[MR4D]

Or maybe I just don't think the government trying to support 158,00 libraries and museums at an average of $1,000 is worth it.

If kids need broadband, then raise the local taxes to pay for it. Or solicit local donations. Frankly, I don't think it would take much to raise $1,000 for a library.

For example, if the local population is too stupid to fund it because they just raised $60 million for a new high school football stadium, then that's their problem, and I don't think I (or you) should have to pay for their ignorance. (I'm referencing a town in Texas that built a massive high school football stadium because they think it's more important that their education investment.)

TL;DR - just because something exists, doesn't mean it should. There are more efficient ways of doing things.

[stinkytaco]

The $1,000/library is a bit misleading. Larger systems in wealthier and urban areas do not take much funding, since taxes are enough to support the services. Libraries tend to scale pretty well.

It's small libraries in rural areas that really need this support. Many communities cannot afford to support even the fixed costs of a library (a building and staff person), to say nothing of a collection or broadband. These largely rely on grants and support from the state and federal government.

[MR4D]

This page says Houston gets over $600,000. So the facts support my point.

https://www.imls.gov/grants/awarded/ls-00-10-0044-10

[lghh]

If an area is in the income bracket where the majority of the population would need a library to access the internet, raising taxes in the area is only going to burden that community even more.

[MR4D]

This (https://www.imls.gov/grants/awarded/ls-00-10-0044-10 ) could be replaced by each Houstonian paying a whopping 15 cents.

Yes, there are poor areas. The problem is they lack powerful congressional seats, and the rich ones get the money.

[BEEdwards]

> Or maybe I just don't think the government trying to support 158,00 libraries and museums at an average of $1,000 is worth it.

We both look at the number and shake our heads, only you think it's far to high and I far to low.

>For example, if the local population is too stupid to fund it because they just raised $60 million for a new high school football stadium, then that's their problem, and I don't think I (or you) should have to pay for their ignorance. (I'm referencing a town in Texas that built a massive high school football stadium because they think it's more important that their education investment.

Just like with the "die poor, don't have kids you can't afford" argument, it may make you feel morally superior, but it actually makes you a short sighted dick.

The kids who will suffer because of it didn't decide to build that stadium or neglect the education infrastructure, they just get disadvantaged by it.

tl;dr - sometimes you just need to suck it up and pay for things you don't want to like an adult because it's better in the long run.

[vogelke]

You are 100% right. I've worked for Uncle Sugar since 1981 as an AF officer and a contractor, and after seeing the way money gets spent, you're better off burying it in a fruit jar in your backyard than giving it to the government.

[selimthegrim]

Since when are IMLS, NEA and PBS comparable to the DoD and their $1000 wrenches and toilet seats?

[MR4D]

So, are you advocating since there's waste on one area that we should waste it in other areas?

The military clearly has a ton of waste, but that's not a reason to waste money here - it's a reason to cut waste there too.

[selimthegrim]

When one area has 100x the waste of the other and isn't nearly as easily auditable, it's a question of priorities. Going for this instead of defense procurement which is actually hard to cut is like DHS going after little old protesting ladies and patting themselves on the back.