The Liberal Lexicon 4: Investment

Have you noticed how many political terms, mostly Democrat, have been given new, focus group tested terms the past 20 years or so?  Tax increases are revenue enhancements.  To be liberal is now to be progressive.  National socialist health care is a public option or single payer.  And with expenditures at all levels of government too large for even Democrats to ignore, "spending" is increasingly being characterized as "investment."

Merriam-Webster defines (financial) investment as "the outlay of money usually for income or profit."  Here we could subjectively expand that return on investment to mean cleaner air, for example.   This obviously doesn't apply to all government spending like Welfare, and to be fair, the Left doesn't claim that it does.  But far too much spending is labeled as investments, to avoid examination or backlash.

We need to invest in the environment!  Actually, we have.  The air is cleaner, the water is cleaner, sanitation never better, and we have the public health statistics to prove it.  These truly were investments, money spent, tangible, valuable results returned.  Not so, investments in green roofs, green energy, green jobs, and reducing "greenhouse" gases, all of it based on junk science and junk economics.

We need to invest in education!  Otherwise, we'll spend all the more incarcerating our youths when they have no choice but to turn to crime.  Truth be told, we have invested in education, far beyond what population and inflation would suggest.  And the best we can say is that test scores are flat.  At worst, we note an increasing minority achievement gap and overall devaluation of the once prized high school diploma.  Granted, the workplace is more demanding, but also undeniable is how many high school graduates need remedial work to even attend a community college.  That's a big reason why employers now demand 2 and 4 year degrees for no apparent job-related reason.  We're not getting our money's worth.  And just because we educate people in certain skills doesn't mean the jobs will be here that need those skills.  Not in the 21st century.

We need to invest in transportation!  We have, we continue to, but of course, close to half is siphoned off to build expensive, obsolete light rail / commuter rail systems, "sane" lanes, and "roundabouts" where a simple 4 way stop was working just fine.  None of this delivers groceries or furniture.  None of this brings the fire department to your burning house or your ailing heart to the Emergency Room.  It's only convenient when the weather permits.  It's only safe during the day.  And it's never made a dime since the government took over the profitable private Twin City Lines decades ago.

We need to invest in health care!  No, we don't.  There is no return on investment on myriad schemes to get someone else to pay for your personal health care.  Even I thought the HMO concept made sense when it was first unveiled, the proverbial ounce of prevention.  And while we can all "profitably" decide this for our specific circumstances, collectively as in insurance or welfare, it has been found to be more expensive, not less.  Meanwhile, the food police run amok, wanting to reduce our diet to brown rice cakes.

Yes, government has required functions like public safety that cost money.  We may even spend more than we probably should due to bureaucratic, unionized resistance to change.  But the real damage is being done in the name of investing in things the government really cannot deliver and often makes worse.  Challenge any politician to identify just what the return on any proposed investment truly is.

Comments

[Hiram]

"There is no return on investment on myriad schemes to get someone else to pay for your personal health care."

So much for the notion that there is a market based solution to America's health care needs, I guess. Speed is right here. Health care isn't something we invest in, it's something we purchase.