Balanced-Budget Amendment

* Re “Sounds Great! But What Would It Do?” editorial, Feb. 6:

In one sentence you show your total lack of understanding of what the November election was all about. You ask, “What good is it to cut federal taxes only to hike state taxes?” The answer is that even if the state does everything exactly the same, you will save lots of money just by cutting out the federal government. Also, the hope is that by returning decision-making to the state level, you can more efficiently (cheaply) provide the same or even better service.

RICK SAVAGE

Pacific Palisades

* If amendments to the Constitution had preambles, the recently House-passed balanced-budget amendment preamble should look something like this:

“We the duly elected members of Congress, finding ourselves to be incompetent to carry out the provisions of the Constitution we have sworn to uphold and, wishing to pass the blame for all our inadequacies onto someone else (anyone else), do hereby relinquish our constitutional responsibilities to create a budget to the courts (after all, judges do not have to run for reelection--let the public get mad at them).”

If Jefferson had wanted the courts to control the budget, Section 7 of the Constitution would have so stated. The intent was to place the responsibility directly on those members of Congress who are responsible to the people every two years.

It is after all the conservatives in both Republican and Democratic parties who have caused the huge deficits, starting with President Reagan’s tax cuts. And no one of any side of the political spectrum has suggested even close to a balanced budget.

This amendment has nothing to do with balancing the budget--the real issue is responsibility.

RONALD A. EMERLING

Arcadia

* There is a single word that is missing from the balanced-budget amendment debate. That word is surplus ! The real problem is the enormous national debt. Deficit reduction only reduces the rate of increase in the debt. Until we have a budget surplus, the debt and the interest will not start to come down.

WALTER K. WAYMEYER

La Verne

* In your editorial, “Deficit Control Made Difficult” (Feb. 7), you continue to beat the drum for Social Security cuts to attack the deficit. As a major opinion molder, I think you owe your readers an explanation of just how you want Congress to do this without irremediably changing the most successful program in or out of government.

If Social Security benefits are cut, through COLA reductions or otherwise, more funds build up in the reserves. By law, they cannot be used otherwise. Do you recommend taking money saved from FICA and funneling it to general funds? How else is the deficit affected? Once you have broken that sacred trust by which FICA has paid solely for program benefits for over half a century, what other incursions will be convenient?

Granted, higher trust fund reserves give more operating capital to Washington and require less overseas borrowing. As such, they can help moderate inflation by containing interest rates. But, this makes no real dent in the deficit. You must have something else in mind. Care to share?

JAMES E. HODGSON, Dist. Manager

Social Security Administration

San Bernardino