| Revision as of 03:11, 14 March 2013 editSrich32977 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers300,274 edits move target of discussion to destination article← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:31, 29 July 2021 edit undoSmjg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,881 edits Reverted 1 edit by Jarrod Baniqued (talk): Broke the redirect, and no real reason for a redirect to have a short description anywayTags: Twinkle New redirect Undo | ||
| (39 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | #REDIRECT ] | ||
| {{merge to|Government failure|discuss=Talk:Government failure#Proposed merge with Government failure|date=March 2013}} | |||
| {{multiple issues| | |||
| {{POV|date=January 2013}} | |||
| {{original research|date=January 2013}} | |||
| }} | |||
| '''Government waste''' is the opinion that the government does not spend money in an acceptable manner. | |||
| ==Overview== | |||
| David Maris wrote, "one of the key problems with government funding of certain studies the investment is with taxpayer dollars and the benefit might be only to a few".<ref name="forbes"></ref> Describing his opposition of some government funding for scientific research on studies he views as frivolous, he writes, "Scientists often rally quickly to attack anyone who thinks of reducing public funding of science – they do this under the idea that if you don’t want to fund finding answers, you must be a luddite – you must be against science and progress. I am not. I simply think that there are so many very good ideas to study, but limited money and other higher priorities."<ref name="forbes" /> | |||
| ] of the ] ] opposes governmental decision-making because the obligation to pay taxes is distinct from the decision as to their expenditure on specific budget items. He writes, "We're not asked 'will you pay $100 right now for farm subsidies and $4000 for Medicaid and $1600 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $130 for a new presidential helicopter and ... ?' If we did get such a question, we might well decide that lots of government programs were not ''well worth the money'' to the people who would be paying the money."<ref></ref> | |||
| ==Proposed solutions== | |||
| ] and libertarians have proposed various reforms to the process of government spending: One of these is simply to limit the amount of money that the government spends.<ref name="heritage"></ref> A second reform would be to increase government oversight.<ref name="heritage" /> A third proposal is to implement ]. This latter approach was satirized in a 1990 column by ] writer ]: | |||
| "I have no doubt that the public, with its strongly satirical view of Federal spending, would send in so many tax returns marked ''Use for $600 toilet seats only'' that the Pentagon would soon have to distribute overpriced toilet seats free to the homeless, as the Agriculture Department once had to give away cheese to make storage space available for more excess cheese being bought with the taxpayer's famous dollar."<ref></ref> | |||
| ==Examples== | |||
| * Massages For rabbits<ref name="forbes" /> | |||
| * Meditation For hot flashes<ref name="forbes" /> | |||
| * Tax breaks for NFL teams<ref></ref> | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| * ] | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * '']'' | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| ==Additional reading== | |||
| * Mitchell, Matthew - | |||
| * Rotherham, Lee and Elliott, Matthew - | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 17:31, 29 July 2021
Redirect to: