I agree that funding levels for public risk mitigation is driven by media-fueled emotion.

More is needed for automobile safety, less for aviation safety. The terrorism threat in the US is vastly overstated.

But to be fair, AIDS and women health issues also get more than their fare share of funding for the same emotional reasons,

David Buchyn

Wilton, New York

The notion is flawed that if money is not spent on one thing then it must be spent on something else. Or, money spent on something unpopular to some somehow translates into some kind of opportunity cost or loss for some pet project of a different sort.

Money not spent is money not spent, and that is generally a good thing. The worst thing is for some bureaucratically-minded person either in or out of office to take upon themselves some decision rightfully mine as to what to do with my money not spent on authorized projects and somehow justify spending such money on some pet project of their own without any authorization to do so - like giving the money to their husband with the understanding he is to purchase shoes for school kids only to find out he instead bought a new car for himself.

Tucano Fulano

Big Bear, CA