| Revision as of 17:56, 7 February 2013 editSrich32977 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers300,274 edits Cleaned up using AutoEd & remove quotefarm tag← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:50, 7 February 2013 edit undoFishicus (talk | contribs)448 edits →Overview: ceNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| ==Overview== | ==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 government funding for scientific research, 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" /> | 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 |
] 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> | ||
| ==Solutions== | ==Solutions== | ||
Revision as of 19:50, 7 February 2013
 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
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". 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."
David Boaz of the libertarian Cato Institute 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."
Solutions
Conservatives 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. A second reform would be to increase government oversight. A third proposal is to implement tax choice. That approach was satirized in a 1990 column by New York Times writer Russell Baker: "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."
Examples
- Massages For rabbits
- Meditation For hot flashes
- Tax breaks for NFL teams
See also
- Boondoggle (project)
- Bridge to nowhere
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- Guns versus butter model
- Government success
- Parable of the broken window
- Pork barrel
- Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act
- Tilting at windmills
- Unused highway
- X-inefficiency
References
- ^ Government Waste: Science Spending Includes Massages For Rabbits, Meditation For Hot Flashes
- Well Worth the Money
- ^ 50 Examples of Government Waste
- Taxpayers' Choice The New York Times
- Report on government waste cites 'robosquirrels,' tax breaks for NFL
Additional reading
- Mitchell, Matthew - The Pathology of Privilege: The Economic Consequences of Government Favoritism
- Rotherham, Lee and Elliott, Matthew - The Bumper Book of Government Waste