Despite Republican attempts to bolster public support for their tax cut over the August recess, polls continued to show that tax cuts are not a priority for most Americans. The GOP's 10-year, $792 billion tax cut would drain funds away from social programs like education in order to give those in the top tax brackets what the Republicans are calling "tax relief". In fact, the tax cut would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, not increase median incomes for the shrinking middle class.

Fortunately, President Clinton is expected to veto the bill this week. Clinton is calling for a smaller income tax cut and some increased domestic spending on widely popular social programs. There is a deep hypocrisy in Republican outcries against Clinton's budget plans, which they claim are extravagant, in contrast with their own willingness to approve an irresponsible trillion dollar tax cut.

While Clinton's plan was shot down for cutting into social security funds, the Republicans certainly cannot claim the high ground. After insisting that they would not exceed spending limits, the Republicans are now calling the 2000 census an "emergency" in order to make their excessive spending exempt from the caps. It is ironic that Republicans insist that there is almost $800 billion in surplus for a tax cut yet they cannot yet stay inside their self-imposed spending caps. In fact, both parties knew that the spending caps would eventually be exceeded, but neither one wanted to do it first, or publicly.

Most of the tax cut would go to reducing estate taxes and capital gains taxes, both of which overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. The inheritance tax laws, meant to ensure some kind of equality and a level-playing field regardless of birth, should stay in place.

Education is one of the most pressing concerns of voters today, and yet the Republican tax cut would jeopardize the smaller classes and literacy programs that education proponents within the GOP, like Texas Gov. George W. Bush, have supported.

Clinton is correct to veto the tax break, but Congress seems split on how to work toward compromise. Some would like to see popular parts of the vetoed bill passed individually, while others, looking ahead to the next election, seem to eschew any sort of cooperation.

We need wise spending decisions in times of plenty even more than when we were running huge deficits and there were fewer choices. So far both parties have dealt with the surplus disingenuously, seemingly too willing to sacrifice compromise for political advantage. This is no time for Congress to embrace our recent prosperity with ill-timed and ill-conceived measures.

We hope that the next budget cycle will bring real compromise, serious discussion, and close attention to the things all Americans value: social security, health care and education. A tax cut for the wealthy is not where our Congress' attention should be focused.