Reducing U.S. Deficit

Congress is on the verge of passing legislation that will supposedly “cure” the federal deficit. This all sounds great and laudable until we take a close look at the programs that are being cut and the programs that are exempt from the cuts.

The “Emergency Deficit Control Act,” better known as the Gramm-Rudman proposal, named after its sponsors in the Senate--Sens. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) and Warren Rudman (R-N.H.)--sounds great; it will reduce federal budget deficits to zero between now and 1991. If Congress and the President couldn’t agree on ways to meet the deficit target in any year, automatic cuts in some spending programs would be triggered. But, the problem with it is that a lot of what causes the deficit isn’t covered by the cuts, and programs that protect the most vulnerable Americans would be cut substantially.

The critical areas of the Gramm-Rudman proposal is that almost half of the federal budget would be exempt from automatic reductions, i.e., only 60% of the military budget is subject to reduction, large tax loopholes, interest on the debt and other existing contracts would all be exempt from cuts.

What would not be exempt? Supplemental Security Income cost-of-living allowances, which go to the poorest 2 million elderly (of which 70% are women). Medicare provider payments would be frozen, Section 202 housing and senior employment would be reduced substantially because of the way they are funded. And food stamps would be reduced well below current level benefits. (How many of us could raise a family on $500 a month with a food stamp allowance of $45 a month? Powdered milk would take up most of the food stamp allowance.)

That’s not all--wonderful programs like Head Start, school lunch and community health centers would be abolished. As if cutting these fine programs wouldn’t be enough, the biggest problem with Gramm-Rudman is the centralization of power in the hands of the President and the Office of Management and Budget.

I hardy think there is disagreement that we need to find a way to substantially reduce the deficit but not by cutting crucial programs for the poor and elderly.

There needs to be four basic changes in Gramm-Rudman:

Exempt programs serving the poor of all ages. Make all military spending, including the money that goes to defense contractors, subject to the cuts. Don’t shift more power to the OMB and the President.

If the poor and elderly must give up food--meat, vegetables and milk--then the rich must give up their vacation homes, fancy limos, furs and jewelry as well as the growing tax loopholes for corporations and rich people in general, which has caused two-thirds of the deficit.

Everybody out there who is outraged at Gramm-Rudman should write their congressman and tell him.

MARIANNE DELLA-MARNA

Alta Loma