Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!usa-post Newsgroups: usa-today.issues,americast.usa-today.issues From: usa-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: usa-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: issues Tue, Sep 29 1992 Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 04:35:07 EDT Message-ID: 09-29 0000 DECISIONLINE: Issues & Debate USA TODAY Update Sept. 29, 1992 Source: USA TODAY:Gannett National Information Network Here are some of the issues and topics being debated across the nation Tuesday morning in USA TODAY: IRA's, Candidates. TODAY'S DEBATE - RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS: USA TODAY'S OPINION: Hold onto your wallets. Congress is trying to boost your savings again. (Tuesday), as part of a $35 billion grab bag of tax breaks and urban aid, the Senate will decide whether to expand use of Individual Retirement Accounts. Currently, 73% of all Americans - including people without pensions, individuals making less than $25,000 a year and couples with less than $40,000 income - can make tax-deductible contributions to IRAs that earn tax-free interest until withdrawn. But for the Christmas-for-everyone crowd in Congress, that's not enough. They want to triple the income limits while making the R for retirement in IRA meaningless. Instead of having to wait until 59 1:2, people could make withdrawals for college, a new home, medical expenses, hurricane relief or the down payment on a car. Or they could put $2,000 to $4,000 of their income, after paying taxes on it, in glitzy super-IRAs and withdraw the proceeds after five years, tax free. Proponents say these changes will boost savings and investment. And a boost is needed. But not just any boost. History shows expanding IRAs alone will just feed the federal debt. Congress made IRAs universal in 1982 to boost savings. But in 1987, it took them back. ... Instead of generating massive new savings, IRAs became havens for old savings of the well-to-do. Personal savings actually dropped by half. And instead of costing government a projected $2.6 billion in revenue, IRAs cost $21.1 billion. That helped boost the deficit to $200 billion. Accountants say this year's package is likely to do the same. ... Congress must stop playing Santa and face two facts - $300 billion deficits and a $4 trillion national debt. The nation needs real new savings, not tax havens for old savings that only increase the country's debt. OTHER VIEW: SEN. LLOYD BENTSEN, D-Texas, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee: In Texas, we say the time to kill a snake is when you've got it at the end of your hoe. Too often, we've held back on dealing with problems that undermine our economy, such as a savings rate that's only a third of the rates in Japan and Germany and a housing market that's more like an anchor than an engine of growth. Restoring and expanding the Individual Retirement Account would help on both counts, boosting savings over the long term and spurring home building immediately. ... Over half of all two-income families are ineligible for a full IRA deduction. My legislation would permit all but those with the very highest incomes to either claim a deduction for IRA deposits or pay no taxes on earnings when they make a withdrawal. They could withdraw for retirement or to buy a first home, pay for college or cover the costs of serious illness or unemployment. The new IRA would not add a nickel to the deficit, now or in the future, and its ability to increase savings is not just the view on Capitol Hill, where it has strong bipartisan support. A growing number of economists agree as well. It complements the enterprise zones for urban areas. These zones may create jobs, but a rejuvenated IRA will definitely increase savings, and that's important, whether rebuilding America's cities or restoring its lagging economy. VOICES ACROSS THE NATION ON POLITICAL CANDIDATES' PERSONAL LIVES: VERO BEACH, Calif., Virginia Paddock, 55, retired: I would like to know that a person is honest - an upstanding citizen. I would hope that a candidate I would be voting for wouldn't have a kind of past like Sen. Kennedy's. It's hard to have poor judgment and think, "Now that I'm 40 or 50, I've got good judgment." NEW YORK, N.Y., Christine Slusarek, 30, marketing manager: I would probably not read stories about their personal lives. Personally, I don't care if Dan Quayle did purchase marijuana. I'm more interested in what they've done politically or whether they've managed a big corporation than if they've fooled around on their wives. SANTA MONICA, Calif., Fredd Wayne, 62, actor, writer: I'm violently opposed to all this muckraking. The media are so desperate to fill their days. The election process lasts too long; they have nothing else to write about. And people don't have anything else to do, so they read it. BIRMINGHAM, Ala., Joe Evans, 43, asst. basketball coach: I think the use of drugs would be important. I would feel they were not responsible enough to run the country. But we also have to look at the fact that people growing up make mistakes. If they're doing it now, that's a problem. DULUTH, Minn., Ken Jensen, 42, teacher: Actually, very little. John Kennedy had the potential for being a very good president despite his personal life that wasn't mainstream American. If they lied about it, and something comes out and we get positive proof, then personal life affects my vote. Issues & Debate Editor: Kate Coughlin. (1-919-855-3491) Making copies of USA TODAY Update (Copyright, 1992) for further distribution violates federal law. This article is copyright 1992 Gannett News Service. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM