Do’s and Don’ts of Budgeting : Do stop playing games; don’t cut AIDS funding

To think--some Washingtonians complain that they don’t have their own baseball team. They may not have a ball club, but the current budget negotiations prove they sure do have some top-flight game players on Capitol Hill. Too bad they’re making a game of the budget process.

Just when it seemed that congressional negotiators were edging close to an agreement on how to cut $500 billion from the federal deficit over the next five years, petty partisan politics surfaced again, threatening the chances of negotiating a budget deal that both Democrats and Republicans can live with. Without a deal, Congress would, in effect, relinquish its duty to make responsible decisions about the federal budget, leaving the budget process to the Gramm-Rudman “automatic pilot” approach that would impose unthinking, across-the-board cuts.

The Democrats began howling that the Republicans were trying to soak the poor with taxes while giving tax breaks to the wealthy. The proposal, according to an analysis by the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, would lower taxes by $2.9 billion for those in the $100,000 to $200,000 bracket, decreasing their share of federal taxes from 12.1% to 11.8%; in contrast, the largest tax increases would be imposed on earners in the $20,000 to $30,000 bracket, with a 1.4% increase and the $30,000 to $40,000 bracket, with a 1.2% increase.

The Republicans shot back that the Democrats were leaking “garbage” partisan propaganda; that plan was days old and greatly distorted, the GOP said. Still, the Republicans continue to push for a cut in the capital gains tax in the hope of spurring economic growth and more spending cuts. The Democrats push the “tax equity” issue--that poor Americans should not carry an unfair burden of tax increases--and prefer a greater measure of tax hikes.

There already exists, as we’ve said before, the elements of a pragmatic, if not ideal, budget solution: Higher income taxes for higher-income Americans, with lower taxes on capital gains. Democrats and Republicans must agree on a starting point first; then the art will come in the details.

There is one detail that must not be lost amid all this: AIDS funding. Just last month, Congress passed legislation that authorized the federal government to spend up to $875 million--for the first time--for the clinical care of AIDS patients. Cities, counties and states have been shouldering the day-to-day costs of diagnosis and treatment of the deadly disease that knows no municipal boundaries. In Los Angeles, one of 16 cities with the most AIDS cases, the bill would mean $13 million a year for five years. In San Diego, it would mean $2.4 million a year. The Senate Appropriations Committee next week should restore funding cuts made by an earlier subcommittee vote.

When it comes to spending taxpayer money, yes, prudence must prevail. But the careful management and economy that prudence implies also requires that government do all that it can to manage--and prevent--the spread of a killer disease.