Ie hsieeA UDB ONS BrUtyL BT TN 7 
THE PRESIDENT'S PAGE 
By Raymond Mostek 
HYPOCRISY, TAXES, CONSERVATION, AND THE PENTAGON 
“We must cut down on every item in the federal budget except na- 
tional defense.” This sly bit of hypocrisy was used by many Congressmen 
from a dozen podiums last year. It is a most popular phrase among those 
who are the least conservation-minded. It was popular with a Senator from 
the Southwest who tried to defeat the Yarborough Bill to create Padre 
Island National Seashore; it was popular with another Congressman who 
voted down in committee the effort to create the Chesapeake and Ohio 
National Historic Park, but later succeeded in persuading his fellow House 
members to approve a ten million dollar aquarium in Washington, D.C. 
If conservation forces want to win the battle for open spaces, for 
clean water, for wilderness areas, they had better learn the voting rec- 
ords of their representatives in Congress and in the State Legislatures. 
The conservation forces of this country had better learn to dismiss hypo- 
critical statements of officeholders who claim to favor “lower taxes and 
less spending,” but actually support other legislation when the chips are 
down. This article is not concerned with the pros and cons of our foreign 
policy or our national defense posture. We are concerned here only with the 
demands by some officeholders that we spend less on conservation measures. 
Let us examine the record and the budget: Out of every tax dol- 
lar, our current military program takes 55.4c; the national debt (80% 
war-created) takes another 9.8c; and 5.2c go to support war veterans’ 
programs. This adds up to 69.9c. Agriculture and natural resources cost 
7,.6c; health, education and welfare 6.3c; commerce and labor, 1.9c; for- 
eign relations 3.9c; postoffice and roads, 8.2c; and general government 
expenses, 2.2c. To figure it up another way, the federal government spends 
only 2.3 billion dollars on such things as our national parks, flood relief, 
reclamation, Indian affairs, fish and wildlife, etc., but over $72.8 billions 
for present defense, military foreign aid and past wars. 
Conservationists should be aware of many other facts. When the 
Department of Defense suggests closing of an air force base or an army 
post, some of the so-called economizers in Congress are the first ones to 
protest. When the Department of Defense said that it did not want the 
B-70 bomber, which would cost an eventual $10 billion, Congress voted for 
it anyway. The Department of Defense already owns a 30-million-acre em- 
pire, yet it still asks for more. Do you recall the demand of the Defense 
Department for exclusive use of the Wichita Mountain Wildlife Refuge in 
Oklahoma a few years ago? This demand was beaten back by an angry 
chorus of conservationists across the country. We visited this outstanding 
refuge last summer. We shall never forget camping out that first night 
and seeing raccoons in the car headlights. Nor will we forget the sight of 
herds of bison, of Texas longhorns, of hawks and prairie dogs, of several 
lakes, and the trip to a high bluff in the park. Are we to surrender our 
wildlife refuges to the demands of the military machine? Perhaps we had 
better recall President Eisenhower’s remarks in his Farewell Address about 
the danger of a military-industrial complex in America. 
Newspaper articles indicate that the Pentagon wastes from three 
to seven billion dollars annually. The General Accounting Office says that 
the three armed forces waste $2.8 million a year because they can’t decide 
on standardized shades for shirts, ties and trousers. Tens of mil- 
lions of dollar have been wasted in Spain because of currency “difficulties” 
which the G.A.O. said could be solved. A calculating machine blew some 
