Military spending could be put to better use

As a nonviolent activist, I was really disappointed to see the op-ed by Clayola Brown ("Sequestration would destroy U.S. economy," Aug. 27). What astonished me is that it was written by the president of the A. Philip Randolph Institute.

Surely, all progressive activists greatly respect the work of A. Philip Randolph, a legendary organizer and activist. However, the current president of his institute wrote this: "Sequestration cuts in the defense budget would be especially devastating to the economy because of the aerospace sector's importance to local economies across America." It is a misnomer to use the term "defense budget," as the Pentagon keeps invading and attacking other countries, for example, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. This is offensive, and not defense.

And economists will make the point that non-military spending will create many more job than wasting tax dollars on Stars Wars, unneeded battleships and overpriced aircraft. About 50 percent of the federal budget goes toward military spending. This includes the Pentagon and Department of Energy budgets and the interest on the national debt, largely brought on by all of the wars.

If we are to get the economy on track, we must spend wisely on butter and not guns. And so many people, especially in other countries, will benefit along with the taxpayers.

Max Obuszewski, Baltimore

Copyright © 2019, The Baltimore Sun, a Baltimore Sun Media Group publication | Place an Ad