OPINION: 'Investment' a code word for spending

This trend to mislead the public by saying government should “invest” in certain projects is not just limited to Mr. Obama’s doublespeak. Both local and state governments as well try to hide their spending by saying they are “investing” in the future.

But spending money is spending money and when money is tight, “investing” just creates more debt.

The main problem in government is employee expenses. Government expense is mostly payroll, both in salaries and benefits. And compared to the private sector, government salaries and benefits generally are much higher except for public safety workers who are often very under paid.

For example, if a local government says they are going to build a road, it isn’t just tar and gravel being paid for; mostly, it’s the salaries and benefit costs of those who are driving the trucks that pave the road.

Nowhere does this idea of “investing” get more talk than in education. Those wanting more money for education talk about “investing in children” because “children are our future.”

But this nation has across the board spent more and more money on education for the last 40 years. Over 60 percent of Georgia’s budget is for education. Our local property taxes are mostly for education.
The problems in education aren’t due to a lack of money; they’re due to many other factors, from broken homes to bad curriculum to some ineffective teachers.

Governments at all levels love to spend money. That’s what they exist for. And most government bureaucrats are terrible at managing tax dollars; its not their money, so throwing it around doesn’t really matter to them.

So let’s don’t let the talk of “investing” fool us. While sometimes spending money now for the future good is wise, that concept is now being exploited by Mr. Obama and others to hide what they really want — more of our money via higher taxes.