In debunking various arguments currently being bandied about in the health-care debate, George Newman expresses puzzlement, at least rhetorically, that liberals view rising education costs favorably but look askance at rising health-care costs. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, he wonders why they believe it would serve society so much better if funds were moved from health care into education:

What is curious is that this rise in education costs is deemed by the liberal establishment smart and farsighted while the rise in health-care costs is a curse to be stopped at any cost. What is curiouser still is that in education, where they always advocate more “investment,” past increases have gone hand-in-hand with demonstrably deteriorating outcomes. The rising cost in health care has been accompanied by clearly superior results. Thus we would shift dollars from where they do a lot of good to an area where they don’t.

But there is nothing “curious” about such a liberal stance. The educationists typically behave in self-serving ways. Hence their steadfast resistance to the adoption of serious, public reporting of educational outcomes that would force them to account for their performance. Hence too their drumbeat of demands from for an ever-greater share of public funds. No matter whether these monies are diverted from vital health needs or, for that matter, vital national-security needs.

Yet the educational establishment — and the liberals it has coopted into accepting its profligate and accountability-averse approach to education — would be the first to scream bloody murder if society failed to meet their vital health or security needs.