Lost Dutchman State Park is just one of many Arizona state parks that may be shut down by Arizona because of the state's money problems. This television news report shows how such a closure affects the park's patrons as well as the local economy.
One of the important principles of governments when they want more money is to pick a popular and often-used service and shut it down. Create a crisis if you can.
Close rest areas, state parks; let prisoners out of jail. Scare and inconvenience people. Then when the volume goes up, reinstate whatever and tax the daylights out of them. Isn't that how it works?
And there's some reason they can't use workcampers to take care of these parks? Sure, they'll still have the electric and water expenses but camping fees should cover them since, at least for electric, you only pay for what you use.
I don't think they truly understand the effect closing these parks is going to have on their economy.
PennyPA is right. But extend thereality to note that the decision appears to have be made ONLY as regards the state's direct expenses. The decision ignores the collateral income to ancillary businesses who-guess what-pay taxes to the state. That is why the states promote tourism. Hello?
If you look at the the activity in the national parks for 2009, you might realize that people want to travel with their families and in the process DO pay gasoline, sales taxes, and tolls.
Ancillary benefits from tourism don't pay the direct costs. Think of your own budget; should you continue to spend money to help out the national or local economy when you can't afford it?
I don't understand why people refuse to pay taxes or higher fees, yet complain when services are cut back AND object to government running deficits.
State governments have three primary functions: law enforcement; social services; and education. Anything else is optional.
Why blame state government for reacting to lost revenue? Direct your wrath at the real culprits - WEALTHY BANKERS AND WALL STREET MANAGERS with multimulti million dollar bonuses, even while their firms teetered on bankruptcy. I read recently that the bonus money from the top three wall street banks could cover the losses of all 50 states!
Go tell your Congresscritters to support real financial reform and tax these obscene bonuses. Then take a small part of that money to open up our parks and rest stops!
Bruce and Jenna: If last year's State revenues equal the "norm" but go down BUT direct revenues from tourism [park fees,gas taxes from out of staters, meals taxes from out of staters, misc. other sales taxes from out of staters] remain the same or increase [and look at the figures from the National Parks as to increased visitations last year] why on earth would you want to shut OFF that revenue stream and make matters worse?
Also please note that Wall Street Bonuses are EARNED from corporate profits which is not necessarily the same measure for the banks or insurance companies.
Look at the impact of ARM interest increases on the borrower and tell me whether or not we would have had the foreclosures had the banks qualified the borrowers at a higher interest rate and not the "teaser" rates.
Sure, as an RVer, I'm inconvenienced by the closures, but reasoning for them is illogical.
5 comments:
One of the important principles of governments when they want more money is to pick a popular and often-used service and shut it down. Create a crisis if you can.
Close rest areas, state parks; let prisoners out of jail. Scare and inconvenience people. Then when the volume goes up, reinstate whatever and tax the daylights out of them. Isn't that how it works?
Never mind logic.
Wild Bill
And there's some reason they can't use workcampers to take care of these parks? Sure, they'll still have the electric and water expenses but camping fees should cover them since, at least for electric, you only pay for what you use.
I don't think they truly understand the effect closing these parks is going to have on their economy.
PennyPA is right. But extend thereality to note that the decision appears to have be made ONLY as regards the state's direct expenses. The decision ignores the collateral income to ancillary businesses who-guess what-pay taxes to the state. That is why the states promote tourism. Hello?
If you look at the the activity in the national parks for 2009, you might realize that people want to travel with their families and in the process DO pay gasoline, sales taxes, and tolls.
Where's Harry Reid from, anyway?
Ancillary benefits from tourism don't pay the direct costs. Think of your own budget; should you continue to spend money to help out the national or local economy when you can't afford it?
I don't understand why people refuse to pay taxes or higher fees, yet complain when services are cut back AND object to government running deficits.
State governments have three primary functions: law enforcement; social services; and education. Anything else is optional.
Why blame state government for reacting to lost revenue? Direct your wrath at the real culprits - WEALTHY BANKERS AND WALL STREET MANAGERS with multimulti million dollar bonuses, even while their firms teetered on bankruptcy. I read recently that the bonus money from the top three wall street banks could cover the losses of all 50 states!
Go tell your Congresscritters to support real financial reform and tax these obscene bonuses. Then take a small part of that money to open up our parks and rest stops!
Bruce and Jenna: If last year's
State revenues equal the "norm" but go down BUT direct revenues from tourism [park fees,gas taxes from out of staters, meals taxes from out of staters, misc. other sales taxes from out of staters] remain the same or increase [and look at the figures from the National Parks as to increased visitations last year] why on earth would you want to shut OFF that revenue stream and make matters worse?
Also please note that Wall Street Bonuses are EARNED from corporate profits which is not necessarily the same measure for the banks or insurance companies.
Look at the impact of ARM interest increases on the borrower and tell me whether or not we would have had the foreclosures had the banks qualified the borrowers at a higher interest rate and not the "teaser" rates.
Sure, as an RVer, I'm inconvenienced by the closures, but reasoning for them is illogical.
Post a Comment