Misplaced Priorities

Why does the U.S., which lavishes nearly $300 billion annually on its military machine, fail to provide the relatively piddling sums needed to care for poor expectant mothers and their children? That question arises whenever new data appear about America's disgraceful infant-mortality rate. The short answer is that the question is based on the false assumption that squeezing the Pentagon will mean more funds for better prenatal care. In fact, the Administration plans to trim defense spending by $44 billion over the next five years. The savings will trickle into the S&L bailout and other fiscal black holes.

The more appropriate question is why the U.S. has been so short-sighted about investing in its children. For a generation, public spending has tilted toward the needs of the elderly, including those who are relatively affluent, and away from the next generation. As ever, when it comes to spending priorities, elected officials usually follow the dictates of the most potent voters. Budget Director Richard Darman has eloquently denounced "now-nowism" -- America's tendency to spend frivolously today rather than invest sensibly in tomorrow -- even as the White House and its most powerful constituents embrace it. Proposals to raise education standards meet local opposition because they would be expensive and inconvenient. When the Pentagon tries to save billions by closing obsolete bases, hawks and doves fight to preserve them. Last year Americans spent $5 billion at movie box offices. A fraction of that sum could dramatically reduce infant mortality. It is all a matter of priorities.