BY PATRICK CROWLEY
The Cincinnati Enquirer
FORT WRIGHT -- The U.S. House vote over the weekend to cut taxes and earmark money to protect Social Security is shaping up to be one of the major issues in Kentucky's U.S. Senate race.
It's come down to this: Should the federal budget surplus be fully dedicated to Social Security, or should a chunk come out to cut taxes for millions of Americans?
U.S. Rep. Jim Bunning of Southgate, the Republican candidate, voted for the bill and drafted the provision that devotes 90 percent of the projected $1.6 trillion federal budget surplus to Social Security.
The bill also earmarks $80 billion of the surplus for tax cuts that over the next decade will benefit millions of married couples, farmers, senior citizens, small-business operators and people with savings accounts.
"The majority of this tax relief goes to American families earning less than $75,000 per year, middle-class families who need it most," Mr. Bunning said. "If we don't cut taxes, the government will just spend the money on new programs, and we can't let the budget surplus be squandered away like that."
But U.S. Rep. Scotty Baesler, the Lexington Democrat running against Mr. Bunning, said the bill does not protect Social Security because Congress can "change the rules" and raid the surplus next year.
Mr. Baesler also charged that Mr. Bunning has broken a campaign promise to put Social Security first when deciding how to spend the budget surplus.
"Jim Bunning can spin this any way he wants," Mr. Baesler said Monday from Washington, "but he basically broke his word. He voted for tax cuts before Social Security. That's not putting Social Security first.
"That's the same hypocrisy as "Read my lips,' " Mr. Baesler said, referring to President Bush's pledge of no new taxes that came back to cost him in the 1992 election.
The debate appears to be shaping up like this:
Mr. Baesler and the Democrats will accuse the Republicans and Mr. Bunning of raiding Social Security to make a politically popular but fiscally imprudent tax cut.
Mr. Bunning and the Republicans will claim they have prudently shored up Social Security while returning $80 billion in taxes to the American people.
President Clinton has threatened to veto the bill for the same reasons Mr. Baesler opposes it -- the bill taps into too much of the projected surpluses that are used to fund Social Security.
Kyle Simmons, Mr. Bunning's campaign manager, said Mr. Bunning has long been dedicated to protecting Social Security. "At the beginning of the year, everybody . . . said that Social Security needed to be shored up," Mr. Simmons said Monday from Mr. Bunning's Fort Wright campaign headquarters.
"But not one red cent was devoted to doing that. Now because of Jim Bunning's leadership, $1.4 trillion of the surplus is devoted to saving Social Security," Mr. Simmons said.
"So if Scotty Baesler wants to attack and throw rocks from the back of the House chamber, that's his business," he said. "Most reasonable people will conclude that $1.4 trillion for Social Security is infinitely better than zero, except for Scotty Baesler."
