Budget battle unnecessary

From the campaign through inauguration, President Bush assured voters that there was enough money for funding Social Security, Medicare and education, as well as increasing defense spending, cutting taxes, providing for any urgencies and balancing the budget.\nWhen Bush took office he increased defense and education spending, cut taxes and faced emergency circumstances (i.e. a recession and a war). But now White House Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mitch Daniels forecasts deficit spending through at least 2005 -- and Bush hasn't even addressed Social Security and Medicare yet. Bush's policy doesn't lead to a balanced budget after all. Although I suspect he knew that all along, what's done is done.\nAmerica is poised to increase the already unfathomable $5.5 trillion federal debt. For reasons that should be obvious, America must return to balanced budgets. Unfortunately, the need for an economic stimulus to fight the recession complicates matters greatly. The impending mid-term elections make the prospects of good policy even bleaker -- each party wants a campaign issue more than a budget deal.\nAccordingly, Bush and Sen. Tom Daschle (D-N.D.) will engage in a fierce partisan battle this spring over the budget. (Don't be fooled by their talk of bipartisanship -- it is just that.) Daschle will try to paint Bush as a fiscally irresponsible president more committed to tax cuts and corporate interests than the public good. Bush will portray Daschle as an obstructionist who wants to raise taxes. Their polarizing rhetoric portends gridlock, but there needn't be.\nThere is already wide agreement on some proposals: Spending to help the unemployed, tax breaks to encourage business investment, a one-month payroll tax holiday and increased funding for defense and homeland security. These proposals, if enacted, would cost tens of billions of dollars -- a hefty and effective stimulus.\nBut that spending and foregone revenue will force the budget deeper into the red. It is imperative that Congress enact a so-called "trigger mechanism" to preclude further deficit spending. \nA trigger mechanism, recently endorsed by centrist Democrats, was suggested by Alan Greenspan last spring. It works like this: When the Treasury Department certifies a surplus, it "triggers" the next round of tax cuts. \n"The trigger would never raise taxes or reverse a tax cut but would instead implement the next phase of rate cuts only when it is fiscally sound to do it," wrote Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) in The Washington Post Jan. 9. In order to retain the cuts' stimulative effect, centrists advocate applying the trigger only to those cuts taking effect after 2004. This makes even more sense when one considers that the tax cuts' most costly elements take effect after 2005. Since we have seen how wildly unreliable budget projections are, a trigger seems indispensable. \nThere will be sacrifices. Daschle should be flexible on unemployed health care and new research/development spending. Bush should abandon the repeal of both the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax and the estate tax. Although these are vitally important matters, they should be addressed later. The priority now must be to improve the economy and balance the budget.\nWhat we young Americans must recognize is that when our leaders run up deficits, we are the ones who will pay for them in 20 years. So let's all hope that Bush and Daschle will have the courage to lead with vision, not blindness.