest Service, and a tenant does not have to close his business just because his landlord goes on a vacation.

The point of the shutdown is to not illegally continue activities for which Congress has not appropriated funds. Like it not, the parks are subject to appropriations, and thus do not have authority to operate. Interesting that you expect Obama to violate the Constitution because it would be convenient. I'll remember that next time you argue that Obama should not unilaterally ignore the debt ceiling.

There have been Supreme Court cases on precisely this point, that federal agencies may not use revenue like user fees or contract revenue in lieu of a Congressional appropriation absent specific authorization by Congress, and then only for the Congressionally authorized purposes.

[Gaspar]

The point of the shutdown is to not illegally continue activities for which Congress has not appropriated funds. Like it not, the parks are subject to appropriations, and thus do not have authority to operate. Interesting that you expect Obama to violate the Constitution because it would be convenient. I'll remember that next time you argue that Obama should not unilaterally ignore the debt ceiling.

There have been Supreme Court cases on precisely this point, that federal agencies may not use revenue like user fees or contract revenue in lieu of a Congressional appropriation absent specific authorization by Congress, and then only for the Congressionally authorized purposes.

So. . .If I own oil leases on federal lands, shouldn't the government come shut me down?  If not, are they in violation?

Congress is not appropriating funds for visitors to parks, monuments, and other public spaces.  They are appropriating funds for the maintenance and upkeep of those elements and the concessions in place.  

It would naturally follow that the dispatch of additional personnel and equipment above and beyond normal staff levels for these parks, monuments, and public spaces, would constitute a requirement of the appropriation or diversion of funds in the midst of a federal shutdown.  Instead of closing the information booths, and not emptying the trash cans, the president ADDED personnel and equipment so as to cause public spectacle.  There was no other possible motivation. 

If indeed there exists some kind of constitutional violation, as you imply, to allow any commerce or convention on federal property during a government shutdown, than they are in clear violation of your imaginary constitutional requirement by allowing gas and oil leases to operate or any leased entity for that matter.

[Conan71]

Here's his blog:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/10/my-plea-to-stop-the-white-house-from-closing-privately-funded-privately-operated-parks.html

Guess he should contact the tea party and tell them to let the house vote that bill...vote that bill...vote that bill!

Otherwise he'll need to heed the contract he signed.

Come hither and give heed.

Here's the salient point you keep missing:  The administration is engaging in clear chicanery not pulled by previous administrations during the prior 17 shutdowns since 1976.  These are executive branch-level decisions which are "closing" parks which don't even require federal funding for their operation.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Here's the salient point you keep missing:  The administration is engaging in clear chicanery not pulled by previous administrations during the prior 17 shutdowns since 1976.  These are executive branch-level decisions which are "closing" parks which don't even require federal funding for their operation.

As long as the locations require 0 security and 0 maintenance (emptying trash) I agree. Is this the case at these monuments? You need security anyway to keep people out.  Not sure it works.  

[Townsend]

Here's the salient point you keep missing:  The administration is engaging in clear chicanery not pulled by previous administrations during the prior 17 shutdowns since 1976.  These are executive branch-level decisions which are "closing" parks which don't even require federal funding for their operation.

No, what we're missing is all these folks are stationing themselves for sound bites and news shows.  Taking "get re-elected" pills.

We keep thinking people are doing things for or against us.  They're not.  They're doing things for the money for their next candidacy.

We're too gullible as a general populous.