Now for the Hard Part

President Reagan assiduously avoids using the word “sacrifice” in addressing national needs. When he again ruled out a tax increase to battle federal deficits, the President said his new budget will require government, and not the American family, to tighten its belt.

Well, it is clear from the President’s fiscal 1987 budget that all Americans will have to sacrifice in some fashion to comply with the new Gramm-Rudman deficit-reduction law. What the budget says is that the government really is not some mysterious big-spending “them,” but us--all of us.

That is fine. Those who can afford it should pay for government services.

In this respect, there is much in the $994-billion budget to consider seriously. He proposes again the imposition of new fees for such services as Coast Guard assistances and meat inspections. Surely the yacht owner should pay the Coast Guard for a tow back to the dock if he was careless enough to run out of fuel at sea. But at what point do you deny a bright graduate a low-cost loan that means the difference between attending college or not?

The key is that the sacrifice be shared as fairly as possible. But as in the past, this year’s budget ax falls most heavily on services to people in need. Of $38 billion in cuts, $11 billion come from social programs like Indian health, child nutrition, student aid, Medicaid and Medicare. Billions more would be cut in aid to state and local governments, particularly in transportation aid.

The fees the Administration proposes, totaling $2.5 billion, are not insignificant and they include the making of some difficult decisions.

Consider, for instance, the $350 million a year the Agriculture Department spends to examine slaughterhouses and processing plants to assure Americans that the meat and poultry they buy is free from disease and contamination. This service is now financed through taxes. The budget suggests this is an inappropriate subsidy to industry. So, the government would collect fees from the businesses to pay for the inspections.

But who really pays? Charge the supermarket chain a penny to inspect a pound of hamburger and you can be certain that penny will appear on the price tag. Suddenly, there is a fine line between a fee and a tax. Would Americans continue to get the sort of service they want and need? Would the poor pay a disproportionate share? How much of the savings would be lost to administrative costs? These are the sorts of questions Congress has to examine as it revises the budget.

National security is vital, but clearly the defense budget has not been subjected to such rigorous criteria. All weapons systems are locked on go with “Star Wars” leading the parade with a $2-billion increase. And to reject any tax increase now ignores the reality that revenues are an indispensable part of any budgeting process.

Even if the President got everything he sought, the budget almost certainly would fall short of the Gramm-Rudman deficit targets because it is based on dubious long-range economic assumptions: continued annual growth of 3.5%-4% through 1991 and inflation of only 2% in 1991. The forecast of income from the sale of federal properties, including the Bonneville Power Administration, also appear to be exceedingly optimistic.

These prospects for miscalculation make it even more critical for the nation to be prepared to engage in a broadly shared sacrifice of budget cuts, in defense as well as domestic programs, and new revenues.

Americans have always sacrificed to meet national needs. All 235 million of us constitute the American family that expresses its collective will through a national government. Tighten the belt we must. But only in a way that provides equity and social and economic justice for all.