THE COMMON DEFENSE AND THE GENERAL WELFARE

WHEREAS, the AFT has consistently maintained that the federal government has a responsibility to provide for both the social needs of the nation and military strength required to protect the cause of democracy and our national interests.

Thus, in recent Congresses, the AFL-CIO opposed so-called transfer amendments that sought percentage cuts in the defense budget and the transfer of those funds to social programs. While supporting the social programs, the AFL-CIO insisted that the level of defense spending should be determined solely in relation to the military threat to national interests and not in relation to social spending. But the Soviet Union was engaged in a massive military buildup, in the face of which unilateral U.S. reductions in defense spending would be dangerous and irresponsible.

"In assuming that the only source of revenue for social programs is the defense budget, the proponents of the Transfer Amendment fall into an essentially illiberal view which ultimately may work against their proclaimed ends. They set the stage for those conservatives who would cite our defense needs as an excuse to cut social programs. In effect they accept the conservative view that the pie is fixed in size, and that every advance in social or defense spending must be at the expense of the other."

In effect, the new administration is now seeking its own version of a transfer amendment--a transfer of funds from domestic social programs to the defense budget.

WHEREAS, the AFT remains steadfast in its support for a strong national defense-not as a source of jobs but as a necessary precondition to the survival of democratic institutions, including free trade unions, which are threatened by totalitarian expansionism; and

WHEREAS, the trade-off of social programs for defense needs risks undermining support for military spend­ing among the poor, minorities and workers who have a stake in the domestic programs slated for the meat ax. A strong national defense requires not only a buildup of weapons, but the social cohesion that flows from all Americans feeling that they have a strong stake in the future of this democratic society. A strong national defense requires a strong economy, which fully employs the nation's human and technical resources; and

WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States does not call for a choice between social and military programs. Nor does it mandate the subordination of either to passing fashions in economic thought. It defines the responsibility of government to "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare;" and

WHEREAS, a socially just and fully employed America can afford to carry out both of these constitutional responsibilities:

RESOLVED, the AFT vigorously oppose the drastic cuts proposed by the Reagan administration in domestic programs of vital importance to Americans. No such trade-off is required by any realistic assessment of the resources or capabilities of this economic system.