"Investment!" "NO! Spending!" C'mon guys....

Obamians and Boehnerites, childish tribes on either side of the river, screaming taunts back and forth. When are they going to start gathering stones and building abutements for a bridge to meet in the middle?

Let's go to the dictionary: the word investment stems from the Latin investire -- to dress or enrobe. The vest we wear and the priest's vestments are derivatives (that's another kind of investment, now besmirched by Lehman Brothers, but that's a rabbit trail we won't follow.)

As a verb, to invest meant to put on the robes of an office, to become entitled. The investiture of a bishop was the act of enrobing him (not her, Catholics; but maybe her to some Episcopals, but that's another rabbit trail.) Investment was the ceremony, itself.

The first uses of invest and investment as financial terms came in correspondence within the East India Company. The verb, in 1613, "...invested in trading goods." The noun, in 1615, "...made an investment in...." I imagine this usage grew out of becoming entitled to something in return for the investment. (Not until 1860, did he who made the investment become an "investor," or was it a she? (Today, over 50% of investments are owned by shes -- yes, another other rabbit trail.)

What is the "something" that flows from an investment? This is the crux of the squabble between Obama's tribe and Boehner's. One believes in government investing; the other says it's just deficit spending. All my dictionaries (OED, American Heritage, an old Webster II) agree that the purpose of an investment is to earn dividends or realize appreciation in value. Government investing? Will a high speed rail system pay cash dividends to the Treasury or appreciate in value when we sell it to the Chinese? Not. Not judging from the huge government subsidies Japan and France lay out to keep their railroads running.

But Obamians argue that the dividends are indirect -- economic development that yields higher tax revenues over time; lower cost logistics that make our companies more competitive and reduce our balance of payments deficit. These, they say, are no less real than direct cash dividends, just take longer to realize. The dictionaries provide no help in sorting out direct vs. indirect, sooner vs. later.

But investing in undeniably spending. So what? You either save or spend the money you have, whether earned or borrowed. In industry, we "investment spend" a euphamism that makes one sound very wise for taking an intentional loss.

The critical point is not whether investing is or isn't spending. What matters is on what one chooses to spend. School equipment, roads, research labs and the like are tangible assets, stuff that lasts. So is spending on F-22s. Some capital assets may return dividends, indirectly, sooner or later. Eisenhower's Interstate Highways paid huge dividends over the years. F-22s? Arguable.

Sending out unemployment checks, paying Congressional salaries, reimbursing medical costs -- this is not capitalizing anything, no tangible asset is created, but saving lives and minimizing social disruption are undeniably beneficial. And perhaps higher Congressional salaries might get better people in play. (Ah, another rabbit... never mind.)

What they should be talking about is the balance of government spending between capital items and expense items. The White House should send Congress a capital budget and an expense budget. Then we could track the balance year to year. In lush times, there's nothing wrong with borrowing money against future growth in revenues and spending it on capital items that will create that growth. In lean times, better to swing the pendulum toward expense to salve people's distress and smooth bumps in the economic road. And deficits? National debt is useful if limited to a reasonable percent of GDP and if spent on capital assets that promise dividends over time. I know, this is not a new idea and one the economists say is fraught with ambiguities. But mightn't it stimulate more useful discussion than "Investment!" "NO, Spending!" ??

They haven't the courage to talk about the real issue. Instead, they enjoy squabbling over Investment!No!Spending! And indulging in over simplistic, inflexible solutions like a balanced budget amendment. C'mon guys. It's time to grow up and lead, to start using words that stand for ideas, to debate rather than just hurl cliches back and forth ... and yes, it's time to start building that bridge.