Comments about ‘Could a teenager's science fair project save the U.S. government hundreds of millions of dollars?’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, April 23 2014 11:55 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
sg
newhall, CA

You want to save money, restrict the president's flying around for anything and everything. No more campaigning. Limit or eliminate vacations taken by the first family period. Take away all perks from members of Congress. If they have to fly back to their home states, on their own dime and on commercial flights, NOT first class. Take away all of their chauffers. They drive themselves to work, to and fro. Eliminate the need to have two homes (one in home state and another in DC or surrounding states). They rent a condo period and the family remains in state home. He's working for the country, not for his family, and we shouldn't be paying for their double lifestyle. Take away all Bloomberg machines out of congressional offices (anyone ever ask Hatch about his?).

Makid
Kearns, UT

The best way to save Billions a year is to stop buying Tanks and Jets the military doesn't need nor want just to potentially buy votes in swing states.

Once that is done, then we can start going after the smaller things that. Always start with the things that politicians want but no one else does, then work your way down until you get to things that are supported by the public at a 50/50 rate. At that point, let voters decide to keep or drop in national votes every 4 years. Can also include tax increases as well as tax reform questions.

Do think until the budget is balanced and the National Debt is gone and the country has a surplus of $1 Trillion. Then and only then would we look at a balanced budget amendment that tied spending directly to tax revenue, where spending goes up 1%, taxes go up 1%. Doing this would reduce the number of people in both parties that want to spend more than comes in.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

A little fact-checking by the Deseret News would be in order before publishing articles like this.

Is it true, as you quote in paragraph 8, that the Government Printing Office only spends a grand total of $750,000 per year on ink? Certainly, one of your research assistants should be able to verify that with a few minutes' work. If it is true, you can throw this article away, because you just spent more on printing it than the GPO could save if 15% savings on ink is the only thing in play. With a grand total of $11,250 at stake, the adminstrative cost of change would far exceed that. In fact, I hope no one at the GPO is reading this article, as they'll waste more money (in labor) just passing around memos discussing it.

And, if it's not true, you should publish the correct number.

Either way, the headline, and this story, appear to be unwarranted wastes of readers' eyeballs. There is absolutely no way to save "hundreds of millions" out of $750,000.

Jamescmeyer
Midwest City, USA, OK

We're already not buying jets and tanks, meanwhile we're paying money so that ranchers can have their cows stolen and a small percent of a small percent of people without health insurance can have abortions.

Future Author
----------, UT

Oh joy. When the government is so desperate to the point where they think that using different fonts on their documents will solve all of America's problems.

Fact is; it won't.

I didn't need to read about some guy's science project to know that different fonts take different amounts of ink! Any one that actually prints stuff out and thinks for one second about that would know. I've known that forever.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments