[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 50 (Thursday, March 27, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E606]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          FISCAL WINDS OF WAR

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 27, 2003

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues 
this March 27, 2003, editorial from the Omaha World Herald. The 
editorial rightly praises the other body for its vote to reduce the 
President's proposed tax cut in the budget resolution in the face of 
the cost of the war in Iraq.

              [From the Omaha World-Herald, Mar. 27, 2003]

                          Fiscal Winds of War

       Cutting taxes in an effort to reinvigorate a sputtery 
     economy is an idea that has merit, and the Bush 
     administration can be praised for pursuing the effort. But 
     the U.S. Senate, in its surprise vote on Tuesday, got it 
     right: $726 billion was simply too much in the face of an 
     open-ended and obviously costly war with Iraq.
       The Senate, in a stance it reconfirmed yesterday, voted to 
     reduce the tax cut (as part of a $2.2 trillion budget) to 
     $350 billion, still a substantial tax reduction. Next comes 
     the haggling between House and Senate, since the House-
     approved version would give President Bush the full $726 
     billion cut he sought.
       By the best available evidence, the administration lost 
     track of its vote tally in the Senate. It asked for an 
     initial $75 billion for the war in Iraq, evidently confident 
     that it would win both that and the full tax reduction. But 
     the Senate, by a narrow margin, opted for prudence. The 
     majority rightly saw the $75 billion as a down payment--
     enough to sustain the effort for six months, with more bills 
     to come later and yet more after that as the effort gets 
     under way to reconstruct Iraq.
       Bush's reluctance until this week to put even a tentative 
     price tag on the Iraq war and aftermath has raised a question 
     in our minds: Is the administration concerned that domestic 
     support for the war will fade if the average American is 
     asked to sacrifice something?
       If so, we would hope to disabuse the White House of such a 
     notion. Several recent polls suggest that 70 to 75 percent of 
     Americans support this effort to dislodge the evils of Saddam 
     Hussein. We believe that if it takes giving up (at least for 
     now) part of a proposed tax cut to undergird the fight 
     financially, most Americans are ready to do that.
       We are reminded of World War II, when Americans willingly 
     observed meatless days, endured gasoline rationing, drove on 
     bald tires and so on to bolster the war effort. We have no 
     reason to believe that today's citizens are made of less 
     stern stuff.
       Congress should unhesitatingly give the president the war 
     funding he is asking for. His tax-cut plan can be revisited 
     later. Meanwhile, as a people we're in this fight and had 
     better pay for it. (Don't forget the hyperinflation that 
     resulted from President Lyndon Johnson's insistence on 
     conducting the Vietnam war on the cuff.)
       Congress has a duty here, too. Whatever tax-cut figure it 
     ends up with, it should make good on its word: Spend the 
     difference on the war, and if there's any left, shore up the 
     Social Security system. Any other use of the funds 
     constitutes a breach of promise.




                          ____________________