While I was not surprised by your editorial (Jan. 6), "Warped Vision," I was disappointed that The Times continues to exhort such a selfish and narrow viewpoint concerning world affairs.
By your insistence on juxtaposing domestic social programs with military spending allotments you force the evaluation of these issues from the position that when the United States concerns itself with armaments it is acting callously toward the everyday needs of its citizens. Wouldn't a fairer evaluation of the situation reveal that most Americans favoring a strong defense see that defense as a sacrificial duty to the world community?
Can the United States afford to concentrate its economic power inwardly when there are so many people in the world so much worse off than even the most underprivileged American? I doubt any voters would endorse even a small amount of their hard-earned tax dollars to be paid out on guns and missiles if they didn't believe those guns and missiles were being used to improve life on this planet.
For example, drawing from your editorial, you cite aid to the contras in Central America as an instance of a proposed budget item that is partially responsible for taking away food stamps from the poor. So, following your line of thinking, the American poor should take precedence over the poor of Central America. It is the poor of Central America who are being herded into totalitarian servitude for want of bread.