On balancing the budget and the Soviet menace
[Letter submitted to Rep. Guy Vander Jagt, 1 February 1980]

Dear Mr. Vander Jagt:

You, Congressman Jack Kemp, and many others, are fighting for a most reasonable cause: to keep the Federal budget in balance. I cannot agree more, but at the same time I think that a balanced budget is only part of the solution. In my opinion, it is not only urgent that we balance the budget, but also that the entire budget undergoes a thorough reconstruction.

One of the first things that should be re-worked are the so-called "social programs" (welfare, unemployment, education, etc.). America was built with hard work and common sense. Today I do not see much of that anymore. Productivity goes down, the American worker asks for more and more pay, he goes on strike and receives unemployment. (There is enough work in America so that even a person who wants to strike can obtain another job in between.) Then there is welfare: Many strong, young people are on welfare payrolls. The government should create jobs (filling bags with sand for dam constructions, re-forest America, clean up our highways, and similar things); if those able-bodied welfare recipients do not want to do those jobs, they should just be cut off from welfare payments.

Then, year after year, I hear about special programs for re-education for high school drop-outs and others. Everybody in America has an equal opportunity as high schools are open to everybody. One person finishes high school or even college and then goes to work; another drops out of high school but then is given a second or even third chance (of which he most often does not take advantage). Do not try to tell me that this is equal treatment for the good and bad students, as the bad students definitely get more attention. And then there are the many rehabilitation programs for the criminals. Instead of re-instituting the electric chair and to establish prisons and not sanatoriums, we spend thousands of dollars on various rehabilitation projects which result in peanuts (no offense to our President intended). In this respect, I can only refer you to Mr. Reagan's speech on TV on the subject of "the flower of the rehabilitation program," who had killed 22 or 23 people, mostly while being out on parole, bond, or whatever. If you say that there is common sense in that, I just do not believe you.

Since the war ended in 1945, Russia forcefully pursued its goal of world domination. While it "digested" what it received through the generosity of Mr. Roosevelt (against the warning of Mr. Churchill), it was building its terrifying and scary war machine (with the help of our technology and grain). Did not some of our Presidents or members of Congress and Senate know what was going on in Russia? It looks as if they did not know (or did not care? or even worse?!) because more and more money was spent on welfare, etc., and less and less on our military budget.

I came to the U.S.A. in 1952. I had been in the Polish Underground and was "educated" to understand Russia's goals and methods. Seeing what was going on here in the States, I was horrified and went to the FBI and told a Mr. X the problems as I saw them. When I finished, he replied that the FBI was well-aware of all this, but that Congressmen or Senators who received their reports were just burying them because they were not popular. After that, he addressed me again and asked me to go into politics and to scream about all this. I promised him that I would scream and that is exactly what I have been doing for many, many years.

One of the subjects I mentioned to Mr. X from the FBI was how the Russians, through their fifth column, would erode the moralithy and patriotism of our young people in schools and colleges. Today's draft-registration oppositions (just like previous anti-nuclear, anti-war, or pro-peace demonstrations) are very well organized and very noisy, and they prove that my evaluation of the situation had been right. If our government had used more common sense, it could have approached and solved many problems much better than by dropping the draft. For instance:

1. If every young man of 18 would have been drafted, the unemployment rate (which is today the highest among young people) would have dropped by almost 2 million.
   
   
2. We would have today a ready army reserve and would, therefore, not be in the present lousy political situation.
   
   
3. Maintenance of such an army would require large quantities of weapons, supplies, and other services, which in turn, would have given a boost to our industry and employment.
   
   
4. Every young man would have learned some skill which he could have used later in civilian life.
   
   
5. Though not the most important, but noteworthy enough to mention: Two years in the military service would have allowed young men to grow from boyhood to manhood; it would have prevented many young men from premature marriages which only ended with divorces and unhappy children from broken homes.

According to figures available to me, out of each tax dollar, 43¢ is wasted on "social" programs and only 24¢ is spent on defense. Here I return to the major subject from which I began....

I agree completely that we need a balanced budget, but at the same time we need a re-appropriation of that budget. (Cut welfare and use the savings to increase a) the military budget and b) Social Security for old people who today live sometimes worse than welfare recipients and prisoners.) After balancing the budget, leave an allowance for deficit spending as may be requested in the interest of national security by the President, the Senate, and the Congress, and approved by all three offices. I very much disapprove of Mr. Carter's present defense budget as completely not in proportion to our security needs. Much, much more is needed for defense!

... And just one more thing! A balanced budget and all kinds of reforms depend today on one small detail: Will America survive another five years?

Sincerely yours,
Waclaw Bakierowski

cc: Congressman Jack Kemp

Return to Home Page