http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/100-worst-stimulus-projects/428539 http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/03/g...they-say-are-the-100-worst-stimulus-projects/ http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/03/senators.stimulus.spending/ Here's the full text of the report http://coburn.senate.gov/public//in...&File_id=e1e0624e-d02a-42d4-9dbb-f5b9f21b3572 I love that #1 is replacing the windows at the Mt. St. Helens Visitor Center (which closed in 2007).
Does reopening a visitor center seem like the best use of taxpayer dollars? I'm blown away by how little people seem to care about how their tax dollars are spent.
My favorite government fleecing was when the Clintons were in the White House. A personal friend of theirs was given $2,000,000.00 to make a video showing homeless people what to eat, and not eat, out of garbage cans. OK, I can get that. Sort of. But as one late night TV show host pointed out- most homeless people don't carry around with them TV's or VCR's.
Do you enjoy national parks? state parks? I'm curious. You do know that those places aren't operated by private enterprise? Or maybe you think they should be. Then they could hang billboards off of Abe Lincoln's nose on Mt. Rushmore.
If that's the best use of our tax dollars, then government has outlived its usefulness. I prefer our tax dollars are spent on defense and a social safety net, but to each his own.
So, it's okay with you that future generations have to pay for us to enjoy parks because we decided that we don't want to pay for what we consume? Why not just charge higher user fees?
I have no problem with higher user fees. I have no problem with toll bridges. I agree that the ones that use those parks should bear a larger burden of the cost of maintaining them than those that don't.
this is just wasteful spending. going into debt with China to have non-operational windows for 1/2 million dollars. wtf. some glass company probably is friends with some senator...that's how that happened.
I think there's a balance. There's both value and importance to parks. Jobs are created and sustained, it helps (or should help) the environment. National parks are one thing that should be relatively well funded.
Currently we borrow $0.41 of every $1.00. Are you telling me that parks should be kept open on borrowed money? Do you believe that parks should be in that top $0.59? I think parks--while great--are a pretty low priority.
Parks are great, but they're not "one thing that should be relatively well funded". If you want to fund it, use it. Create a private trust. Don't get further into debt to keep these things open and in tip-top shape. The jobs that are "created and sustained" don't contribute positively to the GDP. Why not have them staffed by volunteers? Besides, parks have taken care of themselves well for millenia. El Capitan, the Grand Canyon and the Adirondacks will be just fine without the US Government.
No. Public Education is a societal non-negotiable. The way it's done in this country is wrong and should be seriously overhauled, but the concept is unarguable. Even people with no children benefit greatly from an educated populace.
There are a lot of things I would cut before letting National Parks go. Unfortunately, the people bumming off the system disagree.
