Editor,

I needed to respond to Fred Becker’s dire warning letter in the July 9 edition of The Record, “If the Navy left, Oak Harbor would die.”

This talking point is getting so old and is so untrue.

In a study conducted by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst 2011 update, it illustrates the fact that, “devoting $1 billion to the military versus the same amount of money spent on clean energy, health care, and education,” is not the best use of our treasure. This study states that, “Our conclusion is straightforward: $1 billion spent on each of the domestic spending priorities will create substantially more jobs within the U.S. economy than would the same $1 billion spent on the military.”

My argument against the much hyped “Oak Harbor would die” scenario is quite simple but would take some creative solutions.

There is a wealth of talent in Oak Harbor and instead of using that talent for more military adventures the world over to protect the business interests of the 1 percent and to create more enemies, I would suggest that this huge talent be used in a constructive manner.

Build an infrastructure that is sustainable, instead of more war.

Build hospitals for all citizens instead of more war.

Build housing for the homeless instead of more war.

Build more schools and educate the whole population for free through university and beyond, should the citizenry so desire.

We could do this instead of focusing on the very misleading meme of “war and the preparations for war is good for jobs,” when just the opposite is the truth.

Peace will set us free when we are finally ready to see this.

DAN FREEMAN

Clinton