Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.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, Oct 27 1992 Date: Tue, 27 Oct 92 04:59:45 EST Message-ID: 10-27 0000 DECISIONLINE: Issues & Debate USA TODAY Update Oct. 27, 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: Deficit; Halloween. TODAY'S DEBATE - DEFICIT MINIMIZED: George Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot have wasted a chance to build public support for attacking the federal budget deficit. Judging by a four-part USA TODAY series that concluded Monday, they've misjudged the public's ability to understand the importance of the deficit and willingness to pay the price of controlling it. The public - in budget-balancing seminars, polls and letters to the editor - shows a gut understanding that $300 billion annual deficits and a $4 trillion debt put their standard of living at risk. More important, people understand the need for sacrifice as long as they know pain will be shared equally and believe the problem will be solved. Unfortunately, sound-bites and buzzwords like "trickle-down" and "tax-and-spend" have dominated the campaign. Bush says he can cut the deficit without raising taxes. Clinton says he can do it by raising taxes on the rich. Perot relies on higher taxes and spending cuts, but says little about the impact of those cuts. No candidate has chosen to fully expose the cost of slaying the deficit demon that inflates interest rates, costs jobs, hinders efforts to rebuild the national economy and stifles solutions to many national problems. That won't change by Election Day. But soon thereafter it must. The winner will have a brief period to galvanize the public will that so clearly is evident. If he fails to seize that moment, paralysis will grow. He should begin by leveling with the people about the tough choices they have to make. As thousands found in budget-balancing exercises led by the independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, any sensible solution requires taxes and unpopular program cuts. There is no other way. OTHER VIEW: THOMAS V. DIBACCO, a historian at The American University and co-author of "History of the United States": If American politicians are unwilling to come to terms with the federal government's deficit, it's because they're doing what a democracy is all about: They're listening to voters, who don't like tax increases and they never have. Recall that colonial Americans wouldn't countenance helping pay down Britain's debt after 1765, even though the exactions were modest. As an independent nation, the USA made certain the feds got dough mostly from indirect sources, such as tariffs and sales of public land. And until World War II, the average American paid no income tax to Uncle Sam and precious little in other levies. America's role in the Cold War eased voter antipathy to taxes - but just a tad. And now that the Cold War is over, what evidence exists that voters, to paraphrase John F. Kennedy, are eager to ask what they can do for their government - especially given almost daily stories about Washington's waste and fraud? Find me a courageous politician who talks tough about taxes and the deficit, and chances are he's history. Remember Democrat Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign resolve that taxes had to be raised to bring the deficit under control? That's the year that Ronald Reagan won 525 of 538 electoral votes, the highest margin in history. More recently, Sen. Paul Tsongas' message about higher taxes helped to clip his aspirations for getting the Democratic presidential nomination. Voter political reality, more than 200 years after the American Revolution, isn't derived from journalistic idealism but from The Old Farmer's Almanac: "If Patrick Henry thought that taxation without representation was bad, he should see how bad it is with representation." VOICES ACROSS THE NATION ON BANNING HALLOWEEN CELEBRATIONS: OVERLAND PARK, Kan., Larry Parrish, 39, steel broker: If you banned every holiday that had a bad religious connotation, we wouldn't have any holidays. Every little girl doesn't have to dress up as a witch. They can dress up as a ballerina or an astronaut. That's what Halloween is about: pursuing your fantasies. SASSMANSVILLE, Penn., Judy Krebs, 30, accounts manager: It does offend some religions and that is understandable, but I think maybe they could change the name to something like "Costume Day," instead. I'm a Brownie troop leader. We have costume parties and it seems to be working. PHOENIX, Ariz, Peter Spang, 61, consultant: I never gave it a thought until recently. I was watching a program yesterday with people saying they were witches and vampires. I don't think that's something kids should look at, so I'm beginning to look at this from a different angle. NEW ORLEANS, La., Nat La Cour, 54, teacher union president: It's basically a pagan day, but not in the way it's celebrated in contemporary America. It's been celebrated in schools all along. I wouldn't deny kids that, and, in fact, more adults are celebrating it, too. People are addressing something that isn't a problem. WASHINGTON, D.C., Diana Naranjo, 26, health specialist: I think it's a good idea to celebrate it in children's schools because it is done safely. It's safe to have all the kids in one location to prevent any accidents. As far as the religious aspects are concerned, that is what All Saints Day that follows up is for. Issues & Debate Editor: Michael Rose. (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