Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

1997-1998 Harry Singer Foundation National Essay Contest

The Budget Process and the National Debt

Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas
1st Eduardo Montoya 2nd Jacqualyn Bezner 3rd Amanda Kreigshauser
3rd Meredith Tabor 3rd Leslie Michael

"One of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, discouraged bringing the nation into debt saying, ,The question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves.' As a result of Congress' obvious disregard of his words, the country has fallen into a startling $5.3 trillion debt."
Leslie Michael, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"The enormous public debt, which the United States currently owes, and the continually increasing yearly deficit which causes it, are burdens which have been repeatedly shifted from each generation onto the next. In the past, this was not a matter of great concern, but as we become evermore aware of the reality and the almost incomprehensible size of our national debt, and realize its potential to snowball into an unavoidable disaster for our economy, we are forced to realize that something must be done about the situation before it becomes impossible to do anything."
Jacqualyn Bezner, Hereford High School, Hereford. Texas

"The federal budget, a growing problem in today's society, poses not only a threat to the government's well being, but also to that of the American people. Each day the government amasses $698,630,137 billion per day. If the American public were to pay for this directly, each person would owe around $19,000. Most government officials see the budget as a problem and several times Congress has passed laws in order to control the budget. However, thus far, these efforts have failed. The deficit rises each year despite efforts to control it. Laws passed before Congress, such as the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, or the Gramm-Rudman Law, [the] Budget Enforcement Act, and the Omnibus Reconciliation Act, are an effort to control it but, so far, they have not been enough.

A constitutional amendment requiring the budget to be balanced would be the only way Congress would give 100% effort in accomplishing their goal of having a balanced budget. Making a balanced budget a requirement, the amendment would make it illegal for federal spending to exceed its income unless three-fifths of both houses vote to run a deficit for the particular fiscal year. Also, an absolute two-thirds majority on a roll call scale would be required to raise taxes, whereas a simple majority vote of those present is required to do so now. In addition, right now politicians do not want to vote for cuts in government programs or to increase taxes, both of which are needed to balance the budget effectively. If a balanced budget were included in the Constitution, party members would not have to worry about re-election, or upsetting the public. They could focus more on their job as a lawmaker…and how they think the government should be run, rather than pleasing the people and ruining the country as a whole.

Since the national debt has grown to an astronomical sum, too many tax dollars are spent on paying the interest on the debt instead of on important government programs such as Social Security, education, crime prevention, and military and defense programs. With a balanced budget, more money could be pumped into educational funds providing for better education. With better education come higher paying jobs and more money in circulation, thus fueling the economy. Also, the interest rates of a balanced budget would fall, saving the citizens who are re-paying loans substantial amounts of money. Parents, who are working 2-3 jobs to put food on the table, would have more real income; therefore, they would be providing a better life for their family…American citizens should be educated as to the effects of an unbalanced budget. If this were done, more Americans would be more willing to let go of some of their entitlement earnings because they would regain the money in other ways, whether it is in lower interest rates or higher standards of living. For example, if the economy had grown as fast from 1975 to the present as it had from 1955 to 1975, the average family income would be $50,000 instead of the $35,000, which it is now. Also, more jobs would be available and at a faster rate if the deficit were reduced. This again is because of lower interest rates and the stimulation of business growth. A balanced budget would create 4.24 million jobs over the next 10 years and a 16% increase in per-capita income."
Meredith Tabor, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"A 1989 photograph of New York's "National Debt Clock" shows the scene all too clear. The billboard provides up-to-the-minute updates on our national debt. At that moment, the national debt had reached $2,726,730,209,824. The display also figures the estimated financial burden of each American family, $41,944. That was 1989. Entering into 1998, the debt has nearly tripled and Americans are finding an increased need to free the country of this deficit. Every citizen is faced with the responsibility of adhering to a strict budget. Why should our government be excused?

Our nation's capital is said to employ some of the most knowledgeable men and women in the world. With such a reputation, our law-making bodies should be able to create a sound way of reversing our current financial state. In 59 of the past 67 fiscal years, the country's spending has far exceeded their revenues. First, the government's $1.7 billion annual spending will have to take a hefty cut. Programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Food Stamps are worthwhile projects, but when they are abused by citizens, they tend to pose questions in the minds of Americans. Increased need verification and security are required to ensure the honesty in the progress of distributing these funds. A closer look at the sanctity of these programs will prompt an immediate cut in the payments. Other spending, national defense discretionary and non-defense discretionary can then have access to the funds they need, within certain limits.

The American people must also let the President and Congress know through active communication that they are expected to strictly adhere to the budget they set each fiscal year, gradually allowing less spending to create greater revenues. With increased pressure from voters, lawmakers may more readily stay on their toes."
Julie Schlabs, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"The national debt is as hotly debated in the town halls and voting booths as it is in the nation's highest courts. As our nation and our government approach the 21^st century, we must come to grips with the transformation of our government from an instrument of defense into a social agency built to help the elderly and the poor. Agreement is widespread that the deficit should be reduced, in wake of the fact that large deficits hurt savings and investment, increase interest rates, curtail the formation of capital, and slow economic growth. The fact remains, methods of lowering spending and deficit reduction that worked in the past are now obsolete, and new more forward thinking measures must be addressed."
Andrew Carr, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"What do discovering life on Jupiter, time travel and balancing the budget all have in common? They all seem impossible at this point in time."
Clay Brown, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"The 1974 deficit amounted to .4 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In 1985, with the deficit exceeding 5 percent of the GDP, Congress enacted the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, better known as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. This bill set specific targets for the size of annual budget deficits beginning in 1987, with each deficit targeted to be progressively smaller. Each area would be targeted until a deficit no longer existed. Congress planned that this would happen in 1991. In recession year 1990, GRH was altered again. It was pursued between President George Bush and Congressional representatives. The omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 combined with other legislation implemented $42 billion of deficit reduction in fiscal year 1991. It also revised the deficit targets upward again and made them adjustable for revised economic and technical assumptions. These changes, which allowed the targets to be adjusted to take account of revisions in the economic forecast and in deposit insurance and other entitlement obligations, made the deficit targets effectively irrelevant."
Amanda Kriegshauser, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"Even with a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, the problem of how exactly to balance the budget remains. The government essentially has three choices: it can spend less, it can tax more, or it can do both. While neither option is entirely appealing to constituencies, some course must be taken to reduce the deficit. If that course is taxation, there remains the decision of where to apply the tax. And even far more difficult, if spending is to decrease then funding for the government's social programs must decrease, raising the question of which programs to cut."
Jacqualyn Bezner, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

Programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Food Stamps are worthwhile projects, but when they are abused by citizens, they tend to pose questions in the minds of Americans. Increased need verification and security are required to ensure the honesty in the progress of distributing these funds. A closer look at the sanctity of these programs will prompt an immediate cut in the payments. Other spending, national defense discretionary and non-defense discretionary can then have access to the funds they need, within certain limits. The American people must also let the President and Congress know through active communication that they are expected to strictly adhere to the budget they set each fiscal year, gradually allowing less spending to create greater revenues. With increased pressure from voters, lawmakers may more readily stay on their toes."
Julie Schlabs, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"What do discovering life on Jupiter, time travel and balancing the budget all have in common? They all seem impossible at this point in time."
Clay Brown, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"The average American working man wakes up, takes a shower, gets dressed, eats breakfast, helps his wife with the kids and leaves for work with a cup of coffee in his hand. He works all day long and looks forward to playing softball with his kids when he gets home around 5:30 or 6 o'clock. He then helps his wife with supper and may end up making a trip to the store for a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread. He spends his hard-earned money to buy essential items that the government has made sure he is able to get. The government makes sure this man is able to purchase these things, and for an ever-growing percentage of Americans, food stamps and welfare are paying for the essentials in their everyday life. Politicians are arguing over balancing the budget, which will reduce the convenience of welfare and foot stamps and even the retirement benefits Social Security has promised."
Kristin Carnahan, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was the first major attempt to impose rules to work toward a balanced budget. It established the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office and required the passage of annual congressional budget resolutions for the first time. Before the year 1974, Congress passed separate revenue and appropriations bills each year, but never passed a piece of legislation specifying budget totals or the difference between revenue and spending. The Act was expected to result in smaller budget deficits because members of Congress would be reluctant to vote for budget resolutions specifying large deficits.
Kristin Carnahan, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"Uncle Sam is driving cross-country. As he drives, however, he realizes that he is quickly running out of gas. Considering the problem, he decides that by driving more slowly his remaining gas will last a longer period of time. What he fails to realize is that although it will, indeed, take him longer to use up the gas, this course of action will not allow him to arrive any nearer to his goal than if he had proceeded at his original speed.

In the same way that Uncle Sam's perceived solution to his dilemma fails to address his real problem, many times the efforts by the United States to solve its problems with the enormous public debt and yearly deficits fails to address the roots of the conflict. In considering this issue more closely, it is necessary to examine several areas: first, we must examine the courses of action taken in the past and proposed for the present, then we will consider the various options available towards controlling our public debt, taking into account the extremely divisive issue of entitlements, and lastly, we will consider the responsibility of American citizens in this whole process…The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974…had as its aim to reduce budget deficits by making the budgeting process more open to the public eye. It was unsuccessful in its attempt, however, as evidenced by the ensuing budget deficits which, due to repeated recessions and the government's expansionary fiscal policy were larger than ever before. Indeed, by 1994, in spite of this Act and a number of others including the Gramm-Rudman Act and President Clinton's Omnibus Reconciliation Act, the deficits increased the public debt tenfold, to a whopping $4.6 trillion, according to information found in the Economic Report of the President.

Increasing exasperation with the deficit problems and with politicians' ability to circumvent budgetary restrictions has led to growing support for a balanced budget amendment. As the Congressional Digest explains, such an amendment would prohibit deficits unless authorized by a 3/5 majority in Congress, require the same majority to increase the debt, require a simple majority in each house to increase revenues, and only waive these provisions in time of war. Although popular in many circles, Professor of Public Policy, Allen Schick, points out some of the problems with such an amendment, explaining that it may not distinguish between the size of deficits, between deficits caused by cyclical fluctuations as opposed to structural causes, or between any number of factors that will have to be determined by legislation in order to implement a balanced budget amendment, and would be subject to countless loopholes. More importantly, it is the economy, and not politicians that have the ultimate say in determining national budgets But, ultimately, this amendment would violate the fundamental principle that elected officials should be responsible for government policy, and would put that power in the hands of the judicial branch.

When we focus on the problems with our public debt, it is quickly apparent that we have to control our deficits. When we look at our deficits, the most expedient means of reducing them is to reduce spending. Politicians have long proclaimed the answer is to reduce our out-of-control splurging on items like national defense and other discretionary spending, but is this true? Among the methods proposed for strengthening budget controls are the line-item veto, enhanced rescission authority, biennial budgeting and appropriations, and entitlement caps. All of these, with the exception of entitlement caps, emphasize control over discretionary spending. Ironically, it is this area of the budget that is already the most controlled. Just as Uncle Sam avoided his problem, these methods attempt to solve our national dilemma by taking a relatively ineffective approach. According to information provided by the Congressional Budget Office, entitlements and interest payments are projected to consume all Federal tax revenues by 2015, leaving the Federal government with no money for education, children's programs, highways, national defense, or anything else. This is where attention has to be focused if the budget is ever to be brought under control.

Proposed solutions to this dilemma include: tax rate increases, eliminating some entitlement programs, reducing benefit levels in some or all entitlement programs, denying wealthier citizens Social Security and Medicare benefits, reducing health care benefits under Medicare, or fully taxing entitlement benefits as if they were ordinary income. None of these is politically popular. Tied to the CPI through Cost-of-Living-Adjustments, many of these programs like Social Security, Federal pensions, and persons currently on Medicare, represent prior governmental commitment, and cannot be altered. But other entitlement programs, including the various welfare programs and Medicaid, and the future operation of Social Security and other CPI-based entitlements, must be changed. Whether they will be changed in substance or by means of entitlement caps or some other methods is indeterminate, but that something must be done is certain.

As American citizens, it is our responsibility to work towards reducing deficits and thereby, the burden we have imposed on future generations, but care must be taken that this is done with care and consideration for the less advantaged who may be victimized by such efforts; perhaps elements in the private sector could help voluntarily. Solutions will certainly be difficult. Uncle Sam got clever and finally resolved his dilemma by pulling into a gas station-the United States may not find its answers quite so easily."
Eddie Montoya, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"As we examine current spending, it becomes apparent that there are four large groups into which government spending falls: interest payments on the national debt, national defense discretionary spending, non-defense discretionary spending, and entitlement spending…Interest payments on the national debt is the one area of federal spending that cannot be cut; therefore, it needn't be considered.

National defense discretionary spending is the area of the federal budget that provides funding for the various branches of the military. This totaled approximately 15% of the budget last year. This is one area that is often targeted for spending cuts. How feasible that is, is uncertain, however. If we are to have a strong, secure country, we need to maintain our preparedness for any sort of conflict. But when we look at the amount of defense spending in the past, we find that defense spending has been [recently slowing]. In the past, it has been a convenient target for budget cuts, but it is becoming increasingly more difficult to cut…Considering non-defense discretionary spending, which is 17 percent of the estimated 1998 annual budget, we find that this category entails a wide array of programs including education, training, science, technology, housing, transportation, and foreign aid. Some of these programs constitute investments in the future and should be protected as much as possible, but others are less vital. While they are all important when it comes to budget cuts, most likely they would all need to be cut to some extent, and some to a large extent.

Entitlement spending comprises an estimated fifty-two percent of the budget, embodies a variety of programs, and is one of the most ardently defended areas of the budget. In addition, it is the fastest growing percentage of government spending. If deficits are to be reduced, this will most likely be where the most significant cuts will be made. Some programs cannot and should not be cut. Federal pensions and Social Security represent government obligations made in the past that [should] not be defaulted on. Many [people] will be entirely dependent on these programs…If change is to be made…it must be to change the structure [which will] affect future [generations], not present recipients. Other programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare entitlements will also have to be restructured. These programs are unsustainable at current rates of growth, and will soon overwhelm the [annual] budget if corrections are not made.

It is imperative that while solutions are sill possible, something be done about our enormous debt. We can only do this by ending deficit spending, [which will require] sacrifice."
Jacqualyn Bezner, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"Along with the economic problems, [there is the] moral dilemma of leaving an overwhelming debt for future generations…Governor Mike Leavitt (R) of Utah says, "Inherited national debt is the ultimate taxation without representation." It is shameful for lawmakers to shirk the duty that 49 states accomplish every year…American parents should feel a certain amount of guilt upon the realization that their children and grandchildren will inherit a rapidly growing debt which has already skyrocketed past the $5 trillion mark. Responsible Americans should realize that this is a pressing problem and…should do their part in working towards a solution. Americans should put aside personal beliefs and take note of John F. Kennedy's famous line, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." If citizens express their concern to their representative or senator, Congress will be better prepared to make their decisions based on the feelings of the people they represent."
Meredith Tabor, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"The federal debt grows by the minute depending on its interest rate of around 3% to 12%. The higher the interest rate, the more money owed. The government issues securities, such as savings bonds and treasury bills, in order to raise additional dollars to finance the debt…When we finance the debt it consumes national and foreign savings, meaning less money is available around the world for private and business investments, and the expansion of new technology and equipment. The drain of the capital money drives interest rates higher. Of course, we feel the high interest rates in our car loans, home mortgages, credit cards, etc. Additionally, the rates also hurt businesses by making them have higher borrowing costs which, in turn, drives prices up causing inflation. The Federal Reserve Chairman predicts that a balanced budget by the year 2002 would reduce interest by as much as 2, causing the debt to decline."
Holly Weishaar, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"Our country spends more money each year paying the interest on the national debt than it does on defense."
Curt Cantrell, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"Congress has…adopted increasingly tight limitations on the budget process to try to achieve something close to a balanced budget. Although these measures have been tried, they have failed, since balancing the budget would require members to raise taxes or cut popular programs in exchange for future benefits. One of the first things Congress and the White House would do to relieve the pressure on spending would be to take capital expenditures off the annual operating budget by creating a capital budget.
Amanda Kriegshauser, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"Disgracefully, the majority of the public is unaware of the financial state of the country. Under the current accounting system, the cash-basis accounting, the public has no written or visible record that informs the people when the government borrows to finance their investments. The cash-basis accounting treats large investments as current expenses even though the value of them rests in the future; in addition, it does not provide a dependable plan for the budget. On the surface, however, everything appears normal which could be fatal to the government. In contradiction, supporters of the cash-basis accounting argue that it provides the most control. They debate that under the other accounting option, accrual accounting, the decision as to which budget--operating or capital, it would be classified and would depend on political considerations. For instance, politicians would have their projects labeled as capital outlays so that taxpayers would not have to pay for them immediately, and they would not add to the deficit. This could mean the acceptance or rejection of their programs. Basically, neither accounting option helps the U.S. because under the cash-basis accounting, no financial statements are available to the public, and under accrual accounting, an official may get away with favoring his pet projects before anybody discovers it."
Leslie Michael, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"The President and Congress have long held a balanced budget as a political ideal. However, controversy still remains over how to best achieve that goal. Republicans tend to favor cuts in social spending. Democrats are fonder of cuts in defense spending while compounding spending toward social programs. While the national debt continues to drop and our government continues to operate in a surplus, the ideas of how to control the debt still linger. In recent years, Congress has adopted increasingly tight limitations on the budget process to try to achieve something close to a balanced budget. As a whole, these measures have floundered, since a balanced budget would require members of congress to raise taxes and cut popular programs in exchange for future benefits. Many in congress wish to deter immigration by stripping most legal immigrants of most benefits. Most legal immigrants would be unable to receive food stamps. Others favor cuts in Medicare and Medicaid."
Andrew Carr, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"This amendment prohibits outlays for a fiscal year from exceeding total receipts unless authorized by a 3/5 vote of both houses of Congress, requires a 3/5 vote of each house to increase public debt, and requires majority approval in both houses to increase revenues, waiving these provisions only in time of war."
Jacqualyn Bezner, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"Many argue that there should be a constitutional amendment to balance the budget but many have to ask themselves a question. Should a founding document that sets out the rights of individuals be burdened with a provision that many could interpret as special pleading for the bond market? The first proposal in 1935 failed when Roosevelt tried to amend the constitution to require balanced budgets. That idea, mostly Republican-backed, has been revived several times over the past 60 years, and at a more frequent pace since budget deficits began soaring in the early 1980's. Article V of the Constitution outlines the procedure for consideration of a constitutional amendment: A joint resolution must be approved by a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate; after that, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the States. A compromise budget plan was presented to Congress in June 1995. The plan calls for a balanced budget by the year 2002. Under the plan, savings over the next seven years would total $894 billion while tax cuts totaling $245 billion would be implemented. Spending for nearly all government programs would be reduced except for defense, where overall spending would increase by $58 million."
Amanda Kriegshauser, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"A constitutional amendment to balance the budget is not necessary. Requiring such a law could easily backfire. Since when has a petty law been able to curb 535 politicians and the entire Executive branch from doing what they have been content doing for years. Besides, a founding document as great as the Constitution of the United States of America should not be burdened with such a provision. The document outlines basic human rights and the amendment would cause a loss of respect and authority for the Constitution. The balanced budget depends most heavily on Congress."
Julie Schlabs, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"In the 105^th Congress, the Republican leadership has put the balanced budget amendment at the top of the agenda. The balanced budget constitutional amendment proposal currently under consideration in the House and Senate would not guarantee a balanced budget but it would make an unbalanced budget much more difficult to pass…Those who support the amendment insist that the only way to balance the budget is to impose constraints on the process that cannot be easily overridden. Opponents contend that the deficit has already fallen significantly in recent years and that the Congress and the President should work together to maintain the trend. These critics caution that the amendment increases the likelihood of recessions by forcing Congress to cut spending and raise taxes during times of economic pitfall and prevent the government from responding to natural disasters and other emergencies. President Clinton also opposes the balanced budget amendment, as he expressed in his recent State of the Union address to Congress, 'Balancing the budget requires only your vote and my signature. It does not require us to rewrite our Constitution.'"
Andrew Carr, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"[Some people] feel the…assumption that Congress would reduce spending rather than just raise taxes in unrealistic. Another reason the amendment might not work is that it gives constitutional cover for raising taxes."
Curtis Cantrell, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"The American citizen is responsible for the debt in many ways. By law, each child is required to attend school to a certain age. If all parents encouraged their children to make the most of those years, the government would be making a better investment in the future and also ensuring that each child is able to take a job. When everyone is employed, there is no need for Food Stamps and other low-income compensation, especially as this program is most often misused. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid must crack down and provide benefits to only those in need. Many people re-route funds and use a dishonest advantage to secure these funds. If the government would take a closer look at these programs, spending could easily be cut. The American people are ultimately responsible for the national debt. From the wealthy politician who makes the rules to the executive fighting for a larger cut to the blue collar worker trying to make ends meet to the migrant farm worker who breaks the rules, everyone has his own part. If we become completely honest and begin to help the politicians out, not only in word but in action as well, balancing the budget would not be such a big task.

By definition, households must adhere to a budget so that they will not end in debt at the end of the year. Businesses are required to conform under the same provision. Our nation, however, has become seemingly immune, as the definition does not even include words such as "balance" or "debt." Were we not all as children taught to learn by example? With such an example to look up to each day, it is no wonder families often end up in debt. It is time to take action against this sea of troubles. We're in the red, folks."
Julie Schlabs, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"While Roosevelt started many entitlement programs during the days of the Great Depression, the American people cannot control the specifics of the budget as lawmakers do. Politicians are voted into office because of our decision to elect them. They pass laws to please the people and eventually to be re-elected. If a homeless man on the street were given a warm bed in a shelter set up by the government, he would be foolish not to take advantage of it. But the money to pay for the food this man is given, the cost of blankets and pillows and showers, and other toiletry items, and even the cost of gas to heat the building all come from somewhere, and more often than not, it comes from the federal government, and adds to that year's deficit. If the government did not give the money to people in some form of welfare, the national debt would not be as large, but a great many people would die of starvation and disease."
Kristin Carnahan, Hereford High School , Hereford, Texas

"Government programs to employ millions of people were…started during the years of President Roosevelt to help with the depression. Since then, hundreds of programs have been established and are receiving an increase annually to keep them going. This increase which is helpful to the projects, and sometimes even felt necessary due to our annual inflation, could easily be done away with for just one year. These government programs would still survive lacking their increased funding, for maybe a year. This would be…[a freeze, not a] cutback…If we could rid the annual increase on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Welfare and more [programs], the economic welfare of the United States would improve dramatically.

Why should you care about the debt? Because your future and your children's future are at risk. The money is drying up quickly, public work projects are being canceled, school money is disappearing and highway, conservation, police, etc. are losing support. We are paying right now for excess spending the government made in the past. If, however, we fail to recover some of it, times will only worsen. Any way we look at it, types of government programs must be slightly cut back or cut off. Thinking selfishly is sinking us into deeper debt. Of course, not all the cuts will be fair; they are necessary to reduce the debt. The cutbacks will be painful because we are digging ourselves out of a deep debt hole. Only 20 years ago, the government could still talk about the fairness and ways to ease the burden but look where it got them. Today, we must talk survival. If we don't survive the budget cutbacks of today, then tomorrow will be far more serious.

As American citizens, we should do all we can to help the government overcome [its] money problem. One way is to pay taxes and be flexible…I know we don't like throwing our money to the government, especially if [it is] not spending it correctly. However, it is our responsibility to make sure that tax money is going to the right funds. The most reasonable way to do this is simply vote for the politicians willing to cut spending. You can ask your candidate these questions…

1. Describe in detail how you would balance the budget?
2. How do you feel about the national debt, and what will you actions be to help it
3. Consider the politicians' answers and vote to save our economy."

Holly Weishaar, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"The national debt should be attended to as soon as the lawmaking process will allow. For the sake of the future generations and the present American public, Congress should be expedient in balancing the budget. The Budget Resolution for Fiscal 1997 would balance the budget over the next 6 years, cutting projected spending by about $580.1 billion and produce $4.6 billion surplus by the year 2002. It also includes $122.4 billion in tax cuts. It cuts $158.1 billion from Medicare, $72 billion from Medicaid and $53 billion from Welfare. This resolution is a start in the balancing project and, hopefully, will start a series of events that will lead to a balanced and more stable nation."
Meredith Tabor, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"Because the current financial state of the United States remains hidden from the eye of the public, the people need to become more involved in the activities of Congress. It is up to them to demand written records of every penny the government spends, and it is their right to know, considering it comes from the pockets of the taxpayers and their children and grandchildren. With their actions exposed, the public will have the ability to voice their opinions about the actions and possibly alter the decision of Congress who will be forced to answer the outcry for a balanced budget."
Leslie Michael, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas

"America's children face a future in which they will face inhuman tax rates to pay for others' past irresponsibility. The government…must make a bold and whole-hearted commitment to a balanced budget and a reduced national debt."
Andrew Carr, Hereford High School, Hereford, Texas Back