President’s Budget Plan Leaves Out Major Expenses

Re “Bush Budget Foresees Record Deficits,” Feb. 4: How shocked I was to read that President Bush’s proposed budget, with its record deficits and tax cuts, “does not include the cost of military operations in Afghanistan, which are running about $1.5 billion a month, or money that may be needed for a potential war in Iraq and its aftermath.” This means the projected deficits are not anywhere near as bad as the real deficits will be. Where will the money ultimately come from to pay for this reckless assault on America’s prosperity?

Major payers will be Social Security recipients, current and future. The Social Security box is no longer “locked,” and Bush doesn’t believe in the program. When there is no money because it has gone to tax cuts and an oil war for his supporters, Social Security will have to be dismantled by privatization or, excuse me, “reformed,” as he is proposing for Medicare.

Melanie MacMitchell

Encinitas

*

There is one other option The Times failed to pursue in its Feb. 2 editorial, “Don’t Mortgage the Future.” Why not cut spending across the board, say 10% from each department, plus Congress and our judicial branch? It can be done without jeopardizing our nation. It is called “federal bureaucratic waste.”

Dennis Martin

Whittier

*

George W. takes office in the face of several consecutive budget surpluses, calls for a massive tax cut to “give the money back,” ostensibly so it can be used to further spur the economy (i.e., voodoo economics), and when the result is a record budget deficit, it’s the fault of the previous administration. Riddle me this one, Bushman: If you knew the recession/deficit was coming, why did you cut taxes to fuel/increase same? If I didn’t already know the answer, I’d be confused.

Patrick J. McDonough

Marina del Rey