Talk:Government waste

Removal of reliably sourced content

SPECIFICO deleted the "Causes" section and gave the following explanation: "Deleted statement of opinion from non-notable individual. For a strong assertion like "ridiculous..." please find a notable authority whose opinion is significant."

Here's the content that he deleted:

Some people believe one of the main causes of government waste is that the government is spending other people's money. Tad DeHaven, an analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, writes,

The one thing that these ridiculous expenditures all have in common is that they are a direct result of people being able to spend other people’s money. In Congress’s case, we have 535 people with trillions of other people’s dollars to spend. That they’re content to fritter billions away on toys for special interests shouldn’t be shocking. - Tad DeHaven, Why is there so much government waste?

SPECIFICO, I've already asked you once...User_talk:Xerographica#Dispute_Resolution...but evidently I have to ask you again. Which authorities do you consider to be notable? Please be specific. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

New York Times writer Russell Baker

SPECIFICO modified the "Solutions" section like so...

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." - Taxpayers' Choice The New York Times

Hey SPECIFICO...are you sure that Russell Baker was making fun of his own proposal? Because it seems a lot more likely, and ridiculously self-evident, that he's making fun of frivolous government spending. Perhaps you should post your changes here on the talk page beforehand. --Xerographica (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Good moaning, Graphica. WP:BOLD. We've had bold and revert. Feel free to discuss. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

OOPS! Sorry. Good MORNING. SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, why did you write that Baker satirized his own proposal? --Xerographica (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm actually a bit confused about his intention behind these statements. I'm thinking it's supposed to be sarcastic, though not quite satirical? —Fishicus (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Baker is foreshadowing Boaz by saying that there's no way that taxpayers would spend their own tax dollars on some of the frivolous things that the government spends other people's money on.

Speaking of other people's money...in his 1979 book, Free to Choose, the Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman described a "simple classification of spending". The classification system was a critique of government waste and ineffectiveness. --Xerographica (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary article -- delete

This article, like Unnecessary war, should be deleted. By its' very title, it tends to POV. (Moreover, giving examples turns it into a US-centric article.) How can we ever properly balance it? With examples of government non-waste? The inefficiencies of government can be addressed in articles about government spending, where, at the outset, a NPOV approach can be pursued. – S. Rich (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. Unlike unnecessary war, and article here is possible. [insert comment about the necessity of removing tendentious editors here, although there may be disagreement about which editors are tendentious.] — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's difficult to properly balance. I was going to suggest that the Government success in the "See also" section might aid in this, on clicking it I see that it actually redirects to Government failure.... While I think deleting might be a bit too far, merging might be a good approach. Maybe into government failure? —Fishicus (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Friedman's Law

It's hard to keep track of all the reliably sourced material that Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO remove from articles...I only just now realized that one of them removed Friedman's Law from this article. Perhaps it was SPECIFICO given that he removed the same content from The Machinery of Freedom...here.

It turns out that back in 2007 Lavklumpen created an entry for Friedman's Law...but then it was redirected to the book. David R. Henderson, a respected economist, has discussed this concept...which was initially developed by another respected economist....David D. Friedman. I'd be bold and add a section on the concept myself...but I'm stilling waiting for SPECIFICO to share his list of economists who he believes to be notable. Plus I'm not sure if Rubin would consider Henderson's blog entry to be a reliable source...and lastly, I have no idea if Rich is going to follow through and nominate this page for deletion. --Xerographica (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

For a claim like this, there should be more than nebulous assertions, even if from a reputable economist. There should be studies, specific facts, etc. that can be provided as references. —Fishicus (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)