To the Editor:

The Republican budget passed by the House moves us toward a balanced budget in a somewhat peculiar way. The weakest and most vulnerable people in our society are required to sacrifice, while the richest and most powerful are required to become richer and more powerful.

For the middle class and working people, there are major cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veterans’ programs, Head Start, education, college student loans and child nutrition programs.

On the other hand, while the wealthiest one percent of our population are seeing a huge increase in their incomes and now own more wealth than the bottom ninety percent, the Republican budget gives huge tax breaks to the richest Americans and to the largest corporations. The Republican tax proposal provides more in tax breaks to the richest one percent of the population than it does to the bottom sixty percent.

In my view, Newt Gingrich and his friends in the House are cowards and bullies. They are raking in huge campaign contributions from the wealthiest people in the country and rewarding them with tax breaks.

Should we move toward a balanced budget and address the crisis of a $4.7 trillion dollar debt? Yes we should. Should we do it on the backs of the middle class and working people? Absolutely not.

Let me give some examples of how we can move toward a balanced budget in a fair way.

The United States today is spending $100 billion a year defending Europe and Asia against a non-existent enemy. Now that the Cold War is over, there is no reason for us to have a massive military presence to defend Germany and Japan. In fact, if Germany and Japan need defending, it is high time they pick up the tab for that defense. They are wealthy enough to pay their own way.

The time has come to end corporate welfare. We can no longer afford to provide huge subsidies and tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals and largest corporations in America. Conservatives, progressives and moderates all agree that we are spending at least $100 billion each year helping those who do not need help. Here are just a few programs that should be eliminated or cut back:

* The Mansion Subsidy: We should not be subsidizing home mortgages on million-dollar homes. It is absurd that some of the wealthiest people in America can borrow one million to buy a home and then deduct the interest they pay from their taxable income. If the limits were reduced to $250,000 an additional $10 billion a year in taxes from the super-wealthy would flow into the U.S. Treasury.

* The Accelerated Depreciation Subsidy: We should not be allowing

large businesses to deduct more wear and tear on their machinery and factories than actually occurs. Ordinary taxpayers cannot exaggerate the deductions that they take on their income tax returns. When corporations take these exaggerated deductions, they cost the Treasury

$32 billion a year.

* The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC): We should not be spending $50 million a year and running up a $6.2 billion insurance liability providing incentive to encourage AT&T, Citibank, DuPont and other major corporations to invest abroad.

* Corporate Agri-business Subsidy: We should not be paying $200

million a year to agri-business farmers who have incomes of over $5 million a year.

* Welfare for Mining Companies: We should not continue to allow large and profitable mining companies to use federally owned lands at a minimal cost. If we charged these companies an 8% royalty, the Treasury would take in an additional $200 million a year.

During the next several months, the appropriations bills agreed to by

the House and Senate will come before President Clinton. If these bills provide tax breaks and subsidies for the wealthy, and cuts in vital programs for the middle income and working people, I will ask the President to veto them. We must move toward a balanced budget, but we must do it in a fair and responsible way.

Rep. Bernard Sanders

(I-Vermont)