[PEN-L:9710] US gov't budget issues

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

For the life of me, I don't know why I didn't know why the projected
surpluses of the US government are to some extent based on the assumption
that certain civilian discretionary programs will continue to be cut... Did
you mention this, Max?

from the L.A. TIMES, opinion section:

Thursday, July 29, 1999

 COLUMN LEFT / PAUL WELLSTONE

 Kids Stand to Lose the Most in Budget Fight

 Democrats have to be willing stare down the GOP for the things that they
say they care about--even if that's risky.

 By PAUL WELLSTONE

 In early July, President Clinton visited some of the poorest  regions of
the country and, to bipartisan acclaim, spoke eloquently of our obligations
to America's most disadvantaged children.

 Now, with the U.S. economy performing at its peak, we have an
unprecedented opportunity to back up our words with actions. As  Congress
begins making critical decisions on budget priorities for decades to come,
there is no better time than now to demonstrate the depth of our commitment
to America's children, especially the poorest among them.

 Judging from the tax bills now making their way through both  houses of
Congress, that commitment doesn't run very deep. In fact, both parties are
financing their tax plans with devastating spending cuts that will visit
even more hardship on America's children.

 The surplus is now estimated at about $1 trillion over 10 years. But those
surpluses depend almost entirely on assumed cuts in future domestic
spending. If we maintain current discretionary spending levels over the
next decade, between 75% and 90% of the non-Social Security surplus
disappears.

 Republican plans wouldn't restore any of those cuts. In fact, they cut
another $200 billion. Assuming increases in Pentagon spending requested by
President Clinton--a minimum figure, since the GOP-led
 Congress is pressing for much more--the Republican budget would require a
38% cut in domestic spending in 2009. The Republican tax bills are larded
with corporate welfare for multinational corporations, banks, insurance
companies and Wall Street securities firms as well as tax giveaways for the
wealthy.

 Even the Democratic budget alternative fails to fully restore those cuts.
Senate Democrats have reserved $290 billion of the surplus to soften the
blow on discretionary priorities like education, but they allow spending
cuts on the order of $305 billion. Actual reductions in domestic spending
will have to be much larger, though. Since funding for defense and
transportation is already slated to grow significantly over the next 10
years, other domestic priorities will be squeezed even more. How can
Democrats say we're for addressing the needs of America's children, for
fighting poverty, for fully funding Head Start, for equal access to quality
education, for helping working families afford the high costs of health
care and child care, for cleaning up the environment, for community
policing and for full funding of veterans health care when we're assuming
domestic spending cuts of $305 billion plus? Something has to give.

 Meanwhile, there are 14 million children--close to 1 in 4--growing up poor
in our country today and 6.5 million of them living in extreme poverty in
households with incomes less than half the poverty line. Childhood poverty
overall has grown by a fifth since the 1980s. Yet we are now being told by
both parties that even with a booming economy and record surpluses, we
cannot live up to our national vow of equal opportunity for every child.
That is unconscionable.

 Some worry about the cost and complexity of combating childhood poverty.
Nonsense. We know what works. The importance of early childhood development
and the growth of the infant brain--subjects of a White House conference
last year--is clear: You have to get it right for children by the age of 3.
This is one area where the federal government can and must play a much more
constructive role. Head Start can make a difference by stimulating
imagination and laying the foundations for reading, writing and working
with numbers. But today, Head Start is funded to accommodate only four out
of 10 eligible children, and funding for Early Head Start, a promising
program for children under 3, covers only 1% of eligible toddlers. We must
set a national goal of fully funding these and other key investments in
children.

 Our economic performance is about as good as it's going to get. Thanks to
strong economic growth, we've eliminated the deficit. We're piling up
record budget surpluses, if you count Social Security. And what are
Democrats proposing? A substantial increase in defense spending, and more
than $305 billion in spending cuts for our domestic priorities.

 There has to be some connection between the convictions we profess and the
budgets we propose or the chasm between our words and our actions becomes
too wide. If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at
some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them.

 - - -

 Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) Is a Member of the Senate's Health,
 Education, Labor and Pensions Committee

 Copyright 1999 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved


BTW, isn't it a little strange that Minnesota has both a social dem like
Wellstone as one of its Senators and a libertarian like Ventura as
governor? Of course, it's weird for someone (currently) from California to
complain about things being "strange."

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html