Reducing U.S. Deficit

Your review of the bidding over deficit reduction in your editorial (Oct. 21), “The Debtor’s Game,” was well done.

Despite the shortcomings of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget proposal, it pressures Congress to act. Short in its aim, it does not address the total equation, i.e., tax code and spending equals deficit.

Changing the tax code to increase revenues met with forceful opposition in the 1984 presidential election. The voters felt that an attack on spending alone would solve the deficit. Many have changed their thinking but still want to avoid the pain of taxes.

The President’s or the Ways and Means Committee’s tax reform packages, unless they allow for increased revenues, will not affect the deficit. A real stalemate exists. Who then pays for the reduction of the deficit? The individual with or without the tax shelter privilege? The individual with or without the federal entitlement or subsidy? Probably some combination.

Give and take from the President, Congress and the voters is now necessary. The deficit can not be totally reduced through spending cuts. Let’s stop kidding ourselves. The additional reduction must come from and be distributed through the tax code.

It’s a political chess game as to who makes the next move. Let’s hope that political action lobbies and “electionitis” does not over-encumber the process. Let’s hope that wisdom and the better part of compromise wins, and we’ll all win.

VICTOR H. JASHINSKI

Newport Beach