If only President Reagan would sell the MX missile as a federal jobs program instead of calling it a vital component of our nuclear deterrent, Congress would probably approve it overwhelmingly and get on to some other boondoggle instead of subjecting us to these hair-splitting national security debates.
But no, the White House insists on trying to justify the multibillion-dollar MX program on national security grounds–the MX is needed to counter the vast Soviet build-up in nuclear missiles; the MX is required as a
”bargaining chip” for the arms limitation talks with the Soviets; the MX is absolutely essential as a replacement for our aging Minuteman missile arsenal.
Reagan and Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger should know by now that such ”national security” arguments fall flat in House and Senate debate. Most members of Congress slip into an immediate doze when the term ”national security” is uttered. Their eyes glaze over and some have been known to slump to the floor in a catatonic state.
Even resolutions proposing that National Pickle Week be honored or arguments between senators over whose state flower smells best are more spirited and gain more attention from the members than the old national security gambit.
It`s not that members of Congress aren`t patriotic. Most of them are, some painfully so. Many weep openly when the ”Star Spangled Banner” or
”America the Beautiful” are sung. Even the pledge of allegiance or recitation of the Boy Scout oath can bring tears on the House floor on a slow day.
Unfortunately, claims of national security have been made so often and so spuriously in congressional debate during the last 30 years or so that the mind rebels at the mere mention of the much-abused term. It has been invoked to justify horrendous waste, to cover up corruption of the worst sort and even as an excuse to spy on members of Congress and reporters.
National security also has been used as a cover for worthwhile projects. Dwight Eisenhower used national defense as a cover for building the huge interstate highway system and John Kennedy won support for the expensive moon- landing program by claiming we were in a national security race with the Russians, who have yet to land a man on the moon. Unlike the MX, these programs had an intrinsic value.
But the term ”national security” doesn`t work magic anymore, as Reagan should have known even before the votes this week that saved the MX. Reagan would have been better off if he had declared forthrightly: ”A vote for MX is a vote for jobs. The MX program will directly create more than 30,000 jobs a year for the rest of the 1980s and will indirectly generate up to 100,000 jobs per year.”
The Pentagon, wise in the ways of appealing to Congress, has spread construction of the MX over 28 states. Surely, with encouragement from the White House, the number of jobs could be increased and the work could be expanded to provide a little something for each of the 50 states.
Aside from making Reagan`s task of selling MX easier, this might improve the President`s image among the poor and unemployed, who tend to judge Reagan harshly for trying to eliminate the Job Corps and cut federal funding for other programs.
But wouldn`t the jobless think more kindly of Reagan if they knew that under the guise of national security, he was launching the biggest federal jobs program since the New Deal?
What of the Russians? They are sure to understand because, after all, half of the Soviet Union`s adult population is employed on make-work national security job programs.
