To the editor There are many issues that divide

To the editor

There are many issues that divide this year’s Democratic and Republican candidates for the presidency. All offer clear choices, but none is more important to the future of our country than that of federal taxation/spending.

We start with common aims, most of the differences between the major parties being over means, not ends: to ensure the security of the United States in a dangerous world, help the disadvantages who truly need it, relieve suffering, and live within our means (balance the budget).

Because we are not infinitely rich, we cannot afford everything we might wish. Choices are necessary. Every family, every person comes up against limits in personal finances. For some, it might be between a new car or college expenses for a student in 1984.

The person who is unable or unwilling to say “no” to spending urges, sooner or later finds himseltfheraelf broke. That’s what’s been happening to our federal budget for the past five decades and more. Presidents and, mainly, congresses have, with the best of intentions, been unable to say, “No,” when they reached the limits of income. Economics being morally neutral, you can go just as broke overspending for the noblest of purposes!

Every government living beyond its means has sooner or later destroyed the economic foundation of the state, usually in a final raging inflation. Both candidates for president in 1964 say they are aware of the need to balance the budget.

President Reagan, who has so far in his presidency reduced by some 60 percent the rate of growth of federal spending (note: he hasn’t cut federal spending, only reduced its upward curve!), promises to do more. Mr. Mondale, whose performance while in the Senate and the vice presidency has been consistently to raise both taxes and spending, now vows to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. Yet, according to a recent Wall Street Jour