Looking for a bridge to somewhere

Tom Friedman's new column struck a chord with me that's been ringing since post 9/11. When George W. Bush told the consumer to start consuming, I felt that he was pushing against values of thrift and saving. Tom Friedman is right that George W Bush did not come out and remind people to raise their savings rates.

I'm not even sure if George W Bush's pronouncement actually caused people to spend money any more than our highly functioning market-based consumer economy does. But he did make consumerism patriotic, causing a quasi-religous backlash with the Church of Stop Shopping.

The money I spend is the money someone else will spend: that is our economy. Yet, what if the money the government spends is based more on infrastructure? I wish that Tom Friedman had debated this point; it is still fresh in my memory that a high-traffic bridge in Minneapolis collapsed, killing 10 people. Employed construction workers equal paychecks spent on consumer goods, much like a stimulus check (albiet reduced b/c of capital expenditures by construction companies. B/c our economy is largely consumer based, capital expenditures like heavy equipment and buildings do not strike at the 'core' of our economy like encouraging consumer spending).

What if the money that people spend, even, is based on something a bit more proactive than buying consumer products? One idea is to have tax credits (or rebates or pretax deductions) to join gyms, get nutrition programs, and see personal trainers. This is anti-free market, I realize, but theoretically it could chip away at the single greatest expense our federal government faces: Medicare.

Tom Friedman's idea seems to be the quick fix, but I think that as long as we're going to try another stimulus, we should try something new, because the last one's worth was diminished by people paying down debt.