CON: WHAT'S THE DEAL? : ARGUMENTS AGAINST CUTS ARE FALSEHOODS DESIGNED TO SCARE PEOPLE.

Byline: Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon

OVER the August recess, Republican House members spoke with constituents throughout our districts to raise awareness of the $792 billion tax cut bill that Congress is sending to the president this month.

Most people I talked to appreciate the fact that when Republicans took over Congress in 1994, the budget deficit was projected at $3 trillion over 10 years (this was after the Democrat-led Congress had passed a $240 billion tax hike in 1993 to ``fix'' the problem), while after just four years of a GOP Congress, we now project a $3 trillion surplus over 10 years. That's a $6 trillion turnaround.

However, while just about everyone agrees taxes are too high - the tax burden is nearly 50 percent when all taxes and the hidden cost of taxes are considered - many people are naturally concerned about claims by the president that providing tax relief will endanger Social Security, Medicare, education, the environment, will worsen the national debt and endanger the economy.

These arguments are falsehoods designed to scare people into surrendering more of their money to the government.

I believe that once people learn all the facts, they will realize there is no reason to oppose the tax cut bill - unless they truly believe the federal government should be a lot bigger, and the tax surplus belongs to the government rather than the taxpayers.

First, let's look at Social Security, Medicare and the national debt. For nearly 30 years, the biggest problem with Social Security has been that Social Security payroll tax surpluses have been diverted to pay for general government programs, rather than being kept in a secure fund for retirees.

This year, the Republican-led House passed the Lock Box bill. It requires that all Social Security surpluses be kept off-limits to any general government programs. Essentially it ``locks'' a projected $1.8 trillion in Social Security surplus over the next 10 years into being used only for Social Security reform, Medicare reform or buying down the national debt. The best projections are that this will provide all the money we need to save Social Security.

Under the Lock Box bill, until a reform plan is developed, then the money goes into paying down the $5.4 trillion national debt. The best projection is that this plan will help reduce the national debt by $2.2 trillion (compared to $2 trillion in debt reduction proposed by the president). Remember: Whenever you hear the president say the tax cut would worsen the national debt, keep in mind that the GOP plan would pay down 10 percent more than the president's.

The upshot is the Lock Box bill would take care of Social Security and repay more national debt than the Democrats' plan. The problem is that Democrats in the Senate are refusing to allow a vote on the Lock Box, and the president has not endorsed it. The reason is simple: The last thing they want is to let Republicans take credit for saving Social Security and paying down the national debt.

The same is true regarding Medicare. In the spring, a majority of the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, chaired by Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Bakersfield, and Sen. John Breaux, D-La., unveiled a plan to stabilize Medicare by offering ``premium support.'' The federal government would give Medicare beneficiaries the same kind of choices of health plans that are currently offered to federal employees.

Another false argument is that the tax cut would harm education, the environment or other programs. There is nothing in the tax cut bill that requires cuts in federal spending. Even if economic projections failed to materialize, and some cuts became necessary, none of the cuts are specified in the tax bill. They would be decided by a future Congress and a future president.

Finally, there is a concern that cutting taxes would overheat the economy and lead to a new round of inflation.

First of all, this presumes that spending money on more government programs, as President Clinton and the Democrats prefer, wouldn't increase inflation, which of course it would.

Opponents of tax cuts like to point to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's comments on this subject. However, what they don't tell you is the rest of Greenspan's comments: Given a choice between using the surplus for new spending and cutting taxes, it would be much better to cut taxes.

And don't be fooled: Those are the choices. The $792 billion is a surplus that exists after Social Security, after Medicare and after paying down the national debt. If we leave the $792 billion in Washington, that's where it will stay. Politicians will always find a way to spend it. The money's yours. Take it.