Clinton’s Plan to Balance Budget

* Re “Clinton Outlines Plan to Balance the Budget by 2005,” June 14:

In his five-minute address to the nation, President Clinton attacked corporate welfare--or did he? The President proposed to save $ 6 billion over the next 10 years by discontinuing corporate tax subsidies and loopholes, the specifics of which were undisclosed.

Data from the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Office of Management and Budget estimate that aid for “dependent corporations” carries a price tag of $104 billion a year. By contrast social welfare programs cost taxpayers $75 billion a year. Over $30 billion a year goes to wealthy polluting industries and can rightfully be called “polluter pork.” Industries such as mining, oil, coal, nuclear, ranching, timber and agriculture spend millions of dollars lobbying to get billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.

With corporate subsidies costing taxpayers $104 billion a year, the President’s plan to cut $6 billion over the next 10 years falls far short of any real significance.

Congress and our elected officials need to hear the message that corporate subsidies to corporate polluters must be dramatically reduced first, then we can talk about what further reductions must be made to lower the deficit.

JOSEPH SELWAY

Los Angeles

* President Clinton deserves credit for proposing a moderate, realistic plan to balance the budget. Congressional Democrats should abandon their tactics of criticizing every budget-balancing plan while refusing to propose any plan of their own. If they choose to stay on the sidelines, they at least should not attack the President for stepping onto the playing field. A congressman merely has to get reelected. The President must lead.

JOHN Y. LIU

Glendale

* President Clinton is a “New Democrat”! In five minutes he threw out 40 years of New Deal theology!

STANLEY C. MELLIN

Rancho Palos Verdes

* Every day The Times runs articles about the budget and the national debt. You also have discussions of the trillions of dollars that are speculated daily on the international exchanges. How is it that no one has come up with the simple idea of a transaction fee on these speculations to solve the problems? In the June 16 paper, it was stated that $1.2 trillion is traded daily. A fee of 0.1% would yield $430 billion per year. If each side of the trade charged the same fee, all the countries that have the same problems that we do would balance their budgets and have money left over to reduce their national debts.

In our case, the budget would be balanced, Medicare and Social Security would be taken care of, and $150 billion would be left over to reduce our debt. Instead of taxing the workers who are adding to the wealth of our country, let’s tax the gamblers who are now in control of our economy!

HOWARD NIEDERMAN

San Clemente

*

It is amazing and tragic just how narrow the range of American political debate has become in this increasingly conservative era. The House, Senate and President Clinton all proposed balanced budget proposals that require sacrifices from most segments (except the rich, of course) in our society, yet each proposes large increases in defense spending. But do our elected officials or the news media raise even an eyebrow over this affront to common sense and decency? Not hardly.

Hey, let’s get real. The Cold War is over, there are no other superpowers to worry about, and we already spend as much on our military as the entire 170-plus other countries of the world (friend and foe) combined.

Just last month the Pentagon disclosed it had lost $15 billion due to what one federal official called “financial management troubles.” And they handed out another $13 billion, but can’t quite figure out to whom. (What? You missed that on the news? That’s OK, so did most everybody else). Can you imagine the national outrage if the Department of Education or food stamp program lost $28 billion?

You can bet your shrinking paycheck that the Pentagon and its defense contractors will be winners no matter what budget is passed. The elderly, the poor, the children, and working people will as usual be making the sacrifices because they don’t have enough money to have any real clout.

ARLEN GROSSMAN

Culver City

* It is incomprehensible to me, after teaching economics for almost 30 years and writing on the subject for the past 10 years, that the current economic gurus really believe you can grow the economy by cutting spending and putting workers (consumers) out of work. It is obvious that as the economy is shrunk and taxes are cut, government revenues will shrink and deficits will increase. Guess I had better take some courses in the new math!

BRYAN W. STEVENS

Rolling Hills Estates