Volume 4, Number 1, Page 2


	Welcome once again to the most unbiased section of the OUMMCBNOM.  We
at the OUMMCBNOM are often accused of being Liberals, a word from which we, of
course, run in fright.  However, in this column, we put our own views aside
and let the the Republicans have their say.  If you have a question for the
Republican, please send it to: KT Becker@aol.com.

Dear Republican,
	I have recently been having some trouble understanding your methods of
budget-cutting and deficit-reducing.  While you rant about the money wasted
on public broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, NASA, Medicaid,
and the like, you push for more spending on defense.  "The role of the
government is to protect national security," you say, "not to give people
money for art or medicine or any of that stuff."  While I like nuclear bombs
as much as the next guy, I do question just how many of the things we need.
	How many times do we need to be able to blow up the world to make the
threat formidable?
	 Would not the deficit be reduced more quickly by cutting defense 
spending, which is actually a substantial chunk of the budget, than by cutting
the comparatively small budgets of NASA, PBS, and the NEA?  And is not our nation
better served by spending money on helping its citizens rather than finding
ways to blow them and the rest of humanity up?

		Prying in Prior Lake

Dear Prying,
	When Republicans seek to cut programs such as those you mention while
maintaining funding for defense, it is only because we have not been stricken
with the myopia it seems you have fallen victim to.  Logical thought yields
the following conclusions:  by increasing defense spending, we will be able
to decrease the need for spending on other things as nuclear annihilation
eliminates the need for those things.  This will reduce the deficit greatly.
	Thank you for your question.

		The Republican

Previous Page | Next Page | Index