An editorial in today's New York Times runs under the headline "Restoring Yosemite." The editorial complains about the "tawdriness" and "disgraceful overcrowding" of Yosemite National Park. The editorial calls for implementing a Park Service master plan by which "The number of parking spaces and campsites would be reduced" and "Commercial structures and tacky cabins would be razed." The Times comes out in favor of this plan on the grounds that it would have the effect of "restoring animal habitat," and, presumably, of reducing tawdriness and tackiness.
Well, while the Times editorialists are in favor of reducing the number of campsites in Yosemite Valley to 500 from 850, and for razing those "tacky cabins," there's no mention of reducing the number of rooms available in the park's flagship Ahwahnee hotel, where a room costs $366 a night. The Ahwahnee features "bell service, valet parking, a full-time concierge, twice daily maid service with evening turndowns, room service, afternoon tea service and informative evening lectures and slide shows," according to its Web site, http://www.YosemitePark.com/html/accom_ahwahnee.html. It's amazing how the Times editorialists, who yelp about how tax cuts unduly help the rich and how welfare reforms unduly hurt the poor, are so quick to endorse a Park Service policy that would have the effect of further limiting access to Yosemite Valley for those who can't afford those $366-a-night rooms at the Ahwahnee. In general, Smartertimes.com believes that price is a pretty effective way to come to the most efficient distribution of a scarce resource, like rush-hour highway space or tickets to the Super Bowl. But in the case of a government-owned national treasure like Yosemite Valley, restricting overnight access to those who can afford a four-star hotel room seems a bit un-American. You'd think a Times editorial on the topic would at least deal with the issue. The failure to do so illuminates a classic flaw of limousine liberalism of the Times variety -- the tendency to mouth support for the poor and middle classes so long as they don't do anything so "tacky" as to park their families in a camp site or cabin that a Times editorial-writer might stumble across while walking from Yosemite Falls to afternoon tea back at the Ahwahnee.
Unregulated: The New York Times today is in full froth in favor of the cause of limiting the political speech rights of those not fortunate enough to have inherited newspapers. The Times refers to this as campaign finance "reform." The Times news columns repeatedly refer to this campaign in inaccurate promotional language. An item on the front of the Times business section, for instance, refers to "Representative Christopher Shays, the Connecticut Republican who is a leading sponsor of the bill to ban the unregulated and unlimited contributions to political parties known as soft money." A news article in the national section identifies Mr. Shays as " a leading sponsor of the bill to ban the unregulated and unlimited contributions to political parties known as soft money." And the lead editorial in today's New York Times claims hysterically that "American democracy is also being attacked from within by a poisonous system of unregulated campaign donations." The unregulated Times editorial goes on to point out that "In the last election cycle, Enron was one of the nation's biggest donors. The company and its executives doled out $2.4 million, more than two-thirds of it in unregulated soft money."
Well, let's see. If the Enron "soft money" contributions are indeed "unregulated," how is it that the Times knows exactly how much the company gave? In fact, donations to political parties for party-building and issue advertisements are regulated. The regulations require disclosure. As the Web site of the Center for Responsive Politics reports, " In 1991, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) amended its regulations to require national parties to disclose their soft money donors." Similarly, a Congressional Research Service report says, " FEC regulations in 1991 (11 C.F.R. Sections 102, 104, and 106) required political committees with both federal and non-federal accounts and that engage in mixed activities to allocate their expenditures according to specified formulae. These regulations required disclosure of all national, state, and local party finances from federal accounts and of transfers from non-federal accounts for a share of mixed activities." The exact language of the relevant part of the regulation is as follows: "National party committees shall disclose in a memo Schedule A information about each individual, committee, corporation, labor organization, or other entity that donates an aggregate amount in excess of $200 in a calendar year to the committee's non-federal account(s). This information shall include the donating individual's or entity's name, mailing address, occupation or type of business, and the date of receipt and amount of any such donation. If a donor's name is known to have changed since an earlier donation reported during the calendar year, the exact name or address previously used shall be noted with the first reported donation from that donor subsequent to the name change. " It's just inaccurate for the Times to claim that these contributions are unregulated when in fact there's a federal regulation on the books that regulates them by requiring disclosure.
Correction: The New Jersey Americans is the name under which the New Jersey Nets began; The team moved to Long Island and took the name New York Nets in 1968. And the Dayton Dragons are the Class "A" minor league baseball team that drew the most fans to its home ballpark in 2001. More fans attended Brooklyn Cyclones home games than those of any other Class "A" team playing a short season of 76 total games. An article in the Saturday, January 19, 2002, Smartertimes.com had those facts incorrect.