I was reading a magazine editorial the other day in which the author recounted an idea for reducing the budget deficit. Instead of putting “In God We Trust” on our money, we sell it as ad space. On coins, someone would have enough space for a url, on bills, they could have the company logo as well. The author didn’t like that idea (he didn’t come right out and say it, but it was apparent that he thought that this might piss Gawd off).
Still, even if we leave IGWT on there, there’s still room on US currency to sell ad space on it. IMHO, it doesn’t seem to be a bad idea (in either form), and it might bring in a little extra money for the government. What say you?
I don’t like it. In fact, I get steamed that the Smithsonian Institution now has to seek corporate sponsors to make up for budget cuts. That Old Glory is now brought to us by Calvin Klein (or was it Tommy Hilfiger? I forget) is bad enough, I don’t need to see Ben Franklin holding a Pepsi can just in order to raise a few measly bucks for the government coffers. I’d rather pay more in taxes.
I suggest that the U. S. Military sell advertising space. What company wouldn’t want its logo painted on the missile that blasts a few Taliban fighters to smithereens? Some may call it crass and insensitive, but it’s got to be better than this.
That bothers me a lot less than when the Smithsonian altered information on global warming at the behest of those in power, or the former director who used the place to fund his lavish lifestyle.
When New Zealand almost went bankrupt, they sold billboard space on the sides of public buildings, and put commercial signs on police cars, as I recall. Variation on your theme, but same concept.
Personally, I think that’s a bad idea. The government should be impartial - above the commercial fray. There are already too many corporate fingers in the government’s pie.
I love the picture. The commentary totally misses the point. Kind of reminds me of when some politician said we needed to “wage a kinder and gentler war.”
