No mention of California ... yet.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/10/APNewsBreak--Feds-to-let-states-pay-to-open-parks

I wouldn't believe anything you read on anything with the name "Breitbart" connected to it. The guy made a living out of lying.

Anyway, California doesn't want to pay to open their own parks so I sincerely doubt they pay to open national parks.

Sounds like the guy in the White House.

Quote

The guy made a living out of lying.

Quote
snorkus
Sounds like the guy in the White House.

Quote

The guy made a living out of lying.

Huh? Bush hasn't been in the White House for years.

From DOI.gov

Statement from Interior Spokesperson Blake Androff: As a result of the government shutdown, the Department of the Interior was forced to close all national parks across the country last week and furlough more than 20,000 National Park Service employees who ensure the safety of visitors and the security of the resources.

Responding to the economic impacts that the park closures are having on many communities and local businesses, Secretary Jewell will consider agreements with Governors who indicate an interest and ability to fully fund National Park Service personnel to re-open national parks in their states.

The Interior Department will begin conversations about how to proceed as expeditiously as current limited resources allow. We continue to call on Congress to act swiftly to enact appropriations for the entire government so that we can re-open all 401 national parks for the American people.


From what I could find those four states are Utah, Arizona, South Dakota and Colorado. I still doubt California would join that group.... but I've been wrong before.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2013 05:22PM by Dave.

I wouldn't agree to this. The Repug strategy is to "pick off" things that upset people, but leave unfunded those that raise less ire.

It is a backdoor method of defunding things that they don't like.

So that agree to fund medical care for children up to 4? what happens to the 5 year olds?

This has nothing to do with the Regressives in Congress. This is about the state the park is in funding the park until the Regressives stop their childish temper tantrum.

Quote
Dave
This has nothing to do with the Regressives in Congress. This is about the state the park is in funding the park until the Regressives stop their childish temper tantrum.

Dave, anything that reduces the pressure by the electorate and business community pushes the end of all this farther away. That is how politics work. Make it less painful, so that only the people who are defenseless and powerless are really hurting, and the arguement then becomes "see!!! We didn't need that gov't up and running!!!"

You're right, but this is about some states trying to work around the obstructive, destructive, Regressives in Congress. What those states are trying to do does play into the hands of those Regressvies.

Both of you (Dave-Ken) make really good points. It's all relevent. I see a hidden slippery slope of "If you want it bad enough, than you pay for it (states)". And because a certain cut of the population only cares about what effects them, only, "I wanna play in my sandbox -- open it up!!" opening the parks will paint a feel-good picture over a very ugly one.

As long as cancer research projects are shut down, home purchases are slowed to a crawl, & families of fallen veterans are unable to receive their benefits, opening the parks is the least (or should be) of our worries/priorities.

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.