My point is, that's your opinion of what is essential. Others will disagree. Do you not help fund a cowboy poetry contest, causing them to have to limit attendance, thus causing people to not make enough money, and end up on welfare? What if those people who have a reduced income because of funding cuts turn to burglary, theft, drug dealing to help make ends meet and that in turn requires a larger police force? Where are the savings, especially if you fund the contest at a lower level than what the additional policing costs? Then, because the person affected isn't making as much, reducing their income tax, And because of reduced income, they spend less, reducing sales tax revenues. And they end up renting instead of owning a home, reducing property tax revenues.

People visiting places like planned parenthood can't afford to pay. That's why they visit. So, we now have them not get health and cancer screenings and have to go onto medicaide to pay for treatments.

I'm not saying funding or not funding is right or wrong. Simply being devil's advocate and showing how something that is essential to one person is not to another and that there are huge ripple effects that end up costing us all money.

>Defense spending is essential, but being in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya is not. Police and fire protection are essential. Public TV, Public Radio and Planned Parenthood are not. They should be supported by the people who use them. Cowboy poetry festivals are non-essential and should be paid for by the people who attend them and not all of us who do not want to spend money on them. Bailing out banks and auto companies is not essential.