The picture that came to mind as I read John Carlson’s commentary, “Things have changed, haven’t they” (Bellevue Reporter, Feb. 4) was that of a smug individual comfortably seated in a warm environment with a Starbucks latté in hand as he culls press excerpts for a commentary column.

The best thing I can say about this commentary is that it is worth exactly what I paid for it: nothing!

Regardless of where or how the government spends our money, it is exchanged for the performance of work, and empowers the worker to become a consumer, and thereby stimulate the economy. It makes no difference whether the money is spent by NASA, The National Park Service, or whatever. The objective is to stimulate the economy by putting people to work, who otherwise would be unemployed, not to stimulate the department where the work is performed.

The stimulative effect is independent of whether the work is useful or useless, but of course we all want to see our money have secondary benefits through functional improvement of the government services. In fact, without the anticipated stimulative effect it is disadvantageous to increase spending by government. The only other practical consideration is uniformity in distribution of the payout and, for this reason, Congress must balance the optional means of distribution – tax cut and alternatives – with the workforce distribution.

It is my expectation that a commentator will demonstrate insight into the fundamentals of the problem and the proposed remedy, and not just mouth the puerile vacuous pronouncements of a party line committed to failure of the government.

Bert E. Williams