TAX CUTS FORCE CONGRESS TO CONTROL SPENDING

The move toward major tax cuts appears to be on a fast track. As outlined by President Bush in his recent budget message to Congress, the nation can afford to cut taxes by $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years -- if projected surpluses materialize. That's the good news.

The not-so-good news is that there are 565 elected officials in Congress who want to tinker with the Bush plan. At last count, there are approximately 565 ways to make the cuts better.

Democrats emphasize the need to take away tax relief from the richest Americans and give lower-income Americans more tax cuts. This sounds noble, of course. But Democrats know what they're suggesting is mere window dressing.

Let's say everyone agrees the nation can afford to cut taxes by $1.6 trillion. And let's say everyone agrees the 75 percent of Americans who earn the least taxable income should benefit the most from tax cuts. If you give those folks the lion's share of the cuts, you in effect relieve them of ever having to pay federal income taxes again. Under this relief-to-the-workers plan, the 25 percent of Americans who earn the most taxable income would wind up paying nearly all of the taxes instead of paying most of the taxes as they already do.

Every American, whether they earn a lot of money or a little money, deserves tax relief.

That's what the Bush plan provides.

Beyond the paper tiger of so-called tax-cut inequities, there are other moves afoot to change the tax cuts.

Some House Republicans last week called for additional cuts that would come from reducing the tax on capital gains. They say this would provide more incentive to investors as the shaky stock market tries to recover its footing.

And Senate majority leader Trent Lott suggested the need for triggers to reduce the proposed tax cuts if the anticipated surpluses don't occur. A recent poll indicated Americans are more in favor of huge tax cuts only is there are some automatic safeguards in place.

The problem with built-in triggers, however, is how they are engineered.

Let's say the tax cuts are eliminated in the event there is no surplus. The first question you would have to ask is this: What caused an expected surplus to turn into no surplus? If it's because the economy has really soured and the tax revenue doesn't materialize, that's one thing. But what if there is no surplus because Congress gets reckless with spending?

The same goes for suggestions to phase in the tax cuts only surpluses become a reality. This assumes, of course, that Congress' penchant for spending can be held in check. The only sure way to do that is to let taxpayers keep their money instead of sending it to Washington.