Virginia's Natural Bridge Navigation Blogroll
Search

Archives Credits

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2

Site design by
Sekimori

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More
 
The Commons
Mining the National Parks
Posted by Randal O'Toole  ·  10 August 2004  ·  Federal Lands and Parks

John Kerry says he wants to increase the Park Service budget by $600 million per year funded by "updating" the 1872 Mining Act. Just think of the incentives: Park Service officials will lobby hard for more mining on federal lands in order to increase their own budgets.

Aside from debate over the mining laws, the real problem with Kerry's proposal is that he thinks the national parks need more money. He obviously doesn't know that half the Park Service budget goes into administrative overhead.

Kerry points to a "$4.9 billion maintenance backlog (that) has grown to $6.8 billion." He obviously doesn't know that a huge portion of this "backlog" consists of employee housing. Why should the Park Service provide housing to employees when every park in the lower 48 states (not to mention Hawaii and most in Alaska) are within easy driving distance of private housing?

The Park Service is a classic example of the failure of socialized housing. The agency typically spends twice as much on construction and reconstruction as any private owner would pay, again partly because a huge percentage of the agency's "construction" budget is siphoned off into administrative overhead.

Unfortunately, Gale Norton defends the Bush Administration's record by pointing out that the Park Service has increased its budget by 20 percent since 2001. When are we going to stop measuring the success of bureaucracies by the growth of their budgets?

Sorry, Secretary Norton. No, thanks, Senator Kerry. The parks are better off with less money, not more.

Comments
  1. See my comments posted above.

    Posted by: Jonathan H. Adler at August 10, 2004 12:42 PM
  2. In the private sector, the success of any organization is measured by how much work it does _divided by_ how much resources it has. This is called "productivity" or "efficiency", and even the pointiest-haired managers understand that making the budget bigger does not cause it to rise unless you make other changes to the organization at the same time.

    The key thing is that in the private sector, even the most heavily bureaucratized organizations _eventually_ have to produce positive results at a reasonable cost, and have some methods in place for identifying and punishing those within who interfere with them doing so. In government, on the other hand, the only results that matter to those who make the decisions are _election_ results. And focusing on simplistic, budget-size-based metrics allows them to optimize those results...although at the expense of the objectives they're pretending to care about.

    Posted by: Matt at August 11, 2004 04:47 AM