Killing off college loans.

This is always an anxious time of year for seniors in high school who are applying to college. But this year's class has more reason to be anxious than ever: tuitions have increased, money is tight, and student aid has declined dramatically. And as details of the budget emerge, things look tougher still. The Republicans in Congress are proposing to balance the budget, in part, by cutting the government's share of student loans from 30 percent to 10 percent.

The cuts in student loans under the Republican budget plan amount to a $4.9 billion savings for the government over seven years. During the same seven-year period, the Republicans plan to give back $245 billion in taxes, mostly to the rich.

It's appalling to realize that Congress is seriously curtailing educational opportunities for kids (not to mention health care for the elderly and disabled, child nutrition, welfare, and environmental protections) in order to give away tax breaks to fat cats. But it is especially appalling that they are claiming to do it for the benefit of future generations. Senator Connie Mack, Republican of Florida, praised the Congressional Republicans' budget, calling it "real deficit reduction that guarantees our children and grandchildren will have the hope and opportunity to pursue and achieve the American Dream."

Not only will Congress's deficit-reduction plan create a lot of pain now, however; it won't make life better for most people down the road.

Much of the government spending that conservatives deride plays an important role in a healthy economy. As economist Robert Pollin points out in Dollars and Sense, "Amid the anti-government clamor, it is hard to remember that big government emerged as a solution to the problems of instability that were endemic to free-market, small-government capitalism." Since the Depression, unemployment rates, bank and business failures, and per-capita income have all' changed for the better because of deficit spending, Pollin points out. Deficit spending also gives government the power to counteract downturns in the economy, providing a safety net not only for individuals who fall on hard times, but also for banks and businesses whose failures, can send the economy into a downward spiral.

The real budget question, though, is a question of priorities. The places Congress is proposing to cut will save the government very little money, while inflicting lasting harm. Meanwhile, corporate tax breaks and military spending, which are orders of magnitude larger than the social programs on the chopping block, remain untouched.

On the same day that The New York Times reported the details of the Republicans' budget plan, a story on the front page described the role of conservative talk-radio hosts in drumming up support for the balanced budget, urging their listeners to call Congress and support the Republican program. It seems like a huge ripoff scheme: as the economy contracts and voters get increasingly uneasy, Rush Limbaugh and other rightwing pundits play on the anxieties of middle-class Americans, egging them on to get angry and vote for cuts that will make them--and their children--even worse off.

Comedian and Progressive columnist Will Durst mocked this myopia in a recent stand-up show: "The Republicans keep saying, `The American people want tax cuts!' Sure!" he said. "The American people want nickel beer night. The American people want to lose weight by eating ice-cream."

The problem goes deeper than that, though. Middle-class Americans have a very real sense that they are running out of cash. And tough, conservative economics sound like an appropriate response-"let's balance the budget and get the deficit under control; let's stop profligate government spending."

But to a large degree, the health of the economy depends on our willingness to be optimistic, to spend money now and invest in a brighter future--to invest, for example, in sending kids to college. The message from the federal government seems to be: "We can't afford to think generously about social spending, and we can't afford to be optimistic about our children's future." People believe it. And the trouble is, it's a self-fulffiling prophesy.