Published: Saturday, Oct. 12 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Is it even possible to have a more one-sided opinion piece? Sounds like In Our
Opinion did their research by listening and watching very select media sources.
And, come to think of it, those National Parks--what color is the map in the
locale of those five national parks--red or blue? So, what exactly is the
Governor's motives? Could it have something to do with an event in 2016?
The authors should demonstrate a comprehension of the Anti-Deficiency Act and
the 5 categories of excepted government employees/services in the event of a
lapse in appropriated funds before writing this. Like most so-called
"pundits" commenting on the effects of the shutdown, they don't
understand even the basic legal requirements for what can or cannot operate,
rendering the majority of this op-ed piece completely inaccurate.
Many on the right have been touting smaller government for years.Rick Perry ran on a platform of closing down the FDA the EPA, and probably the
Dept of Education.We need to get Government out of our lives is the
mantra.But, when we DO shut down some government services, people
scream loudly, including those on the right.Generally, people think
government is too big, but seem to want all the services it provides.Or
rather, they want smaller government in areas that do not benefit them.Its the "Keep your government hands off my medicare" mentality.
I know we are in the age of hyperbole - but " press the federal government
to let Utah run the national parks within its borders;".... what Utah is
doing is not "running" the parks. Utah is funding day to day
operations... not running the parks. The funds Utah is transferring - with the
full expectation of being reimbursed - is paying the daily operating expenses.
It does not include any of the capital upkeep, road maintenance, trail
improvement, habitat restoration.... the list goes on and on. If funds basic
operations for 10 days - that is it.Don't get me wrong - I
think what the governor did was a fantastic way to keep things functioning under
very dysfunctional conditions. He needs to be applauded for doing the right
thing while the rest of government is out making political statements. But
this does not cover the cost of running or owning the parks.Does it
set a precedent for future operating models. I think it surely does. But lets
not get carried away with things yet. It was a great idea... and I applaud him
for his innovation. Now lets get back to work....
Sure, a shutdown without anything shut down. Further proof that the
national t for taliban christian party of america does not have a firm grasp on
reality.If YOU refuse to fund the government, stop lying that
it's someone else's fault the government isn't funded. Just own
I'm glad the parks are open and the effects of shutting them will begin to
be mitigated.Utahns need to retrace how this avoidable situation
occurred. No, the lesson is not that Utah should receive all federal lands free
of charge from the rest of America. If you adhere to this short-sighted belief,
I invite you to extend this line of reasoning, and consider that maybe these
lands should be given to 5 specific groups of people: The Utes, Shoshone,
Gosutes, Paiutes and Navajo. No, let's retrace exactly how
these parks got closed. It's pretty simple, and it involves a starring
role from an elected official from right here in Utah: Senator Mike Lee,
enthusiastically elected by many of the same people adversely affected by the
park closures.So, it's very good that the parks are re-opened,
but it was all quite avoidable, and Utahns need to look inward for why Governor
Herbert had to innovate a solution involving our precious tax dollars.
"Good government" would have prevented this in the first place.
Obama didn't choose to close the parks. Congress did by not passing funding
@10CC and others: Your lack of understanding of the original Constitution and
Mike Lee's attempts to maintain it are not a reflection on Mike Lee. @atl134 - the administration most definitely chose to close things.
Obama himself even said he was making it painful on the people so they would
essentially revolt against congress. He said so himself. The $1.67
million sounds like more than a good enough settlement to revert the National
Parks to State land. Let's take it all back. How a government
that is supposed to be 'for the people' can keep the people of public
land is beyond reason. Nothing more than a tyrannical imposition. Sounds like
Obummer thinks its the King's Forest rather than the people's park.
"...press the state’s congressional delegation to seek reimbursement
from the federal government for those costs;"If Utah took on the
expense WITHOUT asking for a reimbursement, that would be good government. As
much as Utah's representatives decry big government, they are addicted to
the money it provides the state.
@Stuff.... you lack of understanding of the intent of the founders is part of
the problem. For example, Jefferson argued against one generation creating
laws that effect future generations, that each generation should set rules for
themselves. He proposed that each law should have an expiration and would have
to be explicitly re-approved to be remain effect.They never wanted
to shackle future generations with 250 year old law - because they were smart
enough to understand that the issues they faced in the late 1700s were not the
same as those faced in the 1500s. This idea of a canonized set of laws was the
antitheses of what they believed.I wish this generation only
understood that dynamic as well as the founding fathers did.
@UtahBlueDevil - Jefferson isn't much of an example of a supporter of the
Constitution. As I understand, some of his ideas were not included in the
Constitution and he did a few things in his presidency that were contrary to
Constitutional law. Now, as for the idea that each generation makes
their own law, that is partially correct. George Washington, who was a great
supporter of the Constitution, said, "The basis of our political systems is
the right of the people to make and alter their Constitutions of Government. But
the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and
authentic act of the whole PEOPLE, is sacredly obligatory upon all."So, yes, the Constitution and subordinate laws can be changed but only
by the formal processes put in place by the Constitution. The
liberal-thinking slant you gave it based on unaccepted ideas isn't quite
correct. And, using the idea that laws can change, I'd propose
that the federal gov't should no longer be in control of land within a
state boundary. The fed should lease land from the state. That's a good
policy for this generation!!!
Our Governor including our last one has been respectful to president Obama, so
when Utah needed this from him, he didn't hesitate to respond positively.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments