This preview shows page 286 - 287 out of 361 pages.
competing for how many goods. Millions of Americanswere employed directly in the war effort. This helpedkeep employment high, but without cantributing to theproduction of consumer goods. As more wagescom-peted for what goods there were, prices naturally wentup. As prices rose, labor began demanding higherwages.The result was a sriral of inflation that lasted until therecessioh of 1982. Inflation averaged about 1.3 percentper year over 1960-65, jumped to 2.9 percent over 1966-67, 4.2 percent for 1968, 5.4 percent for 1969, and 5.9percent for 1970. Of course, federal spending on humanservice programs also contri eted to inflationarypres-sures. Such spending increased greatly under PresidentJohnson's "war on poverty." To curb this trend,Johnson would have had to raise tates. However, herefused to do so for fear of provoking oppositionto thewar.In order to control the inflation, the Federal ReserveBank raised interest rate,: on loans, making it harder forpeople to borrow for houses andcars. This led to a750,000 a year decline in new housing construction anda decline in new car sales. This, in turn, led to layoffsin manufacturing and increasedpressure on humanservices. Both the U.S. budget deficit and balance ofpayments deficit grew rapidly.Few people can comprehend the magnitude ofthefigures we are discussing. As former IllinoisSenatorEverett Dirksor. once said in describing theCongres-sional budget process, "A million here,a billion there,pretty soon you're talking about real money." To giveyou some idea, however, consider these reflectionsonthe alternative uses to which themoney spent on the warmight have been put. In 1972, Lekachmansuggestedthat, just for the annual direct cost of thewar at the time,the government could have rehabilitated all urbanslumhousing in this country, creatingmany constructionjobs in the process. Such an investn.ent wouldhavehelped much to alleviate the rising problem of the280homeless we face today. Two years earlier, Melraanused roughly the same rate of war spending and calcu-lated:1.Each month of the war could have financed thecomplete training of over 100,000 scientists.2.Each month of the war could have financed theannual food bill for ending hunger among 10 millionAmericans.3. Each month of the war could have paid the full year'scost of state and local police in every state of the union.4. The annual cost of the Vietnam war could havedoubled the Social Security benefits paid to 20 millionAmericans.Of course, no one is saying that anymoney not spenton the Vietnam War would have or even should havebeen spent on the above social programs. However,such comparisons do make the trade-offs inour overallnational security even more concrete for leaders andc itizens.Social andPolitical CostsFor many Americans the early 1960swere a time ofhope. Throughout the south blackswere challengingsegregation and demanding their right to vote. Con-gress passed major Civil Rights and Voting Rights bills;President Johnson declared a "war on poverty"; and theapathetic 1950s seemed to be givingway to a period ofsocial and political progress. Young, idealistic Ameri-