JEFFERSONVILLE — A recent letter to the editor showed statistics from the 1900s through 1990s on how spending by local government went from higher spending by local government and lower spending by the federal government to the reverse today — higher spending by the federal government and lower spending by local governments.

The letter-writer tried to make some points using the statistics, but it seemed to this writer that he was straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

The writer forgets we had too many people of our elderly sector that were starving to death and were also caught eating dog food to survive. Hence, Social Security and, from trustees, cheese to food stamps.

A federal highway across the nation — from the East Coast to the Pacific Coast and north and south — was put in doing our Cold War with Russia, which would be capable of not only getting goods to market faster and safer but capable of carrying the military form point A to B faster.

Also, the money poured into the military industrial complex which Eisenhower warned us about and it is the biggest chunk of our budget.

I’m sure if the writer compared military spending from the 1900s to the 1990s he’d found military spending went up more than 400 percent.

The most modern nuclear submarine, at the time it was built, cost enough to have rebuilt every school in Boston, plus pay maintenance, upkeep and teachers’ salaries for 10 years.

Then there’s matching funds for roads, Medicaid, reading programs and oh, new bridges. This money helps our states have decent roads, better students and prevents people from dying because of low income, no income or disability.

So yes, if we subtract the money that comes back to the state and local governments, we’d have to subtract part of the increase of federal spending, because it becomes local — to prevent grandmothers and children from starving to death and help prevent illiteracy and to get us to and from work.

Of course, we can always vote yes to tax freezes as a Constitutional issue in Indiana, like other states. Then, we also would be asking for more federal money, like other states. Sort of a catch 22, I’d say. I cannot figure it out. Can anyone?

— Steven Fetter, Jeffersonville