Why Is Trump Firing Park Rangers?

[Gunnar]

The Real Reason Trump Is Firing Park Rangers

Theodore Roosevelt, one of our greatest Republican Presidents, who established the American National Park System, once said:

"There is nothing so American as our national parks. The fundamental idea behind the parks is that the country belongs to the people, that it is in process of making for the enrichment of the lives of all of us."

The Writer, Wallace Stegner, described the concept of the National Park system as "the best idea we ever had." This sentiment was echoed in the Ken Burns documentary series: The National Parks: America's Best Idea. If you have not yet seen this series, I highly recommend it. Some of the most memorable and uplifting times in my life were spent in such parks!

For decades these natural treasures have been enjoyed and supported by both liberals and conservatives, both Republicans and Democrats and people of most any other political persuasion.

So why is Trump decimating the staffs who administer these parks? He makes no secret of the fact that he wants to privatize these treasures and lease them out for basically unregulated exploitation of their mineral and timber resources, with little regard for preserving their natural beauty for us and our posterity. Some of the relevant comments from the comment section:

It is not just about logging and mining, but rather about the land grab of tech billionaires who want to set up not just huge exclusive holiday properties for themselves, but also new tech mini states with own laws arranged by corporate entities.

This video should be broadcast ed on every media platform. Thank you. everyone open your eyes and take action before it’s too late

I am a 66 year-old conservative who loves this country. My first visit to our national parks out west was in 2020. On this first visit we visited Yellowstone National Park, The Grand Tetons, and Glacier National Park. I was blown away by the beauty of the these beautiful parks, and lands. I asked my husband to take me back out west to see more parks. We visited in 2022 for the first time Grand Canyon National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Zion National Park, and many other parks. I believe these parks and lands need to be protected. There needs to be strict measures in place to protect these lands and parks from destroying the eco systems, the animals, and waterways. I don’t want BlackRock coming in here gobbling up our lands or destroying them. I do not want oil rigs in any of our National parks, let’s say they don’t do any damage to the parks, they would take away from the beauty of these parks. We need to speak up about protecting these lands. I do believe we should use our own resources for oil, minerals, and trees for wood. Saying this I also believe we can do this in a mindful safe way by establishing protections. We need to speak up demanding protections be in place for protecting of these parks, and lands.

I doubt that Trump has ever visited any of these natural treasures. I'm sure he couldn't care less how much he despoils the environment in his never ending quest for ever more wealth for himself and the already obscenely wealthy.

[Bret Ripley]

Unassailable truth: park rangers are the root cause of inefficiency in the stealing of pic-a-nic baskets.

[canpakes]

Elon Musk owns over 5000 acres of prime Texas real estate.

Donald Trump owns dozens of golf courses and resorts spread out within more than a dozen countries, and he flies to them whenever he wants to on the taxpayer dime.

These people do not need National Parks, and they’re certainly not worried if you can ever visit one.

[Gadianton]

For the same reason he's pushing Ukraine to end the war. To make himself out to be an effectual leader, a ruler of consequence. Someone to be feared. He wants to say he ended the war, so easiest is to force the victim to concede. What everything he's done so far has in common is wielding his power against anyone in a weak position that he can get away with screwing over just because he can do it, and no other reason. Now, if he guts social security and medicare to his base, then I'd have to walk back that analysis a little. My guess is he will only go that far if he thinks he can rig the system to stay in power until he dies. Basically, his actions are that of a terrorist. And that's the way his Christian base largely likes it. Don't be fooled, he's not losing popularity as fast as the left-leaning YouTubers are making out.

What would Hound say? Probably that while he was president, Biden should have asked Musk to fire all the Park rangers. How did he let an opportunity like that pass him up? How woke can you be to let the park rangers go so totally unchecked?

As for the theories, I doubt any of them are serious. It's all about what can he get away with. Think of it this way: without firing park rangers and any other weak hand who he might have power over but it's not 100% sure, it's not going to be as easy to take action against targets that he actually cares about, who are harder to reach.

I watch very little left-leaning YouTube these days, enough to get the bare gist of what's going on. I do spend time listing to sane-washers and outright supporters to the extent that I think the channel has a vested interest in unvarnished or only semi-contrarian truth or a real stake in the economy. In other words, money from real investments must be more important than social-media payouts or back-channel deals. For instance, if you're an economist working directly for Trump, your paycheck and investments aren't worth what you can make directly from the grift. But a low-to-mid right-leaning millionaire is a little different. Why does that person, whose wealth is tied to the economy, support a plan that will obviously wreck the economy for years if not decades?

These people have some creative ideas. I haven't seen anything that would explain the park rangers, however, most of these wild-sounding theories have a solid footing in the theories of his apologists, not his detractors. I just don't think any of them are necessary for the time being. Crushing easy targets is a necessary step to moving the Overton window such that he can go after bigger targets that he really cares about.

[Markk]

Gunnar wrote: "So why is Trump decimating the staffs who administer these parks? "

1. They were new hires still on probation
2. There are 20K National Park employees
3. There are around 138K volunteers helping to manage the parks

So given all that, they fired about 5% of permanent, temp, and part time employees.... overall they let go around 0.65 percent of resources to manage the parks. And, 5 days before you wrote the thread a judge stated those let go had to be hired back.

My point, right or wrong for cutting down government costs when we are over 36 trillion dollars in debt, is that "decimated" is a strong word Gunnar.

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/faqs.htm#:~ ... ear%202024.

https://www.npca.org/articles/7538-park ... t-warns-of

[Physics Guy]

It still surprises me that in all the many discussions of US federal debt and deficit, no-one ever seems to mention the most shocking thing. It's easy to find statements of how modest the US deficit is as a fraction of gross domestic product, but nobody talks about how large it is as a fraction of government revenue.

In FY 2024, the federal government spent $6.75 trillion and collected $4.92 trillion in revenue, resulting in a deficit.

That quote plus further discussion is here.

In 2024 the deficit was over 37% of revenue. For every dollar the US government received, it spent over $1.37.

It's not actually clear at all that this is unsustainable, or even that it is in any way bad. The US government is not a household or even a corporation. It can print its own money. The money it borrows each year is mostly lent by American citizens who gladly buy Treasury bills. It's not as though any loan sharks are going to come around and break Uncle Sam's knees. He's got nukes.

If anyone does want to cut the US federal deficit, though, they've got a massive job. At 37% of revenue the facts are clear as arithmetic: either raise taxes one hell of a lot, or make really huge cuts in medicare, social security, and defence. That "and" will have to be "and" and not "or".

Piddling around with cutting a few hundred million here and there is so far short of cutting 1.8 trillion that it's not "at least doing something" or "just getting started". It's actively blowing any real chance of cutting the deficit by wasting time and energy and political capital on obviously inadequate measures. Unless you're massively cutting defence, or massively raising taxes, you are not cutting the deficit. You're just playing pretend.

[Gunnar]

Gunnar wrote: "So why is Trump decimating the staffs who administer these parks? "

1. They were new hires still on probation
2. There are 20K National Park employees
3. There are around 138K volunteers helping to manage the parks

So given all that, they fired about 5% of permanent, temp, and part time employees.... overall they let go around 0.65 percent of resources to manage the parks. And, 5 days before you wrote the thread a judge stated those let go had to be hired back.

My point, right or wrong for cutting down government costs when we are over 36 trillion dollars in debt, is that "decimated" is a strong word Gunnar.

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/faqs.htm#:~ ... ear%202024.

https://www.npca.org/articles/7538-park ... t-warns-of

Well, I have to admit that what you said here is somewhat encouraging, especially the parts about rehiring of those employees and the 138K dedicated volunteers helping to manage the parks. We'll see what actually happens to the National Park System before too long, I hope. And thanks for all the volunteers who help keep the system going!

[Gunnar]

It still surprises me that in all the many discussions of US federal debt and deficit, no-one ever seems to mention the most shocking thing. It's easy to find statements of how modest the US deficit is as a fraction of gross domestic product, but nobody talks about how large it is as a fraction of government revenue.

In FY 2024, the federal government spent $6.75 trillion and collected $4.92 trillion in revenue, resulting in a deficit.

That quote plus further discussion is here.

In 2024 the deficit was over 37% of revenue. For every dollar the US government received, it spent over $1.37.

It's not actually clear at all that this is unsustainable, or even that it is in any way bad. The US government is not a household or even a corporation. It can print its own money. The money it borrows each year is mostly lent by American citizens who gladly buy Treasury bills. It's not as though any loan sharks are going to come around and break Uncle Sam's knees. He's got nukes.

If anyone does want to cut the US federal deficit, though, they've got a massive job. At 37% of revenue the facts are clear as arithmetic: either raise taxes one hell of a lot, or make really huge cuts in medicare, social security, and defence. That "and" will have to be "and" and not "or".

Piddling around with cutting a few hundred million here and there is so far short of cutting 1.8 trillion that it's not "at least doing something" or "just getting started". It's actively blowing any real chance of cutting the deficit by wasting time and energy and political capital on obviously inadequate measures. Unless you're massively cutting defence, or massively raising taxes, you are not cutting the deficit. You're just playing pretend.

It is quite telling, though, that deficits always rise during Republican led administrations and usually decline during Democrat led administrations and that Republicans complain loudly about the deficit whatever it is during Democrat administrations, and dismiss its importance no matter how high it rises when they are in charge.

Following the money
Now let’s take a closer look at each president’s impact on the federal deficit.

To check the numbers in Cole’s tweet, we went to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, which has an interactive database for these kinds of figures. Here’s what we found for each claim:

"(President Ronald) Reagan took the deficit from 70 billion to 175 billion." This is more or less accurate. The federal deficit went from about $78.9 billion at the beginning of Reagan’s presidency to $152.6 billion at the end of it. At points between 1983 and 1986, the deficit was actually more than $175 billion.

"(George H.W.) Bush 41 took it to 300 billion." Close, but not exactly. The number was around $255 billion at the end of Bush’s term. The deficit spiked at around $290.3 billion the year before he left office.

"(Bill) Clinton got it to zero." This is true. During his presidency, Clinton managed to zero out the deficit and end his term with a $128.2 billion surplus.

"(George W.) Bush 43 took it from 0 to 1.2 trillion." This is in the ballpark. Ignoring the fact that he actually started his presidency with a surplus, Bush left office in 2009 with a federal deficit of roughly $1.41 trillion.

"(Barack) Obama halved it to 600 billion." This is essentially accurate. Obama left the presidency with a deficit of approximately $584.6 billion, which is more than halving $1.41 trillion. The deficit was even lower in 2015 at around $441.9 billion.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... e-deficit/

But to be fair I should add that:

Inflation-adjusted data from the U.S. Treasury Department and the Bureau of Labor Statistics would suggest that per term, Republican presidents have added slightly more debt to the U.S. national debt than Democratic presidents. Looking at U.S. presidents from 1913 through the end of the federal fiscal year 2024, Republican presidents added about $1.4 trillion per four-year term, compared to $1.2 trillion added by Democrats.

However, Democratic presidents added more inflation-adjusted debt overall. That could be because Democratic presidents were in power for nine more years than Republican presidents in the period since 1913. Overall, Democratic presidents have added a total of $18 trillion to the national debt since 1913 (adjusted for inflation), while Republicans have added $17.3 trillion.

https://www.investopedia.com/democrats- ... bt-8738104

But, as Physics Guy pointed out (among other things), there is an important difference between the National Deficit and the National Debt.
viewtopic.php?p=2889808#p2889808

[Markk]

1. They were new hires still on probation
2. There are 20K National Park employees
3. There are around 138K volunteers helping to manage the parks

So given all that, they fired about 5% of permanent, temp, and part time employees.... overall they let go around 0.65 percent of resources to manage the parks. And, 5 days before you wrote the thread a judge stated those let go had to be hired back.

My point, right or wrong for cutting down government costs when we are over 36 trillion dollars in debt, is that "decimated" is a strong word Gunnar.

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/faqs.htm#:~ ... ear%202024.

https://www.npca.org/articles/7538-park ... t-warns-of

Well, I have to admit that what you said here is somewhat encouraging, especially the parts about rehiring of those employees and the 138K dedicated volunteers helping to manage the parks. We'll see what actually happens to the National Park System before too long, I hope. And thanks for all the volunteers who help keep the system going!

Then we can agree that he is not decimating the NPS, even if the 1000 employees were not reinstated.

[Gunnar]

Well, I have to admit that what you said here is somewhat encouraging, especially the parts about rehiring of those employees and the 138K dedicated volunteers helping to manage the parks. We'll see what actually happens to the National Park System before too long, I hope. And thanks for all the volunteers who help keep the system going!

Then we can agree that he is not decimating the NPS, even if the 1000 employees were not reinstated.

Okay. I'll grant you that.