It appears President Clinton 
is making a very persuasive case to the American public that they aren't ready for tax relief. Until the American public unravels the conundrum over who is really trying to "save" Social Security and who is using the issue for more political gain, tax relief may again be off the table for 1999. After all, both parties are in agreement that a sizable portion of the surplus should be used to save the system.
If you believe the polls, education and social security place first and second with the public in terms of top concerns. Tax relief ranks third, fourth or fifth depending on what poll you're reading and on what day.
"Saving" Social Security and Medicare - and spending lots more on education - are the stated priorities of the administration, and the president pledges that the surplus will be used to stave off the financial disaster that await these entitlement programs in the next 10 to 20 years.
Many are asking why it took the president so long to come around on these issues. His concern for the fate of these programs during the first six years of his presidency was slim at best, as both issues were used to kneecap Republicans in the 1996 and 1998 elections when they dared to discuss real options for fixing the mess.
Of course, now that Clinton is discussing these issues rather than Republicans, every senior American is safe from harm. But perhaps not for long. His proposed budget reveals he would dip into the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for new spending plans totaling $146 billion.
"New spending programs should be financed from revenue that does not come from the Social Security payroll tax. The money shuffle must stop," said Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo., in introducing legislation to wall off payroll tax revenue from being used to finance higher debts as well as tax cuts.
Clinton's proposal puts Social Security on autopilot and dedicates future surpluses to it.
Even Senate Democrats were critical.
Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev., said, "We kind of punt the ball and decide to work on [Social Security reform] at some later time."
The big joke of course is that if the anticipated trillion-dollar surpluses stay in Washington, they will be spent - not walled off, or set aside, to "save" programs.
Sen. Ashcroft's proposal helps to make public that dirty little secret about the so-called Trust Fund - there's no money in it, and politicians keep spending it.
Do we really believe that if we allow the anticipated multiyear, trillion-dollar surpluses to stay in Washington that they will be "saved" for Social Security? This money will most definitely be spent, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan recently declared.
No proposal has been offered by the administration on how it will save the system. But it has drawn a line in the sand with Republicans over the surplus and how it should be handled. It would be "irresponsible," say the Democrats, for Republicans to think about doing anything else with the surplus (read: giving it back to taxpayers) without first dedicating 77 percent of it to "saving" Social Security and Medicare.
Of course, shoring up Social Security and Medicare, providing tax relief/tax reform and paying off the national debt are all doable. Plenty of blueprints have been developed both inside and outside of government to accomplish all of the above. At a White House event used to drum up support for his proposal, Clinton asked,
Based on the bad reviews of the president's "plan," I opt for choice No. 1 any day. Most Americans probably would, too, if they knew the facts. Without a real plan, Washington will spend the surplus - unwisely, of course.
