Illustration by Josh Hagler

Thursday August 30, 2001 |

Bush's budget crisis

The White House is backing out of its promise not to touch Social Security. During Bush's campaign and first few months as president, he pledged to protect every cent of Social Security reserves, and now in the face of a less-than-expected budget surplus it appears that the White House will rescind that pledge.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office the government has to use $9 billion of Social Security reserves to cover the fiscal year ending on Sept. 30. Bush and Congress had vowed to use the surplus of Social Security taxes on paying down the debt and overhauling the retirement system.

Democrats blame the dwindling surplus on Bush's tax-cut, which they claim the nation could not afford. While Republicans claim that the tax-cut was necessary to jumpstart a lagging economy. Either way, as the nation slides slowly into a recession, the White House and the nation will have to deal with a budget that is short on funds.

As tax rebates begin to appear in mailboxes across the country, citizens will now be able to compare the satisfaction of lower taxes to the unsettling knowledge that Social Security money is needed for programs other than worker retirements.

The dwindling surplus, and the consequences of the tax-cut, is the first major policy crisis of the Bush administration. People are beginning to talk.

A Brief Lapse Into Reality

As a result of President Clinton's struggling economy (and yes, it's still his; the fiscal year doesn't end until the end of September), the budget surplus for this year has decreased from $275 billion to $158 billion.

Simple math reveals that the surplus has been reduced by $115 billion. President Bush's tax cut is largely back loaded, and as a result, it has cost the government $40 billion this year. That leaves $75 billion unaccounted for. Bush's cut has been responsible for roughly a third of the lost surplus so far. If Senate Plurality Leader Tom Daschle had his way, $80 billion - twice as much - of the surplus would have been used for his and the Democrats' "targeted tax cuts."

Once again, that foul whiff of hypocrisy is in the air.

Beyond that, what's obvious is that still more than half of the surplus remains. In order to assure that projected surpluses for future years are there, Bush cut taxes to stimulate the economy and rebuild the mess that Clinton left for him. Democrats would have you believe that, because the surplus is dwindling, we can't afford a tax cut. In reality, it's just the opposite: It's because the surplus is eroding that we needed a tax cut, and we needed one now.

How is it that, according to the left and the media, tax cuts cause deficits but overspending doesn't? Unlike 20 years ago, Republicans are in charge on Capitol Hill this time around, and this time, more responsible spending will prevail.

Shane Dale is a political science sophomore. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

The Budget Facade

"We must start with things that matter most to the future and security of our country. From this time forward, let us put education and national defense at the first of the line, not at the last," President Bush said recently.

It would be nice have a "locked box" for other agendas as well.

The Republicans took the election when they condemned the Democratic Party for the lies of President Clinton. When the state of Texas and other Republicans were asked why they chose George W. as president, they responded, "We want some good old-fashioned truth back into the federal government."

Whatever. Look where that got us.

Forget social security. They'll get their money.

But you know what won't get money: public education. Public is the key word here. Sure, education for the wealthy is up in the top five priorities for budget. It is silly to think that public schools will ever get enough money to actually cause significant improvements - especially when it is competing to get funding against "faith-based" organizations.

When Bush speaks of increasing the budget for defense, he indirectly means that he needs more bucks to continue (it is well underway) breaking ground in Alaska for the missile defense system. Our No. 1 national threat is not long-range missiles, but international terrorism attacks.

Want security? How about keeping an eye on our own government.

Jessica Lee is an environmental science junior. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Where is my beloved Lockbox?

It's not nice for me to say "I told you so," and fortunately I don't have to. For many moons now, Democrats and Republicans alike, analysts, economists, and general know-it-alls have warned that there just ain't enough money to foot the bajillion dollar tax cut.

We all remember. "I'm gonna take social security and put it in a lock box". Yes, that little chat during the presidential debate was a slip-up. Like always, Gore played the attack dog, and Bush knew it was coming. Georgie just had to sit back, giggle a few times and try to form coherent sentences in his head. It worked. Gore's lockbox, lockbox, lockbox speech came off like a broken record. However, we all wish now that Social Security and Medicare were in a little treasure chest, and that Gore had swallowed the key.

So now, Social Security is feeling insecure, cowering before the giant tax cut about to swallow the surplus. According to some data coming over the Associated Press wireless, that super-duper surplus may already be gone. Ten years to mess around with the extra money? It's only been ten weeks since W. signed the bill and the economy is beginning to shake, rattle, and roll.

Gateway, relax. Laying off thousands of workers at this date is too impulsive. Leave it to me. I've bought donuts and I'm arranging for Greenspan and Cheney to meet in the secret fort house that Bush doesn't have the password to. The two real brains behind the operation will fix this mess.

Laura Winsky is senior majoring in political science and Spanish. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Britney would know what to do

President Bush's campaign promises are falling apart faster than Pavarotti's hammock. He has been saying for months that we could afford his fabulous tax cut, still be able to build up defense, AND put more money towards education without having to dip into Social Security - at all.

He said this little more than a week ago in a speech he gave to a group he spoke to in Independence, Mo., and now his little paw is deep inside grandma's cookie jar searching for the wad of cash she keeps stashed at the bottom.

In addition to this, the Republican National Committee ran ads that very same week bragging that he had yet to do so. I guess they're just not going to run those ads anymore. More money wasted!

I remember a time when a promise meant something Mr. Bush. Well not really, but still. It's nice to pretend. Right now I'm pretending that Britney Spears is President and she's singing and dancing her way to world peace and perfect harmony. Whee!

And now back to reality.

"Boo!"

Suck it up!

The icing on the cake is that Bush keeps placing the blame on spending when his dooky tax cut is the real problem. His enormous tax cut gives people a few hundred dollars now, not nearly enough to make a real impact on anyone's life, that ultimately takes away from the money that is supposed to be there for them in the future. Ludicris isn't just a two-bit rapper anymore.

Or is it ludicrous? I bet Britney would know. Fin.

Zack Armstrong is a creative writing senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Illustration by Josh Hagler

Bush needs to keep his promises

He said, she said. Budget problems are forever the crux of the party in the White House, and Dubbya has stumbled upon an ideological fight that has given the Democrats a new bitching platform. Social security was a decent idea, just not thought out so well. Now that America's aging baby boomers need to dig into the SS pot, the money may or may not be there.

Texas' illegitimate Yale Bulldog, Bush, made a promise to America, though. He promised not to dip into Social Security to pay for whatever the hell it is he feels is "critical" this week. While Republicans claim Democrats are, in the words of Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, "just afraid there will not be enough taxpayers' money to spend on wasteful government projects," Bush continues to build a national defense system already light years beyond any other nation.

No national issues questionnaire made it to my house. If one had, education or one of those "wasteful" social programs would have been endorsed.

While our nation's age-distribution pyramid becomes even more top-heavy, the Social Security kitty is spread thin, not only for the number of recipients, but also for how much remains.

Despite the Congressional Budget Office's assertion that Social Security is $153 billion in the black for this fiscal year, the issue still remains that Bush lied. Clinton told us he never slept with Monica Lewinsky and that has nothing to do with us, but it made national television for weeks. Bush lies and, in effect, steals $9 billion to offset his impractical tax cuts and it rests as a sidebar in the local paper. Bush, either keep your promises or don't make them.

Nick Zeckets is a political science and near-eastern studies senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.