SACRAMENTO, CA - One month after terrorists murdered 5,000 Americans, alarmist stories are already beginning to appear about the costs of increasing national security. “State, Local Security Costs Skyrocketing,” headlined the Sacramento Bee. The California Highway Patrol has spent an additional $6.5 million since September 11, $2 million in new spending is required to secure dams and power plants, $2.3 million more for police in Los Angeles, and $2.5 million to boost security at Sacramento International Airport alone.

These are, of course, legitimate issues. Security is expensive, and more necessary than ever in light of the genocidal fanatics we now face. But there is also an echo of the Cold War days.

When the West, led by the United States, faced Communist imperialism, led by the Soviet Union, the Left was fond of saying that there was no real threat. Rather, the captains of industry were creating a fake threat so they could make obscene profits selling munitions. What motivated the conflict was not an expansionist tyranny but domestic paranoia, xenophobia, and what Helen Caldicott, a strident Australian fond of scolding Americans, called “missile envy.” Yes, the Soviets had some bad leaders, we were told, but our defense buildup only made the situation worse. Why didn’t we just give peace a chance?

In this climate, stories of Pentagon spending were common. But our military buildup contributed to the demise of Communist imperialism. The Left, however, shows itself unchanged. The multicultural Left is now urging us to understand why young Muslems are angry, blaming American foreign policy for the terrorist attacks, holding “peace” teach-ins and rallies. In this climate, stories of how much our military campaign costs will soon be a regular feature. Balance is “missing in action.”

How about an ongoing account of the costs of a useless agency such as the Federal Department of Education, a sinkhole of waste and corruption that we did without before the late 1970s. The media should be eager to tell us how much the Department of Housing and Urban Development costs American taxpayers, along with the EPA, OSHA, and the countless bureaus, boards, and commissions coast to coast.

Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” cost some $5 trillion, with little to show for the Niagara of spending. As The Age of Reagan author Steven Hayward has pointed out, the entire project to place a man on the moon cost the equivalent of three months social spending in the United States.

The Left is eager for the state to spend money where it has no legitimate business. It wants the state to “redistribute” wealth, the same thing burglars do. But the Left complains when the state spends money to do its rightful job.

Defending the nation is one of those jobs. Search-and-destroy missions against terrorists in places like Afghanistan is not a task for private groups or individuals--as much as many of us would like to have a go. Yes, it will be costly but it must be accomplished if our right to life and liberty is to be maintained.

If the cost is to be constantly counted, so should that of the nanny state and regulatory regime. If anything, the campaign against mass murderers makes a stronger case for reducing waste in other areas of government.

K. Lloyd Billingsley is editorial director of the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco. He can be reached via email at klbillingsley@pacificresearch.org.