Remember that middle schooler with an idea to change the font the government uses as a way to save taxpayers millions of dollars?
Well, it turns out, it won’t, as The Washington Post‘s David A. Fahrenthold found after talking with the Government Printing Office. But that was after staffers for Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., looked into the idea for a possible bill.
Here’s the backstory for those of you who don’t know about this cost-saving scheme: Pittsburgh middle-school wunderkind Suvir Mirchandani made national news over the weekend, when he found while doing a science project that the federal government could save upward of $136 million if it switched its font from Times New Roman to Garamond. The reasoning? The latter font uses less ink, and ink is mighty expensive.
Seemed like a fantastic idea, right? Peters’s staffers thought so, too.
“We leapt at the idea to save lots of taxpayer money through what seems like a relatively small change,” Peters said in an email.
So staffers checked with GPO about the possible changes, and it turns out the initial premise didn’t exactly pan out. Apparently Mirchandani’s estimated price of ink was too high, because the government is able to buy ink at a lower price than the average consumer, given it uses much more of it. Additionally, GPO printing is done with printing presses, and not laser or inkjet printers.
Mirchandani can be forgiven for such oversights. He told CNN that he had tried to get in touch with GPO about how much they actually spend on printing, but didn’t hear back until he had finished his project.
Despite the font-change idea not working out, Peters doesn’t want to dissuade the nation’s teenagers from pitching him more ideas. “That shouldn’t discourage Americans of any age from letting elected officials know where there could be savings,” he said. “Government needs to encourage innovative solutions from its constituencies, not discourage it.”
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."