The following is a letter to the editor that appeared in the Richmond Times Dispatch on February 20, 2001. What follows is a response written by me. An edited version of my letter was published on March 4. Editor, Times Dispatch: President Bush would do well to take a quick look south - at Virginia's budget battle over the car tax - before he sets in motion his $1.6-trillion tax cut. While few of us ever want to pay a car tax again, we already have begun to see the consequences: If the remainder of the car-tax cut passes into law, we will see a significant reduction in mental health services, environmental protection, and (the biggest beast of all) funding for our ever-growing road needs. In anticipation of his tax cut, President Bush told stunned members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that military funding will be no more than last year's budget and that emergency spending for upkeep and higher fuel costs - regularly approved by the Clinton administration - would be denied. That breaks one of Bush's major promises of the campaign: to reform and refresh the military. In fact, he promised to spend only half of what Vice President Gore called for in his campaign, and now Bush won't even meet that promise. A few days later Bush told the Justice Department to trim $1 billion from its budget - including funding to local police departments. But military and police spending is just the tip of the iceberg. If that tax cut passes, environmental needs, health care needs, education needs, and the like either will be neglected or paid for with a gigantic increase in the national debt. Bush and Gilmore keep reminding everyone it's the people's money. But it's also the people's debt, and it appears we the people soon will find ourselves in over our heads once again. -Eric Futterman. Richmond Editor, Times Dispatch: After reading Eric Futterman's February 20 letter, I feel that several areas need to be addressed. I give him credit for the point that President Bush should reconsider his current decision to delay increasing military spending - an increase should occur. However, regarding Mr. Futterman's opposition to the proposed tax cuts, both Governor Gilmore and President Bush campaigned on the promise of smaller government and returning money to "the people who pay the bills." He seems to suggest that doom and gloom will occur if (gasp!) the percentage increase in government spending is decreased - it's not actual spending that will be cut, but the percentage of the increase in spending. He makes several mentions of "needs" ("environmental needs, health care needs, education needs”). Perhaps he should have used the word "entitlements." Where is the evidence that these programs will be improved by using my surplus taxes? More federal money was poured into education in the last 8 years than at anytime prior, yet test scores fell. Military spending is an actual "need." If we are to prevent deficits, the best place to start is the responsible use of taxpayer funds. The government's purpose is the protection of rights - "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This doesn't include the use of surplus taxes for environmental "needs" like prohibiting a citizen from development on his property because there may be wetlands. This doesn't include the confiscation of my income for mandated government retirement schemes like Social Security and Medicare. This doesn't include hiring more teachers at failing schools in order to appease the teachers unions. The government has a surplus of my money - I "need" it for a new roof for my house. I "need" it for a week as a tourist in Nag's Head. I "need" it for my 401K. In other words, I need it to help bolster the economy. So, what about the rights of the people who pay the government's bills? -Bob Murphy. Richmond