The tongue-in-cheek headline on the WSJ’s front page today made me laugh out loud. The irony of this article is that workgroup printers and copiers at DFAS had duplex (printing both sides) capability when I was there in 1996. Anytime it was suggested that printing on both sides of the paper would save money and actually use the features of a printer or copier, that suggestion was met with derision.

First there were the “obvious” reasons such as, “I’m only printing out x pages, not a book.”

Or, “It’s too hard to train people to select duplexing.”

Or my personal favorite, “It’s a pain to turn over the paper to read the back.”

Yes, those were actual reasons. But there is a deeper problem, one not ever spoken about out loud. That problem is that if you don’t spend it, you don’t get it next year. The way budgets are set up in Fed-land is that you must spend the money in your budget, or lose it. In fact, overspending, while not officially sanctioned, is preferable to underspending. Unspent money does not rollover to the next year.

Now in case I didn’t make it clear in my last paragraph, let me try it again. Governmental agencies are penalized for holding costs down. There is absolutely no reason for the government to keep its spending in check. There’s no penalty, no backlash, no one that actually cares. It is, by design, a bottomless pit.

So, someone has indicated that some money can be saved if both sides of the paper are used. Someone has suggested that even greater savings could be had by using electronic media. Does anyone think this is going to happen? No one has stopped to evaluate how many businesses would be affected by this change. How many people could lose their jobs. How highly invested our economy is in government waste.

When it comes right down to it, no one will be willing to take that kind of hit.

Think about it.