Government Charities

Most supporters of big government advocate increasing revenue by force, in the form of higher taxes. This is euphemistically called "asking" people to pay more, in the same way a mugger "asks" you for your wallet. But what if we actually asked people to voluntarily contribute more to government programs? Let's take Medicaid for example. Everyone has seen ads for charities that ask people to pledge a monthly contribution to help a child in a third-world country. Why not have a Medicaid Support Fund where people can pledge their support or give lump-sum contributions?

I see ads for the United Way everywhere, and that organization takes in quite a bit of money. There's no reason we couldn't have a similar ad campaign for the Medicaid Support Fund. In fact, the entire campaign could be donated by some liberal advertising firm that would offer its expertise as a public service. All aspects of the fund would be managed by private entities willing to support the project -- because if it were done by the government it would almost certainly spend more money that it took in. This type of fund would encourage prominent liberal hypocrites like Warren Buffet, who pretend they aren't taxed enough while simultaneously shielding their money, to live up to their big government ideals and contribute more. It's almost a certainty that such government charities would also attract significant corporate contributions, if for no other reason than public relations.

There could even been government charity programs that appeal to those on the right, such as the Missile Defense Fund, or the Help Kill a Terrorist Fund, where donations would go directly to help defer the costs of our drone assassination program.

We actually have some of these types of charities now, such as the Navy League, but their advertising is minimal compared to better known organizations. When is the last time you saw an ad for the Navy League?

More on Shooting the Rioters

In the previous post I called for the police to shoot rioters who use firebombs against the police, or who set fire to occupied buildings. John Hawkins at Right Wing News agrees, although he goes much further.

Many people think of defense of a nation as the very first job of government, but there’s actually an even more basic task that the government has to fulfill: Maintaining order.

In extraordinary situations, when you have widespread breakdowns of public order and shops are being looted, cars are being burned, rocks and bottles are being thrown at police, and civilians are being murdered in the street, if the government can’t quickly re-establish order using normal means, it’s completely justified in using lethal violence to do it

I think lethal police response should be more selective, but I agree with his view of the responsibility of government. And he makes a key point.

you may say this is unfair to thugs in the street, but we should be much more worried about the lives of innocent people who are being assaulted and property owners whose livelihoods are being unfairly destroyed.

Exactly. This attitude tends to separate the right and the left, and is one of the many reasons I will always be on the right. When I look at a riot, my sympathy is with the people being assaulted, the owners of the cars being destroyed, the families left homeless when their buildings burn, the shopkeepers who are robbed, and all the other victims. The last thing I worry about are the feelings and rights of the scum doing the rioting.

Trivial Cuts But No New Taxes

That's my one-line summary of the debt ceiling deal. It's nothing great, but it's the best that could be expected given the political situation. We will continue to borrow and spend ridiculous amounts of money, but we will make some minor cuts over ten years to offset this particular increase in the debt ceiling. Despite all the nonsense about "hostage-taking" and "extortion" from big government types, the House GOP did the right thing in attempting to force some fiscal reform. They didn't succeed, but at least they were able to block new taxes.

There will be no actual cuts to government, no programs closed down, no departments eliminated, or anything else that would indicate a serious attempt to scale back the size of government and its out-of-control spending. In fact, this deal even creates yet another commission to try and agree on part of the cuts specified in the agreement. But at least for now, there will be no new taxes to give the government even more money to spend.

Government Expenditures -- Senate Edition

I came across an article in the Christian Science monitor called, "Well, here's a billion dollars the US can have," that lists how much we spend on our 100 senators.

According to a document at Treasury called the “2010 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances" Senators and their staffers actually cost tax payers a grand total of $815,257,000 in 2010 above and beyond their regular salaries. Yes, that's correct taxpayers, almost a billion dollars in non-salary expenses for the maintenance of 100 men and women in civil service.

If that didn't sink in, read it again. Think about it. There are only 100 senators, and somehow they cost us more than 3/4 of a billion dollars a year, on top of their individual salaries of $174,000. And people wonder why many of us think the government is way too large and spends far too much money.

Riddle of the Day

From Stephen Green at Vodka Pundit,

"Q: What is it called in Washington when you lose $1.6 billion dollars?

A: 'A major accomplishment.'"

Biggest Impediment to Job Growth?

What's the biggest impediment to job growth in the U.S.? The government. So says the co-founder of Home Depot, Bernie Marcus.

Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we'd tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It's become stifling.

Talk to pretty much any business owner and you'll hear the same thing. Obama routinely talks about the need to create jobs, when his policies have the opposite effect. That's why he has to resort to using imaginary numbers when talking about jobs he's supposedly created or saved.

Britain Decides to Cut Funding for Internal Enemies

It's a sad comedy of just how bad things have gotten in the UK that it took a big cabinet fight for the government to decide to stop funding Islamic extremist groups. Seriously.

David Cameron will emerge as the victor from a bitter cabinet battle over multiculturalism this week as the government unveils a hardline approach to tackling Islamist extremism.

Home Office sources say that Cameron has quashed Nick Clegg's argument for a more tolerant attitude to Muslim groups by insisting on a strategy centred upon the notion that violent extremism is incubated within the ideology of non-violent extremism.

Apparently Clegg and other useful idiots for Islamism within the UK wanted to provide money to Islamic extremist groups as long as they didn't openly advocate violence.

Cameron said it was "nonsense" to fund groups with extremist elements

You might think that would be obvious.

What Serious Budget Cuts Would Look Like

It's been pretty funny -- but not surprising -- watching the hysterical screaming from Democrats and the left in general about the minor budget cuts proposed by the GOP in the form of a plan by Rep. Paul Ryan. A few months ago, Senator Rand Paul outlined a plan of his own with far more significant cuts -- the kind of cuts we need if we are to even begin to bring the deficit under control, let alone the debt. His plan includes such things as completely eliminating the Departments of Energy and Health & Human Services, cutting the Department of Education budget by 83%, and the complete elimination of foreign assistance programs. Sounds radical, doesn't it? Those cuts, and the numerous others he proposed, would still only reduce the deficit by one third.

No Need to Respond to State of the Union

Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post did it for me.

In a nutshell: Obama proposed a ton of new domestic spending, promised to freeze discretionary spending (attained by savaging defense), abstained from offering specifics on entitlement reform and largely ignored major foreign policy changes.

She breaks it down in more detail, but it was what you'd expect from Obama: more big government and more spending.

Big Government Goes After Caffeinated Alcoholic Drinks

In the latest ridiculous food police -- in this case drink police -- episode, the FDA has given preliminary notice of its intent to ban caffeinated alcoholic beverages such as Four Loko. The FDA says it isn't an outright ban, but

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday told makers of caffeinated alcoholic beverages that the caffeine in their products has been deemed an "unsafe food additive," and the drinks can no longer be sold in their current form.

If they can't be sold in their current form, that's essentially a ban. This particular do-gooder ban, like most, makes no logical sense. Caffeine is obviously not an "unsafe food additive," as it is in countless products. And apparently the FDA has never heard of rum & coke, bourbon & coke, or any other alcoholic drink & coke. And then there are the high caffeine energy drinks such as Monster and Red Bull that are regularly combined with vodka or other hard liquor. There's no point at all in banning the sale of Joose for supposed safety reasons when you can legally mix Red Bull & vodka. The manufacturers of these beverages are being unfairly singled out, and their profit centers attacked, all because of a hysterical overreaction by big government types who think they should run every one's lives for their own good.

The Fiscal Commission Co-Chair Report

I read through the proposed reforms suggested by the two co-chairs of the president's fiscal commission. Two things came to mind. First, these ideas are the type of sweeping changes that could actually begin to get the U.S. fiscal situation under control. But second, they are not viable politically. Pretty much everyone's sacred cow get's slaughtered. The chance that a majority of these proposals could be enacted is almost zero. Here's a list of the specifics from the link above, and my quick reaction to each. Overall, I'm on-board with many of the ideas. My comments in [brackets].

Social Security cuts:

• Index the retirement age to longevity -- i.e., increase the retirement age to qualify for Social Security -- to age 69 by 2075. [People are living longer and working longer. Good idea]
  
• Index Social Security yearly increases to a lower inflation rate, which will generally mean lower cost of living increases and less money per average recipient. [yes]
  
• "Increase progressivity of benefit formula" -- i.e., reduce benefits by 2050 for middle, and, especially, higher earners, relative to current benefits. [definitely. I would eliminate payouts entirely for high earners.]
  
• Increase the Social Security contribution ceiling: while people only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,800 of their wages today, that's only about 86% of the total potentially taxable wages. The co-chairs suggest raising the ceiling to capture 90% of wages. [Eliminate the ceiling entirely. There's no reason the entire salary of lower earners should be taxed while higher earners escape withholding over 106k]
  

Tax reform:

• The co-chairs suggest capping both government expenditures and revenue at 21% of GDP eventually. [not sure about this level]
  
• In their first plan, called "The Zero Plan," they suggest reducing the tax brackets to three personal brackets and one corporate rate while eliminated all credits and deductions. Without any credits or deductions (including the EITC and mortgage interest deductions), the 3 tax rates would be 8, 14 and 23 percent. [maybe. I prefer a flat tax for all]
  
• In their second plan, they would increase the personal deduction to $15,000, create 3 tax brackets (15, 25 and 35%); repeal or significantly curtail a number of popular tax deductions (including the state and local deduction and the mortgage interest deduction); and eliminate other tax expenditures. [see above]
  
• The third plan would force Congress to undertake comprehensive tax reform by 2012 by raising taxes for each year Congress fails to act. [sounds like a bad idea]
  
• All their proposals limit Congress to collecting taxes on income made within the United States, reducing or eliminating taxes on American expats and revenues companies earn abroad. [Good idea]
  
• They also suggest raising the federal gas tax by 15 cents per gallon. [Terrible idea that will damage the economy. Gas taxes should be lowered].
  

Medicaid/Medicare cuts

• Force more low-income individuals into Medicaid managed care. [probably necessary]
  
• Increase Medicaid co-pays. [This will definitely hurt the poor badly and keep some from going to the doctor. Small increase maybe, but most who have Medicaid can't afford high co-pays]
  
• Accelerate already-planned cuts to Medicare Advantage and home health care programs. [unfortunately necessary]
  
• Create a cap for Medicaid/Medicare growth that would force Congress and the President to increase premiums or co-pays or raise the Medicare eligibility age (among other options) if the system encounters cost overruns over the course of 5 years. [not sure about these caps]
  

Discretionary spending cuts

• Eliminate all earmarks. [Definitely]
  
• Eliminate the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. [Cut way more government offices]
  
• Freeze federal worker wage increases through 2014; eliminate 200,000 federal jobs by 2020; and eliminate 250,000 federal non-defense contractor jobs by 2015. [Good idea but even more could be cut]
  
• Eliminate subsidized student loans, in which the government makes interest payments while the student is in school. [Definitely]
  
• Establish co-pays in the VA medical system and change the co-pays and deductibles for military retirees that remain in that system. [I oppose this. I think we owe our veterans medical care]
  
• Eliminate NASA funding for commercial space flight. [Definitely. Commercial space flight should be funded by free enterprise].
  
• Require the Smithsonian museums to start charging entrance fees and raise fees at the national parks. [Good idea]
  
• Eliminate funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- which many conservatives suggested in the wake of the firing of former NPR contributor Juan Williams. [Should already be eliminated. Eliminate numerous other grants to the arts].
  
• Reduce farm subsidies by $3 billion per year. [or more]
  
• Create a Committee to eliminate unnecessary programs to the tune of $11 billion by 2015. [Cut them instead of creating another committee]
  
• Merge the Department of Commerce and the Small Business Administration and cut its budget by 10 percent. [ok]
  
• End "low-priority" Army Corps of Engineers programs to the tune of $1 billion by 2015. [Sounds good]
  
• Cut the State Department's overseas budget by 10 percent by 2015; reduce the proposed foreign aid budget by 10 percent in 2015; and cut voluntary contributions to the United Nations by 10 percent in 2015. [Cut the foreign aid budget by at least 50%. Eliminate all voluntarily contributions to the UN]
  
• Eliminate the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which provides subsidized financing and political risk insurance for U.S. companies' investments abroad. [yes]
  
• Cut $900 million in fossil fuel research funds. [ok]
  
• Force airlines to increase their contributions to airline security costs and allow them to increase per-ticket security fees. [This would drive up the price of air travel and possibly damage the economy. Not a good idea]
  

Defense spending cuts:

• Double the number of defense contractor positions scheduled for elimination from 10 percent of current staff augmentees to 20 percent. [sounds good]
  
• Reduce procurement by 15 percent, or $20 billion. [There have to be these sorts of across the board cuts, no matter how painful they are]
  
• Eliminate the V-22 Osprey program. [probably necessary]
  
• Cancel the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program. [yes]
  
• Halve the number of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters in favor of F-16s and F/A-18Es. [yes]
  
• Cancel the Marine Corps F-35 program. [yes]
  
• Cancel the Navy's Future Maritime Prepositioning Force. [maybe]
  
• Cancel the new Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), the Ground Combat Vehicle, and the Joint Tactical Radio. [not sure about these cuts.]
  
• Reduce military forces in Europe and Asia by one-third. [Forces in Europe should have been reduced long ago]
  
• Send all military children based in the U.S. to local schools. [sounds reasonable]
  

Democratic Promise to America - Top Ten Points

After House Republicans released their "Pledge to America," Democrats reacted quickly by drawing up their own "Promise to America." The Unreligious Right has obtained an exclusive preview of the top ten points.

1. Spend more money. Despite all the evidence that more spending has not produced job growth, more needs to be spent -- whether we have it available or not. That's why we have a mint & the federal reserve. No matter how much Republicans want to spend, we promise to always spend more.

2. Ignore the debt & the deficit. Focus on right now and the future will take care of itself.

3. Find new ways to raise taxes. We'll do everything possible to create new taxes, even if we have to call them something else.

4. Attack any significant tax cut as tax cuts for the "rich." Rich means whoever we say it means.

5. Equate tax cuts with spending. Even though tax cuts are reductions in revenue and are not spending of any kind, we will continue to call them costs so we can say they cost too much.

6. Create new government programs. America needs more and bigger government. There is no problem that can't be solved by the government. Greater government involvement in everything will be our first resort.

7. Increase funding regardless of returns. This means more spending on education and unproven alternative energy sources.

8. If we absolutely have to make any cuts in spending, look first to cutting defense. National security is our least important priority.

9. Increase regulation, red tape and bureaucracy. Small businesses don't need tax cuts. They need more rules, requirements, fees and government oversight. They can count on the Democratic Party to provide those things.

10. Find new ways to dismiss any and all criticism or counter-proposals from political opponents as based on racism, bigotry, fear, support for the rich, or as un-American.

Surprise! Obama Wants More Spending

The president is calling for "$50 billion to kick off a new infrastructure plan designed to expand and renew the nation’s roads, railways and runways." Where have we heard this before? Oh yeah, the so-called stimulus that was billed as an investment in infrastructure but turned out to be a gigantic pork giveaway. But this $50 billion will really be used to improve our infrastructure. No, really. And guess what, it even includes a new federal agency.

The measures include the “establishment of an Infrastructure Bank to leverage federal dollars and focus on investments of national and regional significance that often fall through the cracks

More spending, and more big government -- that's the Obama and Democratic answer to any question. In this case the question is: what can we do to pretend that we are helping the economy and creating jobs to avoid crushing defeat in November? GOP members of Congress should do everything possible to defeat or delay this latest waste of money, much of which will no doubt be funneled to Democratic special interests such as unions. 

Democrats Finally Facing Fiscal Reality?

That's a lead story at the LA Times. According to the Times, Democrats are finally beginning to think that just maybe the deficit could be a slight problem. It's not that they don't still want to spend taxpayer money like drunken sailors, shoveling it to every Democratic-supporting special interest in sight; they do. But they are beginning to feel like it might hurt their reelection chances.

"There's no question that people are almost as concerned about the deficit and government spending as about jobs," said Mark Mellman, a pollster who works closely with congressional Democrats. "It is not just about the actual dollars — it is a metaphor for wasted money and lack of discipline and long-term economic decline."

Here's a small piece of advice for anyone concerned about deficits and government spending. Stop voting for Democrats. The standard response to that is for a Democrat or independent to point to the Bush administration and the last time the GOP controlled Congress and say, look how much Republicans spent under Bush. And it's certainly true that there are big government, big spending Republicans, and that the GOP went on a spending spree during the Bush years. But while they were doing so, Democrats were howling for even more spending, accusing Bush of cutting programs even as he increased expenditures. No matter how much money Republicans want to spend, Democrats always want to spend more -- except maybe on defense and national security, the one area where government spending is most justifiable. It's a law of U.S. politics. So if you are an independent whose number one issue is cutting government spending, vote Republican. No matter how bad Republicans might be on spending, Democrats are going to be worse -- usually much worse. You can bank on it. 

Religious License Plates OK, Atheist Plates No Good

A North Dakota man requested a personalized license plate saying "Is No God." It was rejected, despite the fact that the state has allowed plates with religious messages such as "I love God" and "Praise God." As the man who applied for the plate said,

“If they're going to allow one point of view to be expressed on government property, they should allow everyone's.”

Exactly. If you don't, then you get a situation where the state government has to decide which views of religion are acceptable and which aren't-- which translates into state endorsement of particular religious messages. In my opinion, religious messages on license plates are a bad idea and should be avoided, no matter what the viewpoint. But if you are going to allow "Praise God," it seems pretty unreasonable to reject "Is No God."

Cutting Government

I know, it will never happen with Mr. Big Government in the White House, and Democrats controlling Congress. But let's pretend that one day we'll have a government actually interested in cutting spending. What areas would be prime targets for cuts? I noticed a column/video in USA Today taking up that proposition. Interestingly enough, it features two people from opposite sides of the political spectrum, Bob Beckel and Cal Thomas, finding some common ground on things that should be cut.  Here are their proposals with my comments on each.

1. Department of Education. This would be a prime target for me. Slash the federal education budget to the bone. We get very little return on the massive amounts of money dumped down this particular hole. Education should be primarily a state and local matter, with the federal government doing little more than setting some national standards.

2. Department of Agriculture. Another fat, bloated waste of money. Here's Beckel's comment.

Absolutely. Between 1996 and 2002, federal subsides to farmers have grown to $121 billion. In recent years, 72% of those subsidies went to huge corporate agribusinesses and the largest privately owned farms. So you have a symbiotic relationship between government and big farmers, but the American people are left holding the bill.

Those subsidies should be eliminated entirely.

3. Faith-based initiatives. Extremely dubious from a church/state separation perspective, and totally unnecessary. One of Bush's really bad ideas. I agree with Thomas and Beckel. Scrap the whole thing.

4. Future Bailouts. Saying no future bailouts isn't exactly a cut, although it's still a good idea. Beckel wants an exception for an "absolute national emergency," and defends the auto industry bailouts. The problem with that sort of exception is that bailouts are always justified by claiming an emergency, and by dire predictions of doom. Let the market work.

5. Defense Department. This is normally the only area of government that liberals want to cut, while expanding all the rest. But national defense is one of the few clearly necessary and justifiable roles of government, and therefore more worthy of funding than many other things. Having said that, there is all sorts of waste and overspending on defense that could be cut. Defense is a pork-project repository within a government addicted to pork projects.

6. Entitlement Spending. I was glad to see Beckel call for major reform of social security, including means testing and raising the payout age to 70 -- both excellent ideas in my opinion. We should also privatize the system as much as possible.

I rarely read USA Today and I was not aware of Beckel and Thomas' Common Ground feature. It looks like it might be worth checking out in the future. 

Smokey Bear's Rules for Government

I saw this over at Cato. Smokey Bear's rules for fire safety apply to government.

Keep it small, keep it in a confined area, and keep an eye on it.

Unfortunately we've allowed our government fire to become a raging inferno. You can see the flames everywhere.

Ben Stein Defends Government Workers

Speaking on CBS, Ben Stein gave a strong defense of government workers against what he sees as unfair demonization by fellow conservatives.  

There is a basic assumption among many of us conservatives that bothers me. Basically, the assumption is that if a person is a government employee, then he or she is lazy and shiftless, a parasite just eating up tax dollars without doing anything. 

"Bureaucrats" is what the sneering expression usually is.

Stein goes on to point out that government worker do important jobs, and include people like cops, firefighters, and CIA agents, who are generally popular with conservatives.

Let's take our conservative noses out of the air and stop sneering at the people who serve us in the civil service. We would be awfully sad if they were gone, even the ones in the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Much of what Stein says is true, but he's beating a strawman. When people complain about "bureaucrats," they don't mean cops, firefighters, teachers and CIA agents. And for the most part, they are complaining about the system and how the government conducts business, rather than about the individual people involved. Praising government workers as necessary and valuable is every bit as big a gross over-generalization, as is demonizing them. Many government agencies, from the federal level, right down to local boards, have well-earned reputations for inefficiency, poor service, and horrible relations with individual members of the public they are supposed to be serving. Stein's comment about the DMV is idiotic. Most people would certainly not miss all the regulation and nonsense that involves even the most basic dealings with those state agencies -- at least the ones I've been to. Somehow I think I could manage to operate a vehicle just fine without the assistance of anyone at a department of motor vehicles.

There are plenty of good people serving in government jobs. I actually deal with government workers on a daily basis, and the vast majority of the people I come into contact with are as friendly and helpful as anyone in a non-government position. But they have to operate under the constraints of the inefficiency, maze of rules and regulations, and sheer stupidity that characterizes much of how our government entities do business. When someone receives good service from a government agency, you probably won't hear him railing against "bureaucrats." But the poor reputation of bureaucrats doesn't come from some sort of conservative prejudice -- as Stein seems to think -- but from the real world experience of people who see how much money the government spends, how many workers they hire, and how inefficiently the government conducts its business.

A Bad Day for U.S. Freedom

The latest word is that the health care monstrosity will pass. If so, this is one of the worst days for American freedom in quite awhile. Not only is it a massive expansion of government power, a further attack on what remains of the free market in health care, and a huge spending spree we can't afford, it actually forces people to buy something they don't want. This bill is a prime example of why I vote Republican. The GOP has many problems, but Republican congresspeople of all stripes united to oppose this bill. There are plenty of big government Republicans. But there is no chance that the Republican party and a Republican president would ram through a big government bill against the will of the people, and without the support of a single Democrat. Only Democrats are that committed to expanding state power over pretty much all aspects of life. In our supposedly representative government, the representatives of a single party overroad the clearly expressed will of the country in the service of their state-worshipping ideology.

So what now? Over at Big Government, there is a good article that explains that the fight isn't yet over. The unconstitutional provision that forces people to buy insurance will be challenged in court.

In a matter of hours after House passage of the Senate Bill, the state of Virginia will file suit in federal court. The Commonwealth will be joined in the suit by a dozen other states. I expect a flood of additional lawsuits. The suits will be based on the provision that requires every American to purchase health insurance. (This is how the Dems ‘crack down’ on the insurance industry; by requiring everyone to buy its product?) Because this is an individual mandate, virtually every American has standing to file suit against this provision. Also, it is in direct conflict with state law in at least two states, Idaho and Virginia.

It's hard to say what will happen in the courts. I'm not normally a big fan of lawsuits, but these will be well-justified. Overall though, this whole process should be a wake-up call for Republicans, and anyone who opposes bigger government -- including those who were stupid enough to vote for Obama thinking he was some sort of moderate. Republicans need to understand that no lie is too blatant, and no tactic too underhanded, for Obama and the Democrats. If they are willing to force this bill through without regard to popular opposition, they are capable of anything. The GOP should do everything conceivable to block Obama's legislative agenda. Instead of being the "party of no," they should be the "party of hell, no." Start digging through parlimentary procedure rules and find new ways to bring Congress to a crawl. Get us to November so we can throw the Democrats out. 

I have no illusions that a gigantic new expansion of government power can be repealed. But if Republicans can regain control of Congress, it might be possible to eliminate some of the most odious provisions. That's about the most we can hope for.

Guess Who Is Getting Stimulus Money?

Today I actually visited a place benefiting from government stimulus money. In the lobby of the building was a large poster mounted on foamboard and set on an easel. It proclaimed that the location was a recipient of funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and detailed all sorts of remodelling plans, right down to replacing lightbulbs with new "energy efficient" ones. 

When I saw the poster I was pretty surprised. I go to this building often on business and have been through multiple floors. Overall, at least to outward appearances, the building is in fine shape and well-maintained. I've never had a problem with the elevators, haven't seen any damage, and never noticed so much as a blown out lightbulb. Yet for some reason this place is getting federal stimulus money.

If you haven't guessed yet, the building happens to be a Federal Building. That's right, it's part of the U.S. federal government. Our government is taking taxpayer money, supposedly intended to stimulate the economy, and using it to remodel one of its own buildings -- and one that doesn't even appear to need any work done. Not only are they doing it, they are so proud of the effort that they put up a display poster announcing it. You can't miss the sign after you pass through security.