Surrender subsidies...
Aug 08, 2013 | 1751 views | 0 0 comments | 365 365 recommendations | email to a friend | print
I went out to Arches National Park recently. At the entrance station, the ranger waved me through after inspecting my “senior pass.”

Unlike most other visitors that day, I paid nothing to get in. In fact, I never pay a penny to enter any national park. When I turned 62, I purchased my senior pass for the princely sum of $10. That entitles me to drive into any national park free for the rest of my life. Furthermore, it secures me a campsite at a 50 percent discount over what non-seniors pay. This is a really good deal for me – too good.

I calculated that if I drive into national parks 20 times a year, and live to be 78 (the average life span of American males), I will have gotten roughly 320 visits for $10, i.e., less than 3 cents a visit. That is an indefensible subsidy for a relatively affluent group. I see no reason why a well-off elderly person like me should get into Arches for 3 cents while young families have to pay $10 or more (plus full price for camping).

My recommendation is this: let’s abolish senior passes and make us old folks pay the same as everyone else. In my case that would mean buying an annual pass for $80 and paying full price for a campsite – still little enough for the enjoyment of spending time in the parks. This one reform would generate hundreds of millions in extra revenue, which could be used to give a well-deserved raise to park personnel, build more trails, expand campgrounds, and reduce the general admission charge for younger people.

I hear you saying: ‘Why don’t you snip up your senior pass and let me keep mine?” Sorry: public policy doesn’t work that way. Individual sacrifices mean nothing in the larger scheme of things. We retirees all have to give up our senior passes if we are to achieve a fair park revenue scheme. Besides, our national budget deficits arise, in part, because no group is willing to give up its “perks” and subsidies.

If we, the elderly, voluntarily surrender one lucrative benefit, we might set an example for other groups to realize that they, too, can get along without their subsidies. Besides, it corrodes the social fabric of America when we see one group so unfairly favored and everyone else forced to take up the slack for them.

—Lew Hinchman


Copyright 2013 The Times-Independent. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

report abuse...

Express yourself:

We're glad to give readers a forum to express their points of view on issues important to this community. That forum is the “Letters to the Editor.” Letters to the editor may be submitted directly to The Times-Independent through this link and will be published in the print edition of the newspaper. All letters must be the original work of the letter writer – form letters will not be accepted. All letters must include the actual first and last name of the letter writer, the writer’s address, city and state and telephone number. Anonymous letters will not be accepted.

Letters may not exceed 400 words in length, must be regarding issues of general interest to the community, and may not include personal attacks, offensive language, ethnic or racial slurs, or attacks on personal or religious beliefs. Letters should focus on a single issue. Letters that proselytize or focus on theological debates will not be published. During political campaigns, The Times-Independent will not publish letters supporting or opposing any local candidate. Thank you letters are generally not accepted for publication unless the letter has a public purpose. Thank you letters dealing with private matters that compliment or complain about a business or individual will not be published. Nor will letters listing the names of individuals and/or businesses that supported a cause or event. Thank you letters about good Samaritan acts will be considered at the discretion of the newspaper.