Letters to the Editor for Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Bread-or-butter spending debate
A classic bumper sticker sported by peace lovers over the years proclaims: “”It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.” I’ve been thinking of that quote a lot these days with daily reports of decreased funding for education, health care, transportation, environmental protection, housing and the arts.

While I am somewhat heartened by the public outcry against monetary cuts in essential services, I wonder where the outrage is against increased military spending, particularly for arms. We can’t seem to find the dollars for instruction, but there is plenty to go around to fund destruction.

According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, there has been a $2 trillion increase for Pentagon spending since 1998. One does not need to be a pacifist to question the enormous amount of money feeding our military industrial complex as compared to other pressing needs.

The National Priorities Projects reports that taxpayers in Virginia will pay $24.6 billion for total Iraq and Afghanistan war spending since 2001. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

-Nearly 7 million people with health care for one year,

-More than half a million public safety officers for one year,

-160,355 affordable housing units,

-Almost 3½ million Head Start places for children for one year or

-More than 20 million homes with renewable electricity for one year.

As April 15 approaches, think about the 48 percent of your tax dollars that pay for military expenses as compared to 52 percent that supports non-military expenses, based on the budget of the United States government, fiscal year 2011.

Bumper stickers alone will not solve the budgetary crisis we face in our communities and around the country. But speaking out against the misplaced priorities of our federal government may help.

ANNE GIBBONS
Lynchburg

A GOP disappointment
It was disappointing to read that the three Republican endorsed City Council candidates chose to ignore the Lynchburg Voters League candidate’s forum.

All council candidates should recognize that if elected, they will represent all city residents and not just those that voted for them. Candidates have an obligation to state their positions on issues, and also to listen to the concerns of the many diverse groups within the city.

The Republican-endorsed slate has essentially said to a large block of voters in Ward II that we assume you are not voting for us; therefore, we will, if elected, not represent you or listen to your concerns.

This position is wrong now; it was wrong in 1996, when I was running as the Republican-endorsed candidate in a special election against my good friend Carl Hutcherson for a vacant seat on City Council. Against the advice of some of the then Republican Party leadership, I attended the Voters League forum. Carl and I had what was probably the most meaningful debate of that campaign. More importantly, I had a significant exposure to a group’s interests and concerns that I could not have received elsewhere.

The Republican slate for this year’s election seems determined to continue in its tradition of telling us what they think is best without any dialogue or discussion with those of opposing thoughts, and thereby putting partisan politics ahead of what is best for Lynchburg.

It is, as I said before, disappointing.

STEWART HOBBS
Lynchburg