TAX REVENUE SPURTS UP: WHERE ARE CUTS?

There are many ways to view the fact that federal income-tax revenue has risen 76 percent since 1992, the first full fiscal year after this nation's last recession ended in 1991.

First the good news: The increase is the result of a booming economy, not higher taxes.

Now the bad news: Taxes are too high. Way too high.

In fiscal 1992, personal income taxes produced $476 billion. In fiscal 1998, the figure jumped to $828 billion. Corporate-tax revenue paid to the federal government also has grown at a healthy pace since 1992, to $188 billion from $100 billion.

Unemployment rates have continued to drop during one the longest national economic booms in history. With more Americans working, more taxes have been collected. Even without tax increases, personal income taxes have grown to 10.7 percent of personal income. Corporate taxes have fallen during the boom to 30.7 percent of profits from 33.8 percent in 1992.

One significant result of the economic boom, high employment and steady growth in tax revenue, of course, has been the first federal surplus in many years. So why aren't taxes being cut?

In the first place, there is a tendency among politicians to see tax cuts as potential reductions in federal revenue, which would mean fewer programs to be funded by Washington. But when taxes are cut, revenue doesn't go down. Tax cuts generally spur even more economic activity and produce even more revenue.

And then there is the matter of the so-called surplus itself. What is being called the surplus is tied directly to Social Security taxes that currently are producing more income than benefits being paid. This excess has, in recent years, been borrowed by the federal government and spent on costly new programs. Now there is talk of taking that excess Social Security revenue and -- what else? -- "saving" Social Security.

With a 76 percent growth in federal taxation since 1992, there ought to be enough money in the kitty to not just "save" Social Security, but make the system solvent and guarantee benefits well into the first half of the 21st century.

But the money has been spent. So now federal legislators must look for ways to shore up Social Security while maintaining even more costly new programs. Those folks in Washington ought to be explaining why they have taken so much of our money without dealing with the Social Security mess all along.