Clinton's Budget Proposal: Your Letters

President Bill Clinton has offered a $1.73 trillion spending plan for FY 1999 that he says represents the end of an era of federal deficits. Budget in detail

We're still getting a lot of Clinton-Lewinsky mail, but a few people want to talk about the budget. Here's some of the letters we've gotten, and if you'd like to weigh in, send us e-mail at response@turner.com. Please put "budget" in the subject line, and be sure to include your name and home town. And watch for the next installment of Voter's Voice.

'Simply A Fraud'

The balanced budget is simply a fraud; the government doesn't count such items as Social Security, etc. They simply label them as off-budget.

Furthermore, the government uses the surplus from Social Security and puts into the general Treasury fund. The true budget deficit for President Clinton's next budget is closer to $150 billion than 0. If they had kept their hands off of the surplus from Social Security, there would be TRILLIONS in the fund.

-- Chris Tidwell, Fort Worth, Texas, Feb. 3

'Clinton's Precious Bottom Line'

I was reading on Clinton's proposed budget and just HAD to respond to your poll. I have an "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude. From what I've read, Clinton appears to be counting on sources of funds that aren't guaranteed to be available, such as cigarette taxes. Also, why does he want to spend $450 MILLION of taxpayer money for digital TVs? PLEASE!

Also interesting, as you noted, is the "emergency" funding for military. Obviously, we all know that there will be troop deployment, so why not account for it? Or will that foul up Clinton's precious bottom line?

Thank you.

-- Julie Friesen, Sacramento, Calif., Feb. 2

'Very Creative Accounting'

Is the nation on the verge of real budget surpluses? HELL NO. Firstly, Clinton's so-called "zero deficit" budget relies upon tax increases and laws which haven't even been passed by Congress yet; secondly; the budget uses very creative accounting -- certain programs, like housing loans, aren't even counted as being part of the budget. It's yet another triumph of style over substance.

-- J.D. Weiner, Phoenix, Ariz., Feb. 2

'How Can We Trust Them?'

Are there going to be surpluses? I think a better question to ask is if we ever truly have a balanced budget. And I don't think so. "Cooking the books" has been a common practice in the past to make the numbers look better than they are. Let me give you two examples.

1. I remember hearing Congressman Dick Armey back in 1993 say that the Social Security fund was gutted to the tune of $369 B. This money was "borrowed" from the Social Security fund for general budget expenditures. The question I have is, was this IOU ever paid back? Maybe this is what's at the root of "Saving Social Security"!

2. Traditionally in Washington when a budget cut was proclaimed, it only turned out to be a reduction in the increase in spending. Not a cut at all.

How can we trust them? Especially the Democrats with a proven track record of big spending and raising taxes.

-- Richard Redmond, Feb. 2

Tuesday Feb. 3, 1998

• Starr Ratchets Up Pressure On White House
• Trie Arrested By FBI
• GOP Lawmakers Skeptical About Clinton's Budget
• White House Scandal At A Glance
• Koop Burial Waiver Defended

Poll:
• Public Admires Hillary's Handling Of Controversy