Another Casualty Of War

I've come to the not so startling conclusion that there is something seriously wrong with our culture. Our priorities, especially as expressed by our government, are skewed in favor of making war over maintaining a reasonably safe civil society. I guess war is just more interesting, sexier, if you will, than bridges, highways, water and sewer systems.

Yesterday, the US House of Representatives approved a nearly $460 billion budget for the Pentagon, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

The House's $459.6 billion version of the defense budget, approved on a 395-13 vote, would add money for equipment for the National Guard and Reserve, provide for 12,000 additional soldiers and Marines, and increase spending for defense health care and military housing.

The House essentially gave the White House everything it wanted in this part of the national budget. Now, it's pretty hard to fault Congress for the appropriation, given the current state of our military because of the devastating Iraq War, but it's not impossible. Perhaps not spending so much on more equipment and more soldiers might bring some real pressure to bear on winding down that misbegotten, immoral, and illegal adventure in Iraq. It might also free up some money for unfunded and underfunded projects here at home.

But, as Eugene Robinson pointed out in an op-ed piece printed in today's Sacramento Bee, roads and pipes and bridges just aren't as interesting to talk about, until tragedy strikes. Even then, once the cable news cameras depart, the subject soon disappears into the ethers.

But does anyone think we're going to make infrastructure a national crusade? Have the presidential candidates been falling over themselves to stake out their positions on the oh-so-sexy infrastructure issue? Of course not. Infrastructure is boring. Anyone who has ever owned a house knows that every once in a while you have to replace the gutters, buy a new furnace, waterproof the basement or insulate the attic. But the tendency is to spend the money on a new flat-panel TV, and let the infrastructure slide -- until something breaks. At that point the repair will cost twice as much as if you'd done it sooner.

In the case of a deficient bridge or dam, the added cost may come in human life. But given the restraints that entitlements and debt service impose on government spending, given the astronomical cost of the war in Iraq and given the urgency of problems such as health care and education, it's inevitable that technically deficient structures will go longer than they should without being repaired or replaced. [Emphasis added]

Inevitable? Hardly. Take out that "astronomical cost of the war" part of the equation, and there would be a tidy sum of money lying about. Additionally, the 110th Congress, whatever its faults (and right now it's pretty clear there are plenty), has managed ways to fund such initiatives as the Children's Health Insurance Program without stealing from another governmental program.

Given the dreary unemployment and underemployment picture in this country, you'd think a presidential candidate would leap at the chance of coming up with a national plan to restore and renew the nation's infrastructure. It was such a plan that put an American on the moon, and it was such a plan that built the interstate highway system to begin with. Both plans put lots of people back to work and the effect on the economy was huge.

I think Mr. Robinson has underestimated the American public, if not the current crop of American candidates.