CARBUCKLE@UMKCVAX1.BITNET (Valentine M. Smith) (02/09/90)
Do you believe that defense prioritization for spending is a bit skewed? I wrote earlier for our school paper today attacking the government's willingness to cut out human jobs and bases in favor of huge weapons expenditures for SDI, B-2, the VTOL plane, Midgetman and MX, and Trident. I'm not in favor of a weaker defense per se, but I am in favor of a hard look at priorities. The Republicans have been machine-crazy for nine years, with SDI, with B-2, even with B-1-B, plus goodies like Cruise, Trident, and MX. Yet they are always willing to cut jobs that already exist, performing services that still are considered "vital to the national defense," in some cases saving the taxpayer plenty of bucks, such as the Long Beach shipyard, which saved the taxpayer $22 million last year. Closing the place will cost 4100 jobs, put many on unemployment and welfare, remove them from the rolls of taxpayers, and cost the city $100 million in lost residual monies spent. What do you all think?
UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET (Peter J. Schledorn) (02/09/90)
A fairly cynical answer to your question about defense spending priorities, though I think it contains a certain amount of truth: It's easier to get people steamed up to oppose defense cuts when cuts mean closed bases and thousands of lost jobs, than when they mean just cutbacks in a few relatively obscure weapon systems. Also, high-level military careers are made on these weapons, so it seems reasonable to assume that they would be lost or damaged with their cancellation. Yours for secure turf, Peter.