Yet again, I am continuing my “Nothing is Sacred” series, this time by taking a quick look at the public library system.  Just as a reminder, these are “off the top of the noggin” ideas, and are meant more to start a discussion than as final solutions to our problems.  The purpose is to illustrate that we will need to keep an open mind if we ever wish to get government spending under control -- and that this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Public libraries have been facing budget cuts for a long time all across America.  While some counties may have kept theirs fully funded, others have been on the verge of closing down their libraries entirely at one point or another.  This is certainly one government service that has not been immune to scrutiny before, and one that I predict will be asked to do more (or at least the same) with less in the coming years.

Who do public libraries serve?  They are open to everyone, but I must admit that I cannot remember the last time I set foot inside one.  I tend to buy the books that I wish to read, either as additions to my bookshelf or in digital format on my Kindle.  I have no reason to go to the library for free internet access or cheap movie rentals (I have cable internet at home and Netflix), and I don’t participate in any programs offered there.

I suspect this is fairly common among those with the disposable income to pay for such things.  To me, and to many people like me, libraries are almost entirely useless.  But what about those who don’t enjoy the same standard of living as I do?  Or what about those with kids that attend reading programs at their local library?  Undeniably, there are many people who could think of a lot of other ways to describe public libraries besides “useless.”

To advocate for deep cuts into library funding simply because I don’t use the library would be wrong.   I haven’t yet had to use our court system, but I want it to be functioning perfectly should I ever find the need.  But what if there was a way to cut back on the amount we spend on libraries without reducing the level of services offered?

The answer, of course, is to embrace the growing “green” trend and go as paperless as possible.  I remember watching a science program more than ten years ago that talked about storing the entire Library of Congress on one hard-drive.  This is no longer a fantasy, by any stretch.  My Kindle alone boasts the space for 3,500 books -- more than I will likely read in my entire lifetime!

How much money is spent buying multiple physical copies of books, paying people to keep them organized, and transporting them from one library to another?  All of these problems could be solved once and for all by making the switch to e-books (not to mention the incredible amount of paper that would be saved).

True, only three out of every four Americans has access to a computer with internet access either at home or at work.  But some of the money the government saves from cutting back on the library system could be put towards subsidizing e-book reader purchases, either through tax breaks or vouchers.  And, lest we forget, it’s not like owning a Kindle (or another e-reader) is the only way to read e-books.  Nowadays, you can read them on a computer or even a smartphone.

We could still keep our library buildings around to provide people with a place to use the internet or attend certain programs -- or we could make use of space that the government is already paying for.  School buildings, for example, are only used nine months of the year, and even then only until the early afternoon each day (and generally not on weekends at all).

The potential for streamlining is awesome, and in doing so we may actually turn the library into something that people of all economic backgrounds can benefit from, not just those without other options.