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.


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.

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.


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.


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...

--
Ed Huntress



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.

You may wish to re-think that statement. We vets DO NOT have "national
health care", we have an HMO (Tri-Care) just as do retirees from other
companies. We have to pay an annual premium, which, granted, isn't as
much as some others, but we also have to go through a lot of crap to get
treatment.

Jim Chandler