Republican Tax Refund?

[jj]

The monuments are a bad example because there's basically no cost to keeping them "open". In fact, it costs more money to try to close them. There are upkeep costs, but they don't need to be incurred on a daily basis. The attempt to close down the WW2 monument, for example, is petty and vindictive and makes zero sense from a purely budgetary perspective.

But in general, I don't think most of the museums on the mall, or most national parks, can break even on their own let alone produce net-positive revenue. I'd be interested in seeing data to the contrary, if anyone has any.

Because it's the law, it's a law congress passed a long time ago, that limits the ability of the executive branch to spend money.

You may not like it, it's caused me to cancel a vacation myself, but it's the law, good or bad.

And you know that you'd be right in line to IMPEACH OBAMA if he didn't follow it to the smallest nit.

 

[jj]

Because the Dems want the shut down to have the most visible impact for the voters, and blame it all on the Repubs.

Because it's the law. Please don't try to blame this on the present lot of Democrats, that's dishonest and misleading, as well as precisely counterfactual.

 

[OMGturt1es]

The indirect revenue is real and is, of course, NOT irrelevant. When all is said and done, there's a financial plus side to keeping them open. That is my point. Apparently, you're having a hard time getting it.

Simply employing folks raises indirect revenue-- revenue that is amazingly important during a slow economic recovery-- by providing income to consumers who then provide business to local economies. Moreover, many of those employees provide services that business relies on. I know I have historically relied on NRCS soil data, Census data, USGS Landsat (satellite) data, etc. Without funding, these services cease, which also ceases business that relies on these services.

If this were simply about cost and benefit, it would be a no-brainer: The government would stay open. But it's not. At the end of the day, it's about a lack of money. The government literally does not have the money to pay all its bills. Employee wages, utilities, contractors, etc.-- it can't pay everything, so it has to pick and chose.

Regarding national parks specifically, my guess is that there are serious concerns about liability, maintenance, graffiti, etc. And while I appreciate volunteers wanting to step up and do the right thing, I don't think it's a good idea. I'd imagine it would create all sorts of training, legality, and liability issues.

And, honestly, from a branding standpoint, I don't think it's a good idea either. Under a best case scenario, the success of temporary volunteerism would simply add to the flawed idea that government can be replaced by volunteerism, despite the obvious fact that temporary volunteerism during a temporary government shutdown is obviously not a sustainable, long term solution. And even if it were-- it's obviously not, but just for the sake of argument-- it would simply be a waste of an opportunity to circulate money through wages, as sustaining that level of volunteerism would involve permanently removing a large chunk of folks from employment.

Good luck with the fire season. I'm near Sacramento, so while I'm not that threatened, I'm very well aware of the risks. I was up in the Lakes Basin Recreation Area recently. It was 90 degrees and dry. It's been about 104 multiple times this year, which is about 20 degrees above the average annual high. In fact, the entire month of July was above the annual high. So I know things are pretty rough up in the Sierra. I can't imagine things are much better down where you're at. Hopefully this all ends soon.

 

[casebro]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

.....Another question I have is this: Why shut down national parks, museums and monuments?
....



Nonsense. The Democrats aren't the ones shutting things down.

It takes two to tango.

And the bureaucrats are the ones deciding which are "essential services". And the bureaucrats are mostly Democrats. You see, it's the Executive branch that does the managing, and the chief executive is Barrack Obama. Did you know he is a Democrat?

 

[Spindrift]

It takes two to tango.

And it only takes one dance partner to **** it up for both of them.

 

[Spindrift]

The indirect revenue is real and is, of course, NOT irrelevant. When all is said and done, there's a financial plus side to keeping them open. That is my point. Apparently, you're having a hard time getting it.

Apparently you're having an impossible time getting it.

There's a financial plus side to keeping everything open but you can't use indirect revenue to operate the parks. The parks do not generate enough revenue on their own.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because it's the law, it's a law congress passed a long time ago, that limits the ability of the executive branch to spend money.

It doesn't cost any money to not put up fences. No law required the erection of barricades to close off an open-air monument.

Jeeze, do you even read what you post?

And you know that you'd be right in line to IMPEACH OBAMA if he didn't follow it to the smallest nit.

Bwahahahaha! Who'da thunk that you'd be the one suggesting impeachment in a serious tone?

 

[bonzombiekitty]

The indirect revenue is real and is, of course, NOT irrelevant. When all is said and done, there's a financial plus side to keeping them open. That is my point. Apparently, you're having a hard time getting it.

I don't think you are understanding what he is saying. Parks cost money to run. Entrance fees, etc do not bring in enough money to pay for that. They are not profit centers or even self supporting like the postal service. So when the gov't shuts down, they do too because they need the money that legislature approves.

Yes, having them open is a net benefit to the government as a whole as it brings in taxes raised by the tourism industry. But those taxes aren't directly paying to keep the parks open. It sucks for local businesses and such, but that's what happens when the government shuts down.

 

[TimCallahan]

I don't think you are understanding what he is saying. Parks cost money to run. Entrance fees, etc do not bring in enough money to pay for that. They are not profit centers or even self supporting like the postal service. So when the gov't shuts down, they do too because they need the money that legislature approves.

Yes, having them open is a net benefit to the government as a whole as it brings in taxes raised by the tourism industry. But those taxes aren't directly paying to keep the parks open. It sucks for local businesses and such, but that's what happens when the government shuts down.

I have a feeling we're talking past one another. I may be at fault for this situation by not myself clear. So, her's my position: When the parks and monuments are open, the net balance for the economy is positive. The costs of keeping the parks open are more than balanced by the revenue - indirect though it may be - generated by their operation.

As to the revenue lost, it sucks for more than local businesses. Remember that these parks and monuments are spread across the nation. According to Daily Kos we lose $300,000,000.00 a day because of the shutdown. While this present amount is a fraction of our economy, as the shutdown continues it becomes more substantive (from the article):

Lexington, Massachusetts-based IHS, a global market research firm, estimates that its forecast for 2.2 percent annualized growth in the fourth quarter will be reduced 0.2 percentage point in a weeklong shutdown.

 

[Spindrift]

I have a feeling we're talking past one another. I may be at fault for this situation by not myself clear. So, her's my position: When the parks and monuments are open, the net balance for the economy is positive. The costs of keeping the parks open are more than balanced by the revenue - indirect though it may be - generated by their operation.

As to the revenue lost, it sucks for more than local businesses. Remember that these parks and monuments are spread across the nation. According to Daily Kos we lose $300,000,000.00 a day because of the shutdown.

I don't know how to make it any simpler. The parks do not get any indirect revenue without the rest of the government giving it to them. So the only way to keep the parks open is to keep the government running otherwise the parks don't have enough money to operate.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't know how to make it any simpler. The parks do not get any indirect revenue without the rest of the government giving it to them. So the only way to keep the parks open is to keep the government running otherwise the parks don't have enough money to operate.

That's true for a lot of parks. Some parks, however, do not get any funding from the federal government, but were still shut down. These are parks where the management is contracted out to private companies who receive zero money from the federal government but in fact pay the government from their revenues. Their operating expenses are not dependent upon any government funding, and none of their workers are federal employees. They didn't need to be closed, and in fact were not in previous shutdowns. It makes zero sense to close those parks except to inflict pain on the public.

 

[Aridas]

I don't know how to make it any simpler. The parks do not get any indirect revenue without the rest of the government giving it to them. So the only way to keep the parks open is to keep the government running otherwise the parks don't have enough money to operate.

I... think that he's aware of that, by now, but his argument is that the government *should* keep them open because doing so will pay for itself at least indirectly.

 

[Spindrift]

I... think that he's aware of that, by now, but his argument is that the government *should* keep them open because doing so will pay for itself at least indirectly.

But it won't without the rest of the government to give the parks service money from those indirect sources.

 

[Spindrift]

That's true for a lot of parks. Some parks, however, do not get any funding from the federal government, but were still shut down. These are parks where the management is contracted out to private companies who receive zero money from the federal government but in fact pay the government from their revenues. Their operating expenses are not dependent upon any government funding, and none of their workers are federal employees. They didn't need to be closed, and in fact were not in previous shutdowns. It makes zero sense to close those parks except to inflict pain on the public.

I went to that link. It's not clear that the parks are privately run. It could be concessions within parks that are privately run.

Mr. Meyer does seem to have some woo in him:
http://www.coyoteblog.com/about.html

 

[TimCallahan]

I don't know how to make it any simpler. The parks do not get any indirect revenue without the rest of the government giving it to them. So the only way to keep the parks open is to keep the government running otherwise the parks don't have enough money to operate.

Again, I think we're talking past one another. Yes, I'm aware that the parks need federal funds to operate, that the entrance fees they charge don't generate that much money and all the rest of it.

My point is that, considering the indirect revenues from tourists visiting them, closing them amounts to a net loss of revenues for the United State as a whole. I'm sorry if I failed to clarify that position earlier. Here's the bottom line: Closing the national parks and monuments has a negative effect on the economy. Shutting down the government has a bad effect on the U.S. economy. All of us are paying for the Republicans' temper tantrum. If the shutdown goes for a week or more, it will be particularly costly

 

[Spindrift]

Again, I think we're talking past one another. Yes, I'm aware that the parks need federal funds to operate, that the entrance fees they charge don't generate that much money and all the rest of it.

My point is that, considering the indirect revenues from tourists visiting them, closing them amounts to a net loss of revenues for the United State as a whole. I'm sorry if I failed to clarify that position earlier. Here's the bottom line: Closing the national parks and monuments has a negative effect on the economy. Shutting down the government has a bad effect on the U.S. economy. All of us are paying for the Republicans' temper tantrum. If the shutdown goes for a week or more, it will be particularly costly

Okay, but it all goes back to me answering part of YOUR OP:

Another question I have is this: Why shut down national parks, museums and monuments? After all, the revenues collected from these far outweighs the money spent to keep them staffed and open.

Your statement is incorrect and still is.

 

[TimCallahan]

Okay, but it all goes back to me answering part of YOUR OP:


Your statement is incorrect and still is.

Fine. I wasn't clear enough in the OP. So, you win your niggling, petty point. Are you happy now, or shall I send you a pacifier?

I corrected my failure to clarify that it was the net revenue that I was talking about. Can we move on now, or are you more concerned with one-upmanship than dealing with the issue of the cost of the shutdown?

BTW, I looked u previous government shutdowns here and found that Republicans and Democrats both shut down the government for short periods over partisan issues. I find this particular shut down to be particularly egregious, since it involves a law, the Affordable Care Act, enacted a few years ago that successfully withstood a challenge in the Supreme Court that it was unconstitutional. So, Congress passed it. the President signed it into law, the Supreme Court upheld it. Now that it's due to be implemented, House Republicans are shutting down the government, unless Obama agrees to put off implementation. Their demand is, of course, outrageous. Were Obama to accede to it, the Republicans would simply delay implementation the next time it came due.

 

[Ziggurat]

I went to that link. It's not clear that the parks are privately run. It could be concessions within parks that are privately run.

No, it's not just a concession stand within a federally-operated park. From this page:
"No government employee has a duty station in any of the parks we operate."

 

[Spindrift]

Fine. I wasn't clear enough in the OP. So, you win your niggling, petty point. Are you happy now, or shall I send you a pacifier?

I corrected my failure to clarify that it was the net revenue that I was talking about. Can we move on now, or are you more concerned with one-upmanship than dealing with the issue of the cost of the shutdown?

You're still figure out a way to be right about something you are wrong about. It's not net revenue either. But I will give up, so you don't have to give me your pacifier.

BTW, I looked u previous government shutdowns here and found that Republicans and Democrats both shut down the government for short periods over partisan issues. I find this particular shut down to be particularly egregious, since it involves a law, the Affordable Care Act, enacted a few years ago that successfully withstood a challenge in the Supreme Court that it was unconstitutional. So, Congress passed it. the President signed it into law, the Supreme Court upheld it. Now that it's due to be implemented, House Republicans are shutting down the government, unless Obama agrees to put off implementation. Their demand is, of course, outrageous. Were Obama to accede to it, the Republicans would simply delay implementation the next time it came due.

A lot of the previous shutdowns were partial shutdowns. Certain departments not the whole government.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (snip) . . . A lot of the previous shutdowns were partial shutdowns. Certain departments not the whole government.

Here are those, besides the tourist industry, who are taking the hit for this shutdown. Here's an excerpt from that article:

Officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs have quietly told Congress that they likely won't have enough money to pay disability claims or make pension payments for veterans if a government shutdown lasts for more than two or three weeks. That could affect some 3.6 million veterans who receive these benefits.
In a briefing with Congress, VA officials warned that many veterans depend almost entirely on these checks for their livelihood, and many have not been given enough time or information to prepare.

So, some guy (or gal) in the armed forces goes to Iraq or Afghanistan, gets shot up badly and permanently disabled, then gets hung out to dry, just so congressional Republicans can make a political point about derailing the ACA.

And here's another excerpt:

Every fall, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention monitors the spread of flu and figures out how best to direct vaccine programs around the country. During the shutdown, however, the agency will be "unable to support the annual seasonal influenza program," according to a memo from the Department of Health and Human Services.

So, we are all put at risk for getting a nasty flu - which, when you get up there in years (I'll be 70 in less than two weeks) can be life threatening - again, just so these jerks can make political hay.

Should this result in a national influenza epidemic, will these same House Republicans personally pay the cost of combating it?