On Monday, it was announced by President Clinton that the federal budget surplus for the current year had exceeded projections and totaled $115 billion. The issue facing everyone is what to do with the newly found money.

The surplus, which is the largest in our nation’s history and the first back-to-back surplus since 1957, can be used to fund a host of federal programs or it can be given back in a tax cut.

Right now, the smart money is not on the tax cut, which Clinton vetoed last week. The bill sponsored by House Republicans planned $792 billion in reduced taxes over a 10-year period.

As an average, that works out to almost $80 billion a year, which I hate to say is dangerously close to the amount of the budget surplus.

If tax revenues were to fall or the economy to falter, we would be faced with the issue of either cutting services or swallowing another painful tax increase.

The last time we had a tax increase, many Americans paid out more because their financial planning had not anticipated the changes in the tax code.

Since people are comfortable with the current tax situation, despite their griping on April 15, we should not rock the boat with a new roller coaster of tax plans.

Besides, neither party has studied the repercussions of the proposed tax cut, and I am leery of meddling with what works.

Also, history does not support a tax cut. The last tax cut we received was under Reagan, and after that, the federal budget deficit ballooned so much that it required two tax increases, one under Bush and the other under Clinton.

Rather than be short-sighted and push a tax cut that could risk the financial health of the nation, the money should be used to shore up social programs that soon will find themselves overburdened.

With a large percentage of the population aging, attention should be paid to Social Security and Medicare.

Both programs are in need of an overhaul and additional funding, and the current budget surplus is the means with which to do it.

As it is, the health care system of this nation is woefully underfunded and the coverage for some segments of the population grossly inadequate. Currently, there are 44 million people in this nation who are uninsured. This represents one-sixth of the total population.

On Tuesday, House Republican leaders introduced legislation intended to increase access to health care for that uninsured segment of the population.

Major provisions in that bill include a 100 percent tax break for self-employed people purchasing health insurance, as well as a procedure allowing small businesses to band together to purchase health insurance at a reduced cost.

If they can find a way to make the proposed plan work this sounds like a good idea.

Even though my parents have always had health insurance, I can understand the situation of our nation’s hospitals.

Over the summer, I worked at the Des Moines county hospital and saw firsthand the state of our nation’s health care system.

Even though coverage was never denied to anyone seeking attention, because the recipients were uninsured, the hospital had to write off most coverage as a fiscal loss.

We were reimbursed by both federal and local programs, but as a percentage of funding, the local government paid the larger chunk. Despite both sources of income, the hospital still operated at a net loss.

That is why I can honestly say that any plan to increase insurance health care coverage is a good idea, especially since it will reduce the burden paid directly by taxpayers.

Though this sounds odd when considering the tax break the new legislation calls for, having an insurance plan will greatly reduce the cost borne by you and me when a hospital bills a patient.

But the Republicans are not the only people who think some of the budget surplus should be spent on health care. On Tuesday, Senator Bill Bradley unveiled an ambitious plan to provide universal health care coverage.

The idea is surprising, especially when considering the debacle we witnessed after Clinton first explored the idea.

Although the pros and cons of the new plan have not been weighed, I think the plan has enough merit it should be studied. Even if rejected, it will at least enhance our understanding of the issues facing millions of Americans.

The bottom line is that we are operating with a budget surplus, and it presents us with an opportunity to undertake new programs and responsibilities.

Although I believe a portion of the money should be earmarked for the national debt and some tucked away for a rainy day, the majority should be put toward programs that need it. And nothing is more important than health care.

---

Aaron Woell is a senior in political science from Bolingbrook, Ill.