No, I'm just assuming that based on a decades-long underfunding of national parks (and public lands in general) since the Reagan era -- this graphic shows it as well as any (and is based on the CBO):Does it state anywhere in the proposal for the increase to $25.00 that it is because of further proposed cutbacks in federal funding for Crater Lake? How much has total Federal funding to Crater Lake specifically decreased in the last 10 years?
This chart shows the decade-long big defense spending spike under Reagan/Bush I (green) and the shorter spike from the Recovery Act of 2008 in domestic spending (orange - includes most discretionary programs like transportation, environment, etc.) Not sure what all is in the "other non-interest" but because it doesn't exclude defense, but based on the big spike in 2008-10, one piece must be unemployment insurance. I'm guessing veterans programs are in there, too, as you can see post-war bumps in that curve.
Obviously, the entitlement programs are the area where the expenditures are greatly increasing as a share of GDP, and without getting into a major political debate, I think the GOP learned a painful lesson when Bush II proposed privatizing Medicare (thud!), and with the Ryan budget and sequestration have attempted to blunt the impact of rapidly growing entitlements with flat or declining discretionary spending. Obviously, that's not sustainable, but my point is that the REST of our public programs are suffering as a result -- including National Parks. A factoid I pulled form the National Parks Conservation Association: the average family tax burden for national parks is $2.60 per year. That's absurd, and certainly doesn't reflect MY priorities, so that's the importance of weighing in!
Only because he has signed on to the GOP leadership (he's the fourth in command, though he makes a point of not emphasizing that in Blue Oregon). The Republicans have been behind the sequester, shutting down the government periodically and generally opposed to prioritizing public lands in the federal budget -- they've also beat the drum on privatization of public lands, right down to selling them off.Not surprised you want to blame Greg Walden (Oregon's only Republican Representative) but do the facts actually point to him in any way being actually responsible for this.
So, it's stark between the major parties on the environment and public lands, there's not much debate about that point. Plus, with the demise of moderation in Washington, the few environment-friendly Republicans that used to exist were drummed out of office. Mark Hatfield was pushed out because he voted against the balanced budget amendment (one of the more absurd gimmicks to emerge in recent years). I'm not partisan, but I'm definitely an issues voter -- and I vote environment first. I'd love to have a Republican champion the environment, in fact, because it would make the Dems have to work HARDER for my vote! Now, my vote is just taken for granted, as there is no real choice between the parties on this issue.
Stepping off my soapbox...
Tom