July 2011 - Parks & Recreation - 27

By Jon Wisbey

advo cacy update

Taming the Budget Hawks
Parks and Recreation Funding in an Era of Spending Cuts

he predominant political issue of the 112th Congress has been the size of

the federal debt. Both parties have offered multiple proposals to reduce the
annual deficit and stabilize the debt, nearly all of which include at least some
level of federal spending cuts. This bipartisan consensus on cutting federal spending
was manifest during the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 budget discussions this spring, when
Congressional negotiators were forced to find roughly $38 billion in spending cuts in
order to pass a budget. Given that the House budget proposes an additional $30.4 billion in spending cuts, it is extremely likely that the FY 2012 spending bills will similarly need to achieve some deficit savings in order to be approved by Congress. In
this atmosphere, federal spending on parks and recreational programs will be on the
chopping block, along with hundreds of other federal priorities.

Advocates for parks and recreation will need to
educate lawmakers about the programs that fund
local parks and recreational priorities and aggressively assert various benefits of these programs, if
funding is to be maintained.
With more than 100 new lawmakers in office this
year, many of whom are still learning the intricacies
of federal funding programs, parks funding stands
the risk of becoming collateral damage in the fight
to reduce the deficit by cutting wasteful spending.
While many lawmakers support parks funding in the
abstract, new lawmakers may not be aware of the
many programs that support local efforts to preserve
recreational space for their constituents. One example of the challenge that local parks advocates face
was illustrated during the floor debates surrounding H.R. 1, the House's initial FY 2011 budget proposal. As introduced, H.R. 1 included a cut of nearly
90 percent to the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF), among other drastic cuts for open space
and livability programs. Yet, multiple legislators
proposed amendments that would have completely eliminated LWCF funding, arguing that the program's mission of federal land acquisition was costly
and no longer relevant. This argument nearly proved
successful, as an amendment to eliminate the LWCF

came up only three votes short of passage. It is crucial that local parks advocates work to educate their
members about the concrete community benefits of
the LWCF Stateside program, lest they be distracted
by discussion of the program's federal side.
It is also important to recognize that some members of Congress have ideological objections to providing federal funding to parks and recreational
programs. These lawmakers widely consider park
and recreational priorities to be a local, rather than
a federal, concern and argue that the federal government should not fund such projects. The debate
around the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA) in early 2009 brought this ideology to the
forefront of the national debate, as multiple legislators
led efforts to prevent ARRA funding from being used
for local parks funding. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)
proposed an amendment that would have prohibited
ARRA funding from being used to support community
parks. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered a similar
amendment that would have prohibited funding from
being used for bicycle, walking, or wilderness trails,
asserting that these types of projects are " basically
special-interest pork barrel spending. "
In the 112th Congress, many members who are
ideologically opposed to parks and recreational

www.NRPA .ORG

J U LY 2 0 1 1

In the 112th
Congress,
many members
who are
ideologically
opposed to
parks and
recreational
funding have
risen to
powerful
positions.

Parks & Recreation 25

July 2011 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of July 2011 - Parks & Recreation