It's not a fallacy, it's just a comparison. If the taxpayers are paying the same amount each to a) cure/prevent heart disease, or b) install tornado shelters, I'd hope everyone chose option A simply due to the likelihood it would actually benefit them or someone they knew. Address the risks that are most prevalent before addressing the minor stuff.
Your argument required you to introduce two crutches:
A. the taxpayer funding it
B. the presence of limited resources.
I never suggested A.
And for B: Most builder designed houses come with that giant waste of lumber called a 'sitting room' or 'living room'. I don't have a butler who could seat people in the 'sitting room' and get their business card on a silver platter (the only use for that room seems to be tp house a piano that nobody plays ;-) ) . There are other items on houses that serve no practical purpose yet they are common design details. No life has ever been saved by a quartz countertop or a built-in bookshelf. In new construction, a shelter is a few percent of the total. The limited resources argument would make sense if all new construction was some socialist 2 bedroom structure with a chinese made coil cooktop, but that's not what the builders put on the market.