Bush Budget Sets Clear Priorities On Security

To the editors:

In your article entitled “Bush’s Irresponsible Budget,” (Editorial, Feb. 7), I feel that you have failed to recognize the broader objectives of Bush’s budget proposals, many of which reach far beyond the events of Sept. 11.

In your words, the “compassion for the less fortunate” on which Bush campaigned in 2000 has “fallen by the wayside” in light of current events, most notably our war on terrorism. However, in a larger sense, many aspects of American life that we all took for granted in years past have fallen by the wayside, not simply those of the less fortunate. I can point to long lines at the airport and a new airline security tax of $5 on every ticket sold; a faltering of the economy and a staggering loss of entry-level jobs, even for Harvard graduates; and a loss of our sense of security, which was deeply wounded after we learned that terrorists were walking in Harvard Square and in our hometowns only moments before the September attacks. Rich or poor, we have all lost something as a result of the events of last year, and we must continue to sacrifice some of our personal happiness in order to ensure domestic security.

I would also argue that Bush’s historic increases in defense spending only mirror years of inattention the Department of Defense received following the Gulf War. Because of the 10-year period of peace and economic prosperity we enjoyed after the beginning of the decade, we, in many ways took for granted our own domestic security. Base closures and cuts in defense spending prevailed throughout the 1990s, leaving the military unprepared, untrained and underpaid. Bush’s budget is not as radical when viewed through the eyes of history. It only reflects a desire for America to return to the long-term growth and internal security it has enjoyed for centuries.

Steven E. Jones ’04

Feb. 7, 2002