Taking other people's money and using it in an inefficient manner is wasting.
Inefficient for whom?
For the people who are getting something in return for "other people's money", it's investing.
I'm not saying that it's cool. But, it is what it is.
I am simply saying that there is a design to the way things currently work. It is not random, accidental, or born of some myopic undervaluing of human capital.
For those whose income is being reduced.
I'm not arguing that it's good for taxpayers or government employees. I think you're forgetting the context of my original comment. My point is simply that these choices--i.e. paying below market rates to employees, while spending exorbitantly on contracts with corporations--are not a matter of accidental waste or the relative importance of projects, as seemed to be implied by the comment to which I replied.
That "waste" is profitable. And it happens that those who profit also tend to have cozy relationships and armies of lobbyists.
>When it comes to huge corporations, these arguments never seem to come up.
>Clearly some projects are deemed "important enough" to be paid for.
What you're calling government waste is some corporation's profits. Nothing is ever wasted. It's simply redistributed. It's not so much a matter of whether it's important enough, but one of lobbying, campaign finance, and quid pro quo. Foot the bill and we'll "waste" some money your way.
Worker-bees don't have this leverage, so they get government rates.