I watched the debate on Friday and, as a whole, I'd say that the candidates were evenly matched. Really, I'd say that under other circumstances, both candidates might be good Presidential material. But John McCain did say something almost totally insignificant that still has me thinking about it three days later and makes me wonder what point he was trying to make.
The question was about the need for economic bailout and John McCain's gist of an answer was that our government already spends way too much money on useless pork-belly programs (which is something that most people would likely agree with). However, his first example was one that I had to question - nearly 3 million dollars to map the DNA of the Grizzly Bear. Is this wasteful?
I suppose the question really points to the underlying values of the American people. Sure, scientists and tree huggers are going to embrace this program as having extreme value. Any time we can discover the genome map of any creature it has extreme scientific value - and especially an endangered species like the Grizzly Bear. So, scientifically and environmentally, this plan receives kudos. On the other side of the equation, it doesn't exactly save people's homes from foreclosure nor put food in the mouths of the poor and desperate (unless something goes wrong and they like bear meat ;) So, from the fiscally conservative side, this plan is ridiculous and the money could definitely be better spent elsewhere (all 3 million of it... which will really go far ;)
I guess, though, the question is what do the rest of the American people think about this project. I'd say that for most of us the fact that we are exploring the DNA of a Grizzly Bear is news, in the same way that we're spending 30 million dollars to promote the sale of Chrysler automobiles in the UAE is news or the 100 million dollar budget of Radio Free Europe is news. If we started reading the 2008 budget right now, we'd probably finish in about 2010. There's a lot of stuff that we buy with our tax dollars (or there used to be anyway ;) So, really, 3 million bucks for DNA research into Grizzly Bears. Why not?
Or maybe I should ask the question another way... what SHOULD the American people think about this project? Should we even care that DNA research is being done? Should we care whether its being done for Grizzly Bears or are there more appropriate animals? Should we care that it costs 3 Million of our tax dollars to do this research? Might that money be better spent elsewhere? If we allow politicians to tell us what to think about a project (I'm John McCain and I tell you that its wasteful spending, therefore it is!), then why do we even vote? Many of these so-called entitlement spendings are the only time average tax payers actually get to see some of their pet projects get funded by the Federal Government with the money we give them.
As for me, I didn't really care that we were giving 3 million bucks to study the DNA of Grizzly Bears - one way or the other - but now that you mention it, I think its probably a good idea. IF something should happen to Grizzly Bears in the near future, I'd like to think that somewhere down the line we might be able to bring them back from a man-made extinction and restore them to the gene pool where they belong. But even if that scenario never happens and Grizzly Bears go on living just fine for thousands of years to come, I think the accumulation of knowledge more than justifies the expense of 3 million bucks. And I certainly don't like a politician telling me that not spending 3 million dollars on Grizzly DNA is going to somehow solve our financial crisis and end the greed on Wall Street. If you ask me, we'd be better off spending 700 billion dollars on programs like this than on Wall Street any day of the week - at least we'd get something for our money.
John McCain was trying to score a quick political point in a debate that will decide who the leader of the free world would be. Quite frankly, I'd rather have someone in charge who thinks that Grizzly Bears are worth studying than someone who'd be willing to throw the Grizzly Bears under a bus in order to score quick political points. But then, some guys just don't get it... do they?
2 comments:
I think I would rather spend $100M on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's broadcasts to Iran, Azerbijain, etc than $100B a month on a war in those places.
Read up a bit on the Caspian and its energy resources...and also Europe's dependence on the region for energy needs.
My point wasn't that Radio Free anything was a waste of money or time, it was the fact that we spend our money on a lot of different programs, each with their own value - and who's to say whether one is more important than the other.
I would say that there is a certain amount of subjective proof that radio propaganda has worked in the past and will work in the future, but it didn't prevent or shorten the cold war and it won't do the same in the middle east or Caspian. It certainly didn't stop Russian tanks from entering Georgia nor has it halted the spread of nuclear power in Iran. So what real value is it?
We could sit here and argue this back and forth for days and each make valuable points, but the end result is that they would still make radio broadcasts and those broadcasts would continue to have the same effect - unless some politician decides to cut the program to save $100 million from the trillion dollar budget. Then the argument over whether it works or not is moot. But hey, we've saved $100 million!
Post a Comment