I guess the National Parks Conservation Association is no different from nearly every other organization supporting a government operation or an enterprise supported by federal government funding.
Whatever you do to try to reduce government spending, just don’t hurt me — just don’t ask me to carry any of the load.
Of course, there could be some cutbacks in the national parks program that could be truly damaging, but you pick a bad example when you complain about the “hurt” to Acadia National Park (“Our View: Acadia delay shows cost of failure to cooperate,” March 21).
Yes, the sequester deprives the government of much flexibility in allocating the cuts, but why do you cry foul when a very modest cutback with minimal impact has been elected? Acadia had an extremely good year last season, and a very small percentage of its patronage occurs in the first month of its normal operation (before May 15).
If this isn’t an example of the government making a very measured and careful cutback in expenses, then nothing is.
I can only put you in the category of refusing to share any of the burden or else being totally oblivious to any advantage in trying to harness deficit spending and the escalating national debt.
Philip Brooks is a resident of Southport.