"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

I have a real problem with this....it shows where our real priorities
are.

And there are those that want National Health Care. If the goverment
can't
maintain priceless curios do you really want the government to maintain
your
body?

The government can't maintain them because they won't pay for it. As for
national health care, we already have it -- for military vets and Congress.

Except I bet the level of care for a vet vs a Congressman is not the same.



The Smithsonian is a real treasure, I've been there once and hope to go
there again.

Whose treasure? Who is supposed to pay for it? Is it a treasure for the
whole country, or only for those people who visit it? If the former, why
won't Congress pay for it? If the latter, why not turn it over to commercial
interests? If somebody is going to charge admission, they'd be glad to take
it over.

Now we are getting into limited government. Those that belive in limited
government would argue that the Smithsonian isn't a function of government.

The Smithsonian has grown 'way beyond anything that could have been
anticipated under its original charter, which was established in 1846
through the generosity of a British scientist, who contributed the original
trust fund. Congress got into the act mostly by means of government agencies
who used it either as a center for scientific research or as a museum. Now
it's a monster. Do we want this monster? Personally, I think it's a good
thing to have, and that it ought to be government funded but also that its
scope should be more sharply defined and limited. If the Smithsonian wants
to grow beyond that, it should be in cooperation with outside interests, who
should figure out how to fund their part of it.

I agree that their scope needs to be reviewed. There is no way they are
going to get unlimited funding even from politicians favorable to them. Too
many conflicting wants and needs in our society. I'm a great believer in
the space program and that too has had to deal with a financially reality
check. User fees are not out of the question. If modest user fees drive
off their customers then maybe there isn't that much support for the
Smithsonian after all.

One of these days, likely next year I'm going to make it to Green Field
Village for a day or two since it is in my state. I have no idea of the
scope of that operation but I'm fairly sure I'll have to pony up some bucks
to see that and it will be well worth it.



The school system up the road complained that they didn't have money for
building maintenance and the buildings were in disrepair. On closer
examination it turned out that voted funds for maintenance were used for
operations. Of course no one went to jail or lost their job over this.

Did your district vote for the original budget request, or did you reduce
it? That's what usually happens, time after time. Or legislated caps on
year-to-year growth force school boards to do it. That's another chronic
problem.

Property taxes are voted for specific purposes. The school administration
're-allocated' funds to operations. IOW, they knew best. Stupid tax payers
should have given them more money.

Between flat wages in many areas, higher energy costs, higher health care
and a host of other things, there is only so much each citizen is willing to
pay in taxes. Many citizens are tightening their belts and expect the same
for all aspects of government.



I wonder if part of the problem is the attitude of the Smithsonian Board
of
Regents not recognizing the reality of the times. Funding is going to get
even tighter in the future everywhere as the boomers retire.

The "reality of the times" is that people want to keep this "real treasure"
but they don't want to pay for it, like a million other things. Enter
politics, stage right...

Politics is how we do this. Not a perfect system but best we have come up
with so far.

You are up late Ed, normal for me working the midnight shift.