Defense Cuts and Job Losses

In response to “Danger to Jobs May Limit Amount of Defense Cuts,” Jan. 31:

What a shame it is that the Administration and many members of Congress have been so unwilling to look beyond the ends of their noses! There have been measures proposed in the Congress for many years in which far-seeing statesmen have recognized that a growing concern for the devastation of World War II and the race with the Soviet Union would bring a majority of U.S. citizens to demand reductions in arms production. Let us call it what it is, since the Department of Defense was never required to defend us but rather to sell arms to the smaller nations that wanted to fight each other for domination of regional territory.

Rep. Ted Weiss (D-N.Y.) has offered comprehensive bills that did not restrict the necessary production of arms but simply provided that a small portion of each contract be set aside to fund the planning of production of “civilian goods” when contracts for arms were reduced or canceled. The term used to describe this plan was “economic conversion,” and it was always rejected because there was no evidence that such a plan was needed.

The hawks said that the world will always be at war. The arms contractors complained because the bill called for a committee of workers and management to examine the best products that present tools could produce and public interest could make a market demand for. These managers cried, “We can do it by ourselves!” But now that the need has arisen, most industries have been found asleep at the switch. And then there were the union leaders who said if we talk about cutting military spending we will lose our jobs.

We did not get the legislation and thus the complaints have become self-fulfilling.

ELWOOD M. JONES JR.

San Diego