Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, March 12, 1993 TAG: 9303120627
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
PUBLIC NEEDS PROOF OF FISCAL CHANGE OF HEART
I AM OPPOSED to President Clinton's proposal to reduce the federal deficit, because of similar plans in the past.President Reagan made an agreement with congressional leaders to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts.
In 1990, we had budget reform, where President Bush agreed to a tax increase in exchange for spending reductions of $2 for every $1 of increased revenue. What the taxpayers got was a tax increase and more than $1.50 of increased spending for every $1 of new revenue.
Not only has the public been misled on previous proposals to reduce the deficit, we are being misled on the effects of Clinton's plan.
The energy-tax cost of $17 per month is probably true; however, the indirect costs hidden in the price increases of all the goods and services the public buys will be even higher. Companies will pass through their increased costs for energy as well as any increases in corporate taxes.
We are also being misled about those who will be directly affected. The president's statement about those who make more than $100,000 bearing the major portion of the burden and those making less than $30,000 being unaffected is a deliberate attempt to fool the public. Those numbers are based on family economic income, which includes the value of employee benefits, unrealized appreciation of assets, and other factors that are not included in IRS rules for determining tax liability.
I have no reason to believe anything about any plans to reduce deficits. We have had plans before, but what we need is action, and verifiable action. The president and Congress need to earn the trust of the people and, therefore, should cut real spending before asking for any more money from the public.
There should be no unsubstantiated claims, such as saying the deficit is not as big as it would have been if we had not done so-and-so.
I want to see cuts in actual spending. In fiscal 1994, total expenditures adjusted for inflation should be less than fiscal 1993 expenditures. The same is true for fiscal 1995 vs. fiscal 1994. It is highly likely that revenues will increase in both years since the economy is steadily improving. Any natural improvement in revenues will enhance deficit reduction, and in the event there is a revenue decrease, it should be of little consequence if actual spending is reduced.
J.F. Clarke said that a politician thinks of the next election; a statesman, of the next generation. For years, Congress has used tax money to buy votes - the look-what-I-have-done-for-you-lately syndrome. Congress needs to exercise some self-restraint and accept responsibility for its actions.
If spending in real terms is cut for the next two years, I will be willing to consider tax increases. LAWRENCE O. LACY CLIFTON FORGE