I don't consider my investigative clients to be cheapskates.  However, I suspect that if I were to present any of them with an invoice covering 500 - 600 years of service, they might question my competency, efficiency and perhaps my honesty.  They might even have trouble explaining the rationalization for such an expenditure to their bosses.  There would even be a good chance I wouldn't get paid!

The cost of the Clinton investigation has already greatly exceeded the 500 year cost of services from a professional private investigative team.  In other words, in today's dollars, if a private investigative agency had commenced the investigation at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, there would still be enough funding left for a few hundred years more--well beyond that point in the future when many believe overpopulation will have caused the extinction of the human race.

Stated another way, such an investigation would occupy the lifetime careers of fifteen to thirty generations of private investigators.

This $56 million inquiry is really not that unusual or pricey in Washington, where the government tends to run over ants with steamrollers thanks to our unlimited tax support.  Similar federal investigations in recent years have cost much more.

It amuses me that a public so outraged with government purchases of $500 hammers quickly jumped on the cliche, "It only works out to about sixteen cents per person. . . and it's worth it if they can get him."  Get him? I ask.

These same folks rightfully ignored the per capita cost of the $500 hammer--about $0.000002 per person--when they focused on that absurdity.  Their complaint was that a hammer just isn't worth $500 and nobody but the federal government would overpay like this.

I don't dispute the federal government's need to purchase a hammer--even though it might well be used to drive screws.  Like everyone else, I just question a $500 expenditure for such a tool when the same quality is available for significantly less.

Moreover, I do not dispute the legitimate government obligation to thoroughly investigate relevant allegations concerning the president.  I do, however, question the lack of cost-effectiveness, scope and efficiency of this four-year project.

Some people righteously explain that the reason for this high cost has been the lack of cooperation by the president and his efforts to block the investigation.  Investigators, both private and public sector, chuckle at this naive theory.  What investigative subjects are cooperative?

Regardless of the final outcome of the investigation, like the $500 hammer, the project was just too expensive.  The same results could have been achieved for much less.

Do I believe that this investigation should have been contracted to the private sector?  Of course not.  It should have been handled by efficient focused government investigators working within a reasonable budget with a deadline for completion of the project.

There's an irony here, of course, in that the president has become a target of what he is perceived to promote--a large, bureaucratic, out of control government, where competence and cost-effectiveness takes a back seat to a make work form of welfare.  [In other words, if you don't have anything to do, make work for yourself to make it look like you are busy.  Ed.]

Clients of professional private investigators expect and receive focused, comprehensive investigation reports at reasonable costs.  As the clients of the government in this matter, U. S. taxpayers should expect the same.

Although I don't expect "Bill from Washington" to be calling dittos to Rush Limbaugh in the near future, perhaps he will take a more realistic look at the need to streamline the bloated bureaucracy that is the federal government.