PUBLIC FORUM : BUDGET SURPLUS MUST BE USED TO REIMBURSE SOCIAL SECURITY FUND.

Re the tax cut proposal, normally I would be very much in favor of tax cuts, especially when we are told that we will have a $4.35 trillion budget surplus over the next 15 years.

I'm not convinced that will really happen. But even more importantly, as a senior who depends on my Social Security monthly payments, I am strongly opposed to tax cuts until the $700 billion owed to the Social Security Trust Fund is paid and returned to the fund.

We paid into Social Security for as long as we worked to make sure we would receive back at least a good portion of what we paid in after we retired. The trust fund was established to assure that, in the future, there will be funds for the new retired seniors' Social Security.

From what I have read from various seniors organizations, the future of Social Security is in great danger if the annual money Congress borrows from the trust fund surplus, as part of the ``budget surplus,'' is not returned to the trust fund. The trust fund surplus is to protect the future of Social Security of our seniors.

Yes! Reducing the national debt is more important now than reducing taxes. Reducing the national debt is even more important now than continuing pork barrel projects that cost hundreds of millions of dollars and don't do anything for our nation.

- Tom Pallad

Chatsworth

The 10 percent tax cut should extend both to individuals and businesses. The tax burden on businesses has grown so steep that now the total taxes that corporations pay equal more than 150 percent of the net income after taxes.

This means that government gets more than 1-1/2 times out of a business what the owners (or stock owners) get. This is way too much. It is a tremendous drag on the economy that needs to be lifted.

- Carl Olson

Chairman

Fund for Stockowners Rights

Woodland Hills

Not only is tax revenue our money, so is money used to finance the national debt. To reduce this interest burden, I favor paying down the debt. In addition, the money paid into Social Security is also our money, so we should make every effort to save our investment in this program.

When it comes to tax cuts, they are low on my list. If Republicans say, ``10 percent tax cut,'' they probably mean 10 percent for wage earners and 50 percent for capital gainers; when they say ``flat tax,'' they mean flat tax for wage earners and no tax for capital gainers.

Eliminating the capital gains tax, under the guise of helping the wage earner, seems to be the only real agenda Republicans can come up with. No wonder working people don't trust them.

- Burton Becker

Encino

Why doesn't the Daily News do a poll to find out how many Americans are making payments and paying outrageous interest rates to the IRS for taxes they supposedly owe?

How many people have liens on their homes or have lost them because they couldn't pay their taxes, and then ask what the government should do with the ``budget surplus.''

It's amazing how Clinton can make new definitions to words as he needs them. In this case it's going to depend on what Clinton means by ``budget surplus.'' In the real world of taxpaying citizens, it's highway robbery to replace money already stolen by the government. In the Constitution, it's called taxation without representation.

We need a simplified tax system. Twenty-two hours to fill out your taxes, with more pages in the tax code than the Bible? I've already been to three accountants, and none of them agree on what I need to pay. I can just imagine how much I'm losing because of all the confusion, and at this point, it all seems intentional.

Do we really need to ask these questions? We need a 15 percent cut, across the board, to force the government to cut its spending; the more they get, the more they spend. They are no different than some irresponsible person who gets their first credit card.

We should have an independent oversight committee to cut government waste, and that money should be used to fund Clinton's programs and shore up Social Security. Seven hundred-dollar toilet seats for government aircraft?

They already have the money. They need to spend it wisely. Do I think the government will do the right thing by saving Social Security? If they had any interest in doing so, we wouldn't be in the position we are in today.

Give us back our money, and let us decide how to spend it. After all, we are the ones working two or three jobs to earn it

- Laurien Du Tremble

North Hills

Regarding the tax cut proposal, by all means any tax cut for the American people is a good idea.

The so-called $4.35 trillion budget surplus should be more appropriately termed ``excess tax surplus'' and therefore should be automatically returned to the taxpayers in some form of significant tax cuts.

The fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats on the philosophy of taxation is simple - Republicans distrust the government's spending habits, and the Democrats distrust how the taxpayers choose to spend their own income.

- Michael Dabovich

Valencia

The projected budget surplus must accomplish two basic factors - restore Social Security to its rightful place and return excess money back to its owners with drastic tax cuts to the taxpayers.

Today's taxes are an outrage and a cruel nightmare since, on average, Americans are now taxed at a combined federal, state and local rate of some 38 percent and up to 60 percent for some.

With the eve of the next millennium on our doorstep, it must be imperative that our focus for America be a steadfast goal to reduce the tax rate to no more than 25 percent.

America has paid a heavy price for the Democratic domination of Congress for most of the past 50 years. Following World War II, the average American family sent 3 percent of its income to Washington. Today, it's 24 percent, with the main culprit that of our corrupt federal income tax.

Either a flat tax or a sales tax would reduce federal taxes for the average American. Both would eliminate the unacceptable tax on capital gains and the estate of death tax.

In the past 40 years, there's been only one major tax cut, which was Ronald Reagan's tax cut in 1981, which still gives our present-day economy the strong foundation of those prosperous and glorious years of 1981-89, the longest growth spurt in U.S. history.

Our basic tax issue is that of individual freedom.

- Gerald G. Vick

Palmdale

A 10 percent tax cut is a good idea because it returns our money to us, thus freeing our money from federal government control.

However, there is no budget surplus because the politicians take the surplus dollars from the Social Security Fund, transfer them to the General Fund, and count them again to create the appearance of a budget surplus.

It's time for our politicians to leave our Social Security money alone - keeping the fund viable for many more years to come - and cut the pork out of the General Fund to make it balance.

A 10 percent tax cut will create more consumer spending and add more jobs - which the federal government can tax.

Don't let the politicians' argument that a tax cut favors the rich dissuade you. It's ridiculous to allow yourself to be denied getting your money back because someone else may or may not get more back.

Also, don't allow the politicians' attempt at this sort of class division to keep you from seeing their real objective - getting more and more of our money, continually expanding the size of government, and making all of us more dependent on them.

- Dana Franck

Glendale

If for every $1 invested in your mutual fund your broker actually invested 62 cents and spent the remaining 38 cents on his ``hot button'' of the day, you would find another broker.

How is it different when President Clinton proposes creating a fund with 62 percent of the Social Security surplus and spending the other 38 percent on his pet projects?

We lose 38 cents on each surplus dollar. And why do we term this a surplus? No surplus exists when the unfunded Social Security liability is measured in trillions and is considered the No. 1 problem facing our government today.

Why do we applaud the State of the Union address when the president misrepresents the fiscal situation to bolster the perception that the budget has been balanced? How gullible are we? It's time for the American people to tell the president and Congress that we're madder than hell and won't take it anymore. If this doesn't get fixed and fixed right, it's time to look beyond the Democratic and Republican parties for solutions.

For most of us, each $1 deducted for FICA requires another 28 cents or 31 cents in Federal Income Tax. Let President Clinton spend that money and invest 100 percent of the Social Security surplus in the future of Social Security. If you're as upset about this as I am, write your congressman, demanding that Social Security be taken ``off budget'' for the future and demand that last year's surplus be dedicated 100 percent to saving Social Security.

- Gary D. Beynon

North Hills

Neither President Clinton nor the members of Congress (of either party) seem to understand, or want to admit that they understand, that there is no budget surplus.

I have read that the total unfunded liability of the Social Security trust fund is somewhere between $9 trillion and $12 trillion. If the federal government transferred that amount of the U.S. Treasury bills and bonds to the trust fund, the annual interest cost to the Treasury could easily be above $400 billion.

Adding to that amount the excess of Social Security taxes over expenditures, the annual deficit would be more that $1.2 trillion. The interest cost alone dwarfs the $2.7 trillion (over 15 years) that President Clinton recommends to be invested in common stocks. Any spending program that he wants or tax cut that Republicans want (unless it stimulates the economy enough) would add to that deficit.

As a result of the above, failure to promptly privatize Social Security will only exacerbate the situation and further jeopardize the financial security of all Americans.

- Victor N. Viereck

Valley Village

Let's stop perpetuating the lie that Social Security is in deep trouble. The truth is it is sound until the year 2032, as it stands.

It is one of the very few, if only, government programs which works very

successfully at nominal administrative costs. All that needs to be done to maintain Social Security stability is to remove the cap and let the higher earners pay their fair share.

And never, never privatize. That is the ploy of the greedy corporations in Wall Street wanting to get their hands on the Social Security funds. There are so many reasons for opposing privatization they cannot be covered in a short letter.

I can remember the days before we had a Social Security program. The plight of the working poor elderly was devastating, to themselves, their families and the communities in which they lived.

- Ceil Sorensen

Granada Hills