GENTLEMEN: Earlier this year I attended the Rocky Mountain Conference sponsored by the Conference Board. Many of the participants expressed concern over the proposed tax cut and "viewed with alarm" any attempt to reduce taxes without some substantial decrease in proposed federal expenditures. But one of the last participants to speak struck a discordant note by advocating a continued high level of federal spending as both necessary and, by implication, desirable. His reason was simply that 1 out of 3 people employed in manufacturing in his state of Utah depended upon federal spending. Since spending for defense is the major part of the federal budget and certainly has profoundly affected Utah's economy, it seemed to me the speaker in effect was saying that the prospect for peace or disarmament is an undesirable objective because it represents a peril to regional or perhaps national prosperity, and this is a conclusion that in a social sense we cannot accept. Upon my return I set about to verify his contention, which I could not do for Utah. However, I did come up with some frightening facts about California, a state of more immediate concern to most of us here. As near as I could ascertain: 1. Of the 1-1/2 million people employed in manufacturing in California, 52% produce defense goods. 2. Of the state's entire labor force 1 person in 5 directly depends upon military expenditures for subsistence while the equivalent of 1 in 3 is supported directly or indirectly by defense spending.