The next time you hear some politician casually toss the word “billion” around as if it really doesn’t amount to much, you might think about whether you want that politician spending your tax dollars. The following measures are quoted from a popular email that has been circulating since 2003, original source unknown:

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency put the figure into some perspective with the following observation:

A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
A billion days ago no one walked on earth.
A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our current government spends it.

As interesting as these comparisons may be, they don’t translate into the sort of analysis that has any real meaning for most of us. Even “a billion dollars” is beyond the comprehension of most people when it is used as the measure of how much money is being spent for some particular purpose, such as education, defense, social security, health care, welfare, roads, or any of the multitude of other services that government provides.

The numbers become so mind boggling that they are beyond understanding. Everyone seems to just shrug them off and “keep on truckin’,” doing whatever they normally do, at work, play, shopping, or just plain living. I can’t think of a single occasion when the subject has come up among friends whenever we exchange a few serious thoughts about just how much of our money politicians are spending so casually, wheeling and dealing to secure some result they may personally desire or think best for their constituents or the country.

Snopes tells us:

We should begin by pointing out that the definition of “billion” is not standardized. In some places and usages, a billion is one followed by nine zeros, or one thousand million; in others, however, a billion is one followed by twelve zeros, or one million million. In the U.S., a billion always refers to one followed by nine zeros.

Senator Everett Dirksen (1896-1969) is generally credited with having made the comment, “A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.” His humor often made headlines, but we seldom hear anyone talk about another aspect of his observation, that is, just how much money a billion dollars really is.

Today, the word is used so frequently that it is hardly noticeable. Multi-billion dollar government budgets are debated and approved all the time, and we seem to think nothing of it. Hardly a flicker from anyone. As a matter of fact, it’s more often the opposite. What we usually see is “pork” being piled onto appropriations bills as if the economy were a bottomless pit for our politicians, who all too often ignore the public good for private benefit.

I can remember a time when the idea of a billion dollars was a source of wonder at the sheer scope of that amount of money. It no longer seems to elicit any response at all, except perhaps boredom. But, a billion dollars does add up to “real money,” especially when you look closely at what it can buy.

With that in mind, consider the following illustrations of just how much money the $200 billion estimate for rebuilding New Orleans really is:

• In California, where the average annual income is around $33,000, two hundred billion dollars could support over six million families for one year.
• In many third-world countries, where the average annual income is around $500, two hundred billion dollars could provide for four hundred million families for one year. That’s one-third more than the total population of the U.S.
• At $10,000 per student, $200 billion could pay the costs of schooling for 20 million children (K-12) for one year, or for the entire college education of half a million students at, say, $40,000 each.
• At a median salary, nationwide, of about $37,000 a year, $200 billion could pay the compensation of over 540,000 secondary school teachers for one year.
• At an average cost of $100, two hundred billion dollars could pay for two hundred million doctor visits. That’s a lot of patients. Or, at an average Rx expense of $100 a month, $200 billion dollars could pay the prescription costs for approximately 166,800,000 people for one year.
• For apartment dwellers, at $1,000 a month rent, $200 billion could provide shelter for over 16 million families for one year or over 833,000 families for 20 years.

For the investment minded, at 5% per annum, the earnings on $200 billion would be $10 billion a year. With the average retiree receiving about $1,000 a month from Social Security, $200 billion could provide annual retirement payments to over 16 million people for one year. If a $200 billion endowment fund were invested at 5%, the $10 billion annual investment income could help support over 83,000 seniors with the equivalent of their Social Security payments, without dipping into the principal. Isn’t that how Social Security should work, instead of as some type of “Ponzi scheme,” which would be illegal if it were not the government doing it?

Looking specifically at the situation in New Orleans, at an average cost of, say, $200,000 to rebuild a home, $200 billion could pay for one million homes. How many homes were actually lost? Certainly not a million, considering that the number of evacuees has been estimated at 400,000. Granted, most of the money will probably go toward rebuilding infrastructure and various buildings, public and private, but a million homes does give some pause for reflection.

Perhaps there should be a “truth in advertising” law that would require all appropriations bills to include examples of various alternative uses of the costs of proposed legislation.

Like the man said, “A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.”

©2006 Harris Sherline, All Rights Reserved