A TRILLION HERE, A TRILLION THERE, PRETTY SOON IT...

No one wants to rain on the parades of our two presidential candidates, particularly since both political parties are expert in creating spectacles designed to make every voter feel good, but unless Bush and Gore begin to speak out soon, there's a very good chance voters will hear little about the most important issue in this year's campaign. The omission should not surprise us, since any parade marshal will go to great lengths to eliminate entries that are no crowd-worthy.

The subject that has thus far been an anonymous non-issue in the campaign -- and this has not been accidental, I'm sure -- is about how much of the heralded budget surplus will go to pay down the national debt and thus stabilize the U.S. economy. I don't know about you, but I haven't heard more than passing reference to this point from either candidate, and to be brutally frank, I don't expect to, unless there is another kind of parade celebrating responsible fiscal leadership organized by us voters and taxpayers.

We'll not hear much about paying down our debt with the projected $1.9 trillion budget surpluses over the next decade because both political parties are anxious to win votes, and besides, the electorate begins to nod off whenever anyone starts talking about fiscal responsibility and preparing for future economic disasters. Americans, particularly those who are stuck paying taxes, are not keen on urging Uncle Sam to reduce the amount of money he owes if this will interfere with the cash cows that should really be the symbol of both parties and their special interests.

Through fiscal 1999, each and every person in the United States had a $20,443 IOU at the Treasury Department, and this per capita note adds up to a cumulative national debt total of $5.5 trillion. Just the interest payment on this debt was 22 percent of all federal spending in the same 12-month period, a percentage that equaled $363.8 billion in FY 1999.

Those "budget surpluses" both candidates are talking about, which didn't even exist in politicians' minds until last February, are based on projected surpluses over the next 10 years, as long as current tax and spending policies are maintained. Current-year surpluses are now expected to be up by 11.5 percent compared to fiscal 1999, but this increase is traced to an expected 13.6 percent hike in personal and corporate income tax payments.

Are you getting all of this? If not, let me put it another way: Based on what the Office of Management & Budget expects in the way of a surplus over this year's spending and revenue, we should achieve over the next 10 years a surplus of $1.9 trillion, providing your salary check over this same period increases 13.6 percent above your present income, and providing there are continued gains in the stock market at least equaling increases over the past several years.

Now all of this conjecture is further based on the assumption that neither the President nor the Congress comes up with any new, billion-dollar-program give-aways and providing there are increasing tax-revenue collections through the year 2010.

I don't know about you, but I find it difficult to accept all of the conditions the experts have placed on the nebulous, dream-like $1.9 trillion surplus over the next decade when neither of this year's candidates will still be in office.

History shows that campaign pledges, which cost nothing and are worth the same amount in reality, are more likely to be realized if they are carried out during the promiser's term of office. Promises that can't be validated until after the author's tenure are barely worth the paper they're printed on.

The Democratic candidate has suggested that we devote about a third of the "surplus" to prescription drug coverage for the elderly, plus other expanded health coverage, and a tax cut, leaving two-thirds to pay down the national debt.

The Republican candidate has thus far proposed that his more expensive tax cuts will be affordable, although they would use more than 90 percent of the 10-year promised surplus, leaving almost nothing for other promises such as Star Wars and subsidized drug coverage.

If voters will listen closely, they will discover that both candidates are using pie-in-the-sky rewards to pay for voter-feel-good programs without the slightest admission that one wrong guess about projected Gross Domesticated Product totals over the next 120 months would place us right back into deficit spending practices that create inflation, devalue the dollar and add to every citizen's tax liabilities.

Both men have thus far concentrated on issues that will make us feel good. Who isn't for better education, helping the elderly pay their escalating drug costs, cutting taxes, making us safer from mad bombers and enlisting help to carry out welfare programs? You won't find a negative in any of these.

Here's an old-fashioned thought you may laugh at, but if we really want to do something for our children, let's begin reducing the mountain of debt we are passing onto them, let's bolsters their future economies with a fiscally responsible federal government that has presented this generation with the world's highest deficits and the highest per capita public debt. This is something we can do for our kids, with a minimal amount of sacrifice and a tad of personal responsibility in resisting every voter-happy scheme that comes down the pike this year.

I know the Republicans are thrilled at the prospect of occupying the Oval Office once again, and the Democrats are anxious to renew their lease on the White House, but couldn't we all act a bit more responsibly and pay some attention to something more than winning an election? I sure hope so.

~Jack Stapleton of Kennett is the editor of Missouri News and Editorial Service.